Lesson 8-13 Flashcards
2 explanations for obedience
-legitimate authority
-agentic state theory
Legitimate Authority
People in certain positions hold authority over the rest of us (parents , teachers).From early childhood we are socialised to obey certain
legitimate authority figures.We should obey them because of trust or fear of punishment
Consequence of legitimacy of authority
Some people are granted the power to punish others . It can become destructive (eg hitler)
Strengths of legitimate authority
-need legitimate authority figures in a well -functioning , ordered society.police help prevent crime.Explains how obedience can lead to real life war crimes.e.g. My Lai massacre (68) they were just following orders and doing duty.power of hierarchy In US army
-explains cultural differences in obedience - Kilham and Mann (74) replicated Milgram study in Australia only 16% went to full whereas Germany 85% obedience rate.Show the cultural differences in perceived L.O.A, diff upbringings.
Weaknesses of legitimate authority
-not all legitimate authority figures should be obeyed.sometimes we obey because of status even if we disagree with order - Milgram study (harm to another person)
-in real life examples of L.A figures who abused their power (Harold shipman)
-balance must be struck between teaching children to obey authority figures and encouraging them question if demands are unethical
Dispositional explanation for obedience - the authoritarian personality
More like to obey authority figures-traits include
-preoccupied w power
-inflexible in their beliefs + values
-conformist + conventional
-dogmatic (intolerant of ambiguity)
-servile towards ppl of perceived higher status
-hostile towards ppl of lower status
-caterogise ppl as us or them
-measured using F-scale , relationship between personality + high test score
Why did ppl develop these personalities
ADORNO thought ppl developed these personalities due to receiving EXTREME HARSH discipline from parents during upbringing , physical punishment
Creates feeling of hostility which is directed towards weaker others who can’t fight back.
Cannot take anger out on parents so act in SUBMISSIVE way towards them , and then EXTEND this submissive behaviour to ALL authority figures
Strengths of AP
RESEARCH SUPPORT - for link between being obedient to authority + having an AP.
ELMS. + MILGRAM (66) carried out follow up study using pps who has taken part in one of milgram experiment , 20 obedient (to 450)+ disobedient
-little diff in terms of MMPI scale , higher levels of authoritian traits amongst obedient pps - scored HIGH on f scale , less close to their fathers + describe them in negative terms , likely to perceive experimenter as ADMIRABLE (link between f scale + obedience)
MILLER - found indivuals who scored HIGH on f scale more likely to overt order to hold wiring , will obey even if harming urself = personality
ALTEMEYER- asked pps to shock themselves if they made mistake , those who scored high on f scale more likely to shock themselves, rel bwteen AP + obedience
Weaknesses of AP
Limited explanation - doesn’t explain why majority of population in country like germany are very obedient , not all Germans can posses authoritarian personality alternative = Social identity theory
Methodological problems - many problems with f scale questionnaire , questions worded in same direction , easy to get High score , closed questions
-already knew score when he interviews ab childhood experiences, INTERVIEWER BIAS , questions validity of AP as explanation of obedience
Explanations of resistance to social influence
External factor - presence of other who also resist pressure = SOCIAL SUPPORT
internal factor - INTERNAL LOCUS OF CONTROL
Social support
-can resist pressure to conform/obey if they have an ally , builds confidence + allows individuals to remain independent , have support no longer fear ridicule avoid NSI
-ASCH reports that if dissenter returns to conform then so does pp , short term effect , also less likely to obey , Asch variation rate went to 5.5 when one correct dissenter was in grp
Pressure to conform reduced if there other ppl also not conforming
Allen + Levine found conformity descresed when one dissenter in Asch type study
-having one person in a group whose view goes against the majority can lead an individual to resist conforming
Social support (obedience)
Pressure to obey reduced if another person is seen to disobey
-one of milgram variation , rate of obd went from 65-10% when pp joined by DISOBEDIENT confederate
-person has WILL to follow or not follow (disobedient behaviour ) based on their conscience
-gamson et al 32/33 rebelled (high ecological validity ) applied to real life.
Weakness of social support explanation
Strong for explaining grp size UNDER 10 ppl , one dissenter can influence
In real world groups are massive + having one dissenter in big group will not have any influence on majority
Studies are RESTRICTED TO SMALL GRP SIZES
Locus of control (Julian Rotter 1966)
Refers to persons PERCEPTION of the degree of personal CONTROL they have over their behaviour
External locus of control
Ppl with this see their future + actions resulting largely from FACTORS OUTSIDE THEIR CONTROL , luck or fate
Internal locus of control
Ppl w this feel a STRONGER sense of control over their lives (take responsibility for actions).more active seekers of info , rely LESS on opinions of others , more likely to resist pressures to conform or obey
Ppl w internal LOC r more self confident , more achievement oriented,higher intelligence + less need for social approval (high self -efficacy )
+ for LOC
Oliner + Oliner - compared 406 ppl who rescued Jews and 126 who hadn’t , found that grp who rescued has scored suggested internal LOC, shows ppl w that r more likely to act than leave situation to fate
Holland repeated milgram + found that 37% of internals didn’t shock to highest , only 23% of externals didn’t shock to highest , increases validity of LOC
- for LOC
Conflicting research evidence - TWENGE found that over time (1960-2002) ppl have become more resistance to obedience but also show a more EXTERNAL locus of control , challenges link between internal LOC + being resistant
- this questions how LOC is measured , rotter did questionnaire in 1967, diff viewpoints than now , not relevant in todays world , questionnaire LACK TEMPORAL VALIDITY
Minority influence
Type of social influence that motivates individuals to reject established majority group norms , achieved through conversion - new belief accepted privately + publicly (internalisation)
Behavioural characteristics of minority
Consistency - most important b.c that minority should possess in order to influence majority
Commitment
Flexibility
Consistency
Will be persuasive if consistent w its opinion / behaviour , show confidence in belief + appear unbiased, others will reassess and take more serious
-must be reason why minority maintains position over time + w each other
Moscovici
To see if consistent minority could influence majority to give incorrect answer
172 females told they were taking part in colour perception task , groups of 6 shown 36 slides (shades of blue) had to say colour
2/6 confederates + in one condition they were CONSISTENT + said all slides were Green, and in one were INCONSISTENT, confederates said 24 were green + 12 were blue
In consistent condition - real ppl agreed on 8.2% of trials
In Inconsistent condition - real ppl agreed on 1.25%
Commitment
Suggests certainty , confidence + courage in face of hostile majority , may persuade majority grp to take seriously
Augmentation principle - explains how minorities can change the majority if minority is doing something risky but shows commitment , pay more interest
XIE AT AL- need 10% of minority population to influence majority
Flexibility
More effective than RIGIDITY of arguments , minorities are POWERLESS therefore must negotiate rather than ENFORCE their position upon majority
Important to strike BALANCE between consistency + flexibility
