Theories of Obedience Flashcards
define socialisation
the process by which we learn the rules and norms of society e.g. through parents and teachers
define moral strain
when people dislike their own behaviour as they know it goes agonist their own values
define agentic state
agents (in this case, participants) of a higher authority figure and so obeying their commands
define autonomy state
under your own control, and making your own decisions
define agency theory
people are agents in society and so behave in a way to benefit society
define evolution theory
idea of natural selection
Why did people say they obeyed until the end in Milgram’s 1963 study?
Because they were ordered to, despite knowing it was wrong (moral strain) which may have come from many sources
What are some of the sources of moral strain?
hearing victim cries
fearing victim retaliation
going against their own moral values
conflict of interest between the victim and the authority figure
unwillingness to harm and therefore going against their own view of themselves
Why weren’t the participants of Milgram’s 1963 study, ‘agents’ of the experimenter?
They had consented to take part as if in an agentic state, but not agents through the setting and lab coat (though this added to the experimenter’s power and strengthened the participant roles
What is agency theory?
Our social system leads to obedience. If someone sees themselves as an individual instead of a collective, they would become autonomous e.g. avoid aggression in threatening situations as evolutionary theory suggests this to be a good way to survive
Why does a hierarchical social structure lead to the agentic state?
This is what the participants of Milgram’s study were used to, and therefore led to the agentic state and the passing on of responsibility from the participant to the experimenter.
What evidence can be used to support the shifting of responsibility to the authority figure?
Gupta (1983)
How does Gupta (1983) support the shifting of responsibility to the authority figure?
They studied obedience with a similar procedure to Milgram and asked male participants to allocate responsibility:
Obedient accepted 27.6% and gave 52% whereas Defiant accepted 49.4% and gave 39.2%
Can the agentic state be seen as a survival mechanism?
Milgram thought it may be a survival mechanism learnt from family and school, as in this state, they feel less responsible for their own actions, as if they have no power and so are more likely to act against the moral code e.g.
when participants had to hold learner’s hands down to obtain the shock, they felt more responsible and so there was less obedience or when the experimenter told them to stop, they stopped showing them to be within an agentic static as they stopped as soon as they were able to.
How do agentic states come about?
When the individual perceives the order as a legitimate authority figure or when they know the other person will take on that responsibility
What are the strengths of agency theory?
Explains the different levels of obedience in the basic study as well as its variations, i.e. as they moved away from the agentic state by being in a less prestigious setting , fewer participants increased the shock levels.
It helps explain the Holocaust - Eichmann stated that he was just obeying orders and this theory helps explain why someone would obey to such an extent
It helps explain inexplicable actions i.e. the Holocaust and the Mae Ling Massacre (soldiers told to shoot own women and children in a village, and did so despite this not being within their job description)
What are the weaknesses of agency theory?
There are many other possible explanations for obedience such as social power
French and Raven (1959) identified 5 different types of power:
- Legitimate power by those in certain role (such as an experimenter)
- Reward power by those with certain resources (meney)
- Coercive power by those who can punish (Milgram give the participants a shock; they could have felt as if the could have done the same or retract their payments
- Expert power by those considered to have knowledge (Milgram)
- Referent power by those who can win people over (politicians)
The obedience shown could have been explained by social power theory, making it less powerful as a theory
More of a description of how society works, rather than an explanation → states obedience occurs as participants are agents of the experimenter, but obedience is defined as obeying authority figures but is not explained in detail
No evidence other than it is a claim that makes sense
What studies are considered to be important to agency theory?
Milgram (1963;1973), Milgram (1973), Bickmann (1973)
Why is Bickmann (1973) important to agency theory?
Bickman’s (1973) showed that people are more likely to follow an order from someone in a guards uniform, compared to someone in ordinary clothes, which is consistent with the idea that people respond agentically in response to social cues of authority such as uniforms.
Why is Milgram (1963;1973) important to agency theory?
Milgram (1963;1973) observed that most of his participants (65%) followed orders from an experimenter in a lab coat to cause harm to someone by administering electric shocks, despite feeling that this action was morally wrong. Participants shifted to an agentic state to avoid the moral strain of the situation.He concluded that obedience is not a dispositional trait, but a consequence of the situation in which the person finds themselves, arguing that people are socialised to respond to certain social cues indicating authority. This is illustrated by the ordinary man variation of his study, where the orders are given by someone wearing a sports jacket rather than a grey lab coat. Without the cue of the labcoat to suggest scientific authority, obedience was lower, at 20%, compared to 65% with the experimenter in a lab coat.
Why is Milgram (1973) important to agency theory?
Milgram (1973) found that when participants felt less responsible e.g. when a confederate was the person administering the shocks, they were more likely to continue to obey the orders from the experimenter. This finding is consistent with the idea that they were in an agentic state.
define strength
when a source is perceived as having power (e.g. status; physical strength; scientific authority etc.) they have a greater influence on our behaviour.
define immediacy
When the source is physically in close proximity or more recent (temporal immediacy) there is a greater influence on behaviour than when the source is further away or longer ago
define number
when there are more sources, they have a greater influence on the behaviour of the target individuals. BUT this increased influence with numbers only goes up to a certain point. As the number goes up, the increase in social force starts to diminish. This is called the Psychosocial Law
define division of impact
when there are a number of target individuals, the influence or impact of the source is diffused, or divided - there is less impact on each of the targets. For example, a teacher’s instructions to get off the grass are less likely to be followed when there are several children playing on the field, than if there was only one child.
define diffusion of responsibility
Another way to think about numbers is when there are a number of people present, they are less likely to feel responsible for any harm that happens. For example, the more people who witness someone in trouble, the less likely they are to help, causing a phenomenon known as the bystander effect.
What is social impact theory?
Not a theory, but looking at individual functioning in the presence of other
what does social impact theory look at?
Impact of attitudes and the impact of others presence on an individual
How can you explain social functioning?
Partially explained by looking at individual functioning (which can be affected by social status) in a social situation as well as alone
Why do individuals change attitudes?
Persuasive arguments (attitudes change to be closer to the centre of social influence, but occasionally, minority influences can occur)
What study can support the idea of why individuals change attitudes?
Latene and Wolfe (1981) → the size and status of a group affect when someone’s attitude may change but group influence can change someone’s behaviour
What is an aspect of social identity theory?
Effects of a group on an individual, which can lead to group polarisation
What is group polarisation?
A group that has extreme beliefs or views as a collective, rather than the individuals within the group → can be used to give the group an identity or make it seem more important
How does Milgram support social identity theory?
He derived his results on individuals, that to an extent, group behaviour was different to individual behaviour.
Milgram’s study was about behaviour, not attitudes (although he did measure the feelings and notions of his participants) which can be seen as attitudes as the participants’ distress suggests their internal attitudes don’t match their behaviours.
What does Latene think about studying group influences?
Latene claims studying group influences isn’t difficult in smaller groups but it gets harder with behaviour complexities .
What did Mohawk et al. (1990) have to do with reduction simulations?
Mohawk et al. (1990) considered a way to get laws to behave mathematically and ended up using a computer simulation to develop a program using rules governing how individuals react to a social environmentment → predicted meaning the prediction could introduce a rule more than the rules of individual behaviour i.e. it could be used to predict public opinion. It was called a reduction simulation.
define reductionism
the study of something by breaking it down into many parts
How does social impact theory generate behaviour laws?
Based off of the effects of time and space on how individuals affect each other, and the number of other people within the environment, the immediacy and strength of impact
What does the strength of the message depend on?
the amount of people in agreement whether it is an expert (e.g. Milgram → obedience is greater given by someone perceived as an authority figure than an ordinary person) or if there is immediacy (given by friends instead of strangers).
What is the equation for social impact theory?
L = f (s/n )
Impact of magnitude = function (strength in sources/ number of sources)
What are the strengths of social impact theory?
Mathematical formulas allow for predictions and can help society keep control over its members (e.g. obedience in detriments to society) as long as factors can be measured
Useful predictive power
Generalisability obtained in theory as the factors highlighted are prevalent in all of society and all communities
As a theory of obedience:
Milgram’s results show less obedience with peer support which is acknowledged in social impact theory
Acknowledges strength as a group feature, including power of persuasion, level of authority. It suits the idea of people behaving obediently in the presence of authority.
What are the weaknesses of social impact theory?
Static theory that doesn’t take into account of the individual’s reciprocal effect on the environment
The impact of others involves many different situations and factors which is hard to reduce into a single mathematical formula
The features of others (on an individual) aren’t taken into account, which is likely to impact the role of others on an individual
Represents general social influence rather than narrowing it down i.e. social loafing (when an individual is within a group but does not contribute to any of its actions or decisions)
As a theory of obedience:
Doesn’t look at obedience specifically, and cannot explain why a change in setting affects obedience
Only group behaviour is addressed (a behaviour response to someone else)
What are some studies to consider when thinking about social impact theory?
Berkowitz, Bickman and Milgram (1969); Latane and Darley (1970); Milgram’s (1974); Sedikides & Jackson (1990)
Why is Berkowitz, Bickman and Milgram (1969) important to social impact theory?
Berkowitz, Bickman and Milgram (1969) observed the number of passersby on a New York street who would stop and look up to see what a confederate was looking up at. They varied the study so that there were between 1 and 15 confederates looking up. They found that although increasing the number of confederates who were looking up did increase the number of passers by who craned their necks to look up too, the effect levelled off as the size of the group of confederates grew. This is consistent with the psychosocial law, that as numbers of sources of social influence increase, the social impact they have on the target increases, but only up to a certain point, when the effect becomes less pronounced.
Why is Latane and Darley (1970) important to social impact theory?
Latane and Darley (1970) demonstrated the divisional effect of social impact in studies of bystander behaviour - a lone person was more likely to help someone in need than a group of people - there was a diffusion of responsibility
Why is Milgram (1974) important to social impact theory?
Milgram’s (1974) study where disobedient confederates refused to continue, the presence of rebellious peers reduced the level of obedience to 10%, demonstrating the divisional effect of one source on many targets. See also Milgram’s telephonic instructions and Ordinary Man variations
Why is Sedikides & Jackson (1990) important to social impact theory?
Sedikides & Jackson (1990) carried out a field experiment in the bird house at a zoo. A confederate told groups of visitors not to lean on the railings near the bird cages. The visitors were then observed to see if they obeyed. If the confederate was dressed in the uniform of a zookeeper, obedience was high, but if he was dressed casually, it was lower. This demonstrates varying social force, in particular S (Strength) because of the perceived authority of the confederate. As time passed, more visitors started ignoring the instruction not to lean on the railing. This also shows social force, especially I (Immediacy), because as the instruction gets less immediate it has less impact.
What research methods are used when discussing social impact theory?
Field Experiments
What is agency theory in a nutshell?
It is a circular theory specifically about obedience, which describes rather than explains, It is a natural response that arose from work on obedience.
What is social impact theory in a nutshell?
This is a theory that applies to obedience as it includes various factors but is unrelatable to individual factors of obedience. It is less useful than other explanations as it is not designed to explain obedience, but rather how people are affected by other’s influences
What is another explanation of obedience that explains why 35% of participants do not obey authority figures?
Personality e.g. Authoritarian Personality or Social Dominance Orientation
Define personality
Someone’s unique response to certain situations
Why do people sometimes behave similarly in pressured situations?
this is not due to individual personalities, but pressure
define defiance
disobedience
define dissent
not obeying the order due to a lack of agreement
define authoritarian personalities generally
these individuals admire rules and adhere to social conventions
define dispositional factors
a characteristic or feature of an individual that may have an impact on their thoughts, feelings or behaviours
define personality traits
people’s characteristic patterns of thoughts, feelings and behaviours; implying consistency and stability
give an example of personality traits
someone who scores highly on a specific trait such as Extraversion is expected to be sociable in different situations and over time
define authoritarian personality
a personality type or trait, measured by the F-Scale, characterised by their respect for status and being more likely to follow orders from authority figures
define locus of control
a measure of what they believe about the reasons things happen to them
What is someone with an internal locus of control like?
they believe they are autonomous and in control of their own actions
what is someone with an external locus of control like?
they believe that what happens to them is outside their control
can locus of control be seen as a personality trait?
yes
define empathy
the ability to put yourself in someone else’s position; to understand and share other people’s feelings
what does authoritarian personality theory suggest?
an individual’s childhood upbringing can determine what authoritarian traits they may have e.g. harsh punitive upbringings would result in children who were excessively respectful towards authority figures
What are some traits of someone with an authoritarian personality?
status orientated, conventional and conformist, suspicious and hostile
How can authoritarian personality theory explain obedience?
someone with a more authoritarian personality trait would be more likely to obey people they perceive to be in authority - others would not be obedient as they didn’t have the same fear of authority growing up
Why did Adorno think children with a harsh upbringing grew up to be excessively obedient to authority figures?
the individual could not express hostility towards the parents because they were strict and cruel
How does Milgram (1963) support authoritarian personality theory?
His participants were asked questions after the experiment to see if personality led to dissent.
What did Elms find in relation to authoritarian personality theory?
Those in caring roles e.g. teachers showed less obedience than those in technical roles e.g. technician or engineers. Catholics had the most obedience in comparison to other religions, and those with more education showed less obedience etc.
What did Elm’s believe about the link between obedience and occupation?
Someone’s occupation may have links with their personality, albeit weak ones, that could result in authoritarian personality traits and therefore obedience.
How did Elms and Milgram decide to test their theory regarding personality and obedience?
they examined two groups “defiant” and “obedient” with 20 in each, based on their reponses
What did Milgram and Elms find in regards to personality and obedience?
The defiant group showed more social responsibility but this finding could have been because the ppts obeyed for society’s sake or defiance as they did not want to be responsible for another person’s pain → it’s not a useful personality trait to consider
what did the ‘obedient’ group do - Milgram and Elms?
they admired the exp. more than the learner -
‘defiant’ was considered to be neutral here) which led to the question of whether admirance could lead to obedience?
What did the ‘defiant’ group experience? - M and E
they received more punishment when they were younger, and the ‘obedient’ had a more distant and negative relationship with their father, leading to the assumption that parenting may be a factor in obedience
What did the ‘defiant’ group not do? M & E
they did not fire at the enemy, considering their military service but the obedient had, which may have been more of a situational factor rather than a personality factor
What did Milgram and Elms (1966) conclude from their obedient/defiant study?
the obedient fitted into the authoritarian personality: admiration of rules, distant with their fathers and more likely to be in a military role
What are the issues with Milgram and Elms (1966)?
identifying a personality is a different thing to linking it to the real world.
How did Blass introduce the link between obedience and personality?
he did some work linking authoritarian approaches to life and obedience - the higher the obedience levels, the higher the amount of authoritarian traits but he also discovered that they were less likely to be the ‘punisher’ than other participants
What is a factor that links authoritarian approaches and obedience?
Locus of control
How does locus of control link authoritarian approaches and obedience?
An internal locus of control believes they’re in control and so they have caused these events whereas an external locus of control believes they have no control over what is happening, believing themselves to be helpless bystanders.
What is some evidence that supports the link between locus of control, authoritarian approaches and obedience?
Schurz (1985) and Blass (1991)
How does Schurz (1985) help support the link between locus of control, authoritarian approaches and obedience?
Schurz (1985) found that those with an internal locus of control felt responsible for their actions
How does Blass (1991) help support the link between locus of control, authoritarian approaches and obedience?
Blass (1991) looked at Schurz’s evidence and stated the link to be not clear, but that there is some evidence to suggest internal locus of controls are more resistant to obedience.
What is some important evidence about authoritarian personality traits?
Elms and Milgram (1966); Oliner and Oliner (1988); Elms and Milgram (1974); and Hyman and Sheatsley (1954)
How does Elms and Milgram (1966) support authoritarian personality traits in relation to obedience?
Elms and Milgram (1966) showed that people who follow orders are more likely to have authoritarian personality traits than people who are disobedient. Milgram’s assistant Alan Elms (Elms & Milgram, 1966) tested the 20 most obedient and the 20 most rebellious participants from Milgram’s first 4 experiments. Elms used Adorno’s F-Scale questionnaire. He found that those who tested highest on the F-Scale gave more shocks and held the shock buttons down longer than those who were low scorers.
What is some important evidence about empathy and locus of control?
Burger (2009)
How does Burger (2009) support empathy and locus of control in relation to obedience?
Burger (2009) tested participants for “empathy” and “autonomy” (locus of control) before replicating Milgram’s ‘empathy’ variation - in which the victim, Mr Wallace, says he has a heart problem and starts to complain of chest pains at 150 volts.
Empathy scores did not make a significant difference to obedience. However, in the base condition, those who stopped at 150V or sooner did have a significantly higher locus of control (but this was not the case in the “model refusal” condition).
How does Oliner and Oliner (1988) support authoritarian personality theory in relation to obedience?
Oliner & Oliner (1988) found that those who disobeyed the Nazis tended to have an upbringing that emphasised justice and respect.
How does Hyman and Sheatsley (1954) support authoritarian personality theory in relation to obedience?
Hyman and Sheatsley (1954) fund a correlation between F-Scores and levels of obedience
How does Elms and Milgram (1974) support authoritarian personality theory in relation to obedience?
Elms & Milgram (1974) found that those who were most obedient in Milgram’s experiments also scored the highest on the F-Scale- supports obedience as the higher F Scale score, the more likely they are to obey due to their authoritarian personality , increasing their obedience level
What were the strengths of authoritarian personality theory?
It is good at explaining how your childhood shapes your adult personality, as it is influenced by Freud’s psychodynamic theory, therefore offers a reasonable explanation to why as well
It is also good at suggesting why 35% of the participants in Milgram’s original study disobeyed and didn’t reach 450 volts
What are some weaknesses of authoritarian personality theory?
Research into the authoritarian personality is often based on self-report questionnaires. - more likely to have acquiescent response which may not be true to the person’s actual thought process
Hyman and Sheatsley (1954) found that both F-scores and levels of obedience also correlated with levels of education and socio-economic status- questions causality and validity, originally thought to do with childhood upbringing from parents → More research is needed as no strong evidence is given as to if internal locus of control may help people resist authority figures
Holland (1967) found no links between obedience and locus of control
In Elms and Milgram’s research in authoritarian personality traits, their sample consisted of 20 obedient participants which lacks validity as it is a small sample size
Milgram used many participants with high obedience → it is unlikely that it is just personality factors with such a high percentage (65%). Elms looked at Milgram’s study interviews → some evidence to suggest authoritarian personality traits were more obedience. Milgram’s study did not focus on personality, and so more research is needed
Internal Locus of Control showed more resistant to obedience although there is no strong evidence to back up this claim
What are some research methods used for authoritarian personality theory?
personality tests and scales
