Power and Obedience

Question 1

What are the two perspectives of Power?

Answer 1

Hogg & Vaughan: “Capacity to influence others while resisting their attempts to influence.”

Fiske & Berdahl, 2007: “The relative control over another’s valued outcomes.”
* Outcomes can be physical, financial, social, and etc.
* “People who control others’ outcomes have power, like it or not.”

Question 2

There are two powers of bases, what are they?

Answer 2

Harsh and Soft

Question 3

Describe Harsh bases of Power.

Answer 3

• uses economic and physical outcomes.
• work with outcomes that are more tangible and explicit.
• rely upon power differentials that are more obvious and very clear (very obvious you have power).
• are more likely to exist when power is illegitimate (i.e. when they don’t really deserve to be in power etc.).
• require surveillance (require their hand around your throat constantly because internally you’re not sold or convinced -> because once you stop thinking about it, they basically no longer have power).

Question 4

Describe Soft bases of Power.

Answer 4

• Use social outcomes (things like reputation).
• Work with outcomes are more subjective and intangible.
• Are more subjective, vague and may vary more between individuals
• Rely upon power differentials that may be less obvious.
• Are NOT weaker than harsh bases of power (just depends upon context) .
• Tend to produce influence that is self-sustaining.

Question 5

What are some harsh bases of power?

Answer 5

• Coercive
• Reward

Question 6

What are is a mix of both harsh and soft bases of power?

Answer 6

legitimate

Question 7

What are some soft bases of power?

Answer 7

• Informational
• Expert
• Referent

Question 8

Coercive (Bully)

Answer 8

The ability to give or threaten punishment for non-compliance

Question 9

Reward (donor)

Answer 9

The ability to give or promise rewards for compliance

Question 10

Legitimate (judge)

Answer 10

The target’s belief that the influencer is authorised by a recognised power structure to command and make decisions

Question 11

Informational (spy)

Answer 11

The targets belief that the influencer has more information than oneself

Question 12

Expert (physician)

Answer 12

The target’s belief that the influence has generally greater expertise and knowledge than oneself

Question 13

Referent (celebrity)

Answer 13

Identification with, attraction to or respect for the source of influence
* admire and respect and as a consequence how an influence over individuals

Question 14

Does Power Change People? When we look at the approach/ inhibition theory of power, what does this mean?

Answer 14

When you are in a high power state then you are approach motivated but when you’re in a low power state you’re inhibited

Question 15

High Power -> Approach Motivated:

Answer 15

• Attention to rewards
• positive emotions (desire, enthusiasm, pride)
• automatic cognition
• disinhibition
• state/trait driven behaviour

Question 16

Low power -> Inhibition:

Answer 16

• Attention to threats
• Negative emotions (awe, embarrassment, fear, guilt and fear)
• systematic, controlled cognition
• inhibition
• situationally constrained behaviour

Question 17

When feeling powerful, people tend to?

Answer 17

• be more willing to engage in action.
• act in line with their own preferences.
• express their opinions openly.
• experience and express more positive emotions.
• have a decreased motivation to affiliate with low power individuals.
• make more sinister attributions about the intentions of low-power individuals.
• be less likely to engage in perspective-taking and to show empathic concern (particularly towards subordinates) [less likely to be concerned about low power individuals].
• have lower basal cortisol levels (how generally stressed) and lower cortisol reactivity to stressors (how stressed you are)

Question 18

Galinsky, Gruenfeld and Magee, 2003 investigated how power changes one’s likelihood to take action. The experiment consistent of putting individuals into group of high power state and low power state, splitting them into manager and builder of a lego structure and play black jack where players can ask for additional cards to reach 21 -> experimenters wanted to see if being in a high power state would make individuals actively choose more cards.

What did they find?

Answer 18

Those in the high power state actively took more cards

Question 19

Galinsky, Gruenfeld and Magee, 2003 investigated how power changes one’s likelihood to take action. They got participants to describe situation in which they wherein high or low power position; allocate a lottery tickets or predict allocation. They measured this being placed in a room with an annoying fan, trying to keep a stack of papers organised.

What did they find?

Answer 19

Individuals in the hight powered condition were more likely to act and deal with the fan (i.e. move it to another table)

Question 20

Galinsky, Gruenfeld and Magee, 2003 investigated how power changes one’s likelihood to take action. This was the same as the study above. Expect, participants were asked how much they want to take from the pool AND how much they want ti return to the pool.

What did they find?

Answer 20

Individuals with higher level of powers took and returned more

• you’re being prosocial (putting more money in the pot) but also not prosocial (taking money for yourself) -> but because they are performing both actions (regardless of whether their prosocial or not prosocial that it supports approach of the theory of power)

Question 21

What is Dominance -> when we think about who gives rise to power?

Answer 21

The degree of deference, respect, and attention one receives as a consequence of the perceived ability to coerce, intimidate and impose costs and benefits.

Question 22

What is Prestige?

Answer 22

The degree of deference, respect, and attention an individual receives as consequence of the perceived attractiveness as a cultural model or coalition partner.

Question 23

Is one’s impression as dominant and/or prestigious lead to social influence within small groups?

In this study participants procedure was:

1. Complete the Lunar Landing task alone (spaceship has crashed, have to bring items, whats the test items to bring out of the set of items and what’s the least important).
2. Complete the task in a group (sit and discuss this with the group).
3. Rate your group members (in terms of dominance and prestige).
   Measures of dominance and prestige:
   Group member evaluations of each other:
   * Dominance: “I am afraid of him/her”
   * Prestige: “I respect and admire him/her”
   Third-party evaluations of each group member.

They took measurements of social influence.
* Behavioural change: How much were group decisions moved toward each individual’s rankings.
* Third party eye gaze: To whom did third-party gaze while watching videos of group discussions (were they more focused on influential people?

What did they find?

Answer 23

• Both dominance and prestige independently predict influence
• Both independently predict visual attention toward the dominant or prestigious target

Question 24

What are some dominance motives..

Answer 24

• “I like to give orders and get things going.”
• “I would enjoy having authority over people.”
• “I enjoy planning things and deciding what other people should do.”

Question 25

What are some prestige motives..

Answer 25

• “I like to have people come to me for advice.”
• “I like to be admired for my achievements.”
• “I would like an important job where people look up to me.”

Question 26

When looking at motivation and Leadership -> How do dominance versus prestige motives affect the way one leads when one has a formal position of power?

Answer 26

Followers give leaders the power to make decisions that benefit the group:
* Leaders are ostensibly bound to act in the group’s interests.
* But the group’s interests may be at odds with the leader’s self-interest.
* One key conflict can when power is unstable– when the leaders’ interest in keeping power may be more important for them than group interests.

Question 27

When a position of power is unstable, do dominance-motivated individuals act in their own self-interest to maintain power?

They conducted some studies to look at this. They had participants come into the lab and figure out if they’re dominant/prestige oriented. Got the Team of participants to complete a puzzle, and before the test starts each player could be granted clues to help complete the puzzle -> for each round the group find out how well they performed, get money that is split between the group for performance.

Manipulation: secret participant got to choose the extent to which the cues are useful in the puzzle -> but this depended on the stability of the leader:
* stable leadership: you are the leader in every round
* unstable: leader in any round, but could be reassigned at any point based on their performance
* control: everyone is equal

Question: When dominance-motivated individuals in the unstable leadership condition, would they withhold group clues from their group members so they can look better -> and be more likely to stay in the position of power?

Answer 27

They found
* low dominance individuals -> no difference between conditions (regardless of leadership status) -> they gave good clues
* high dominance condition -> in the unstable leadership condition, they gave their team members weaker clues in order to keep themselves looking good -> sabotage performance of group over all to keep themselves looking group

Question 28

They did another study, using the same manipulation but had a different set up

• had a pre task -> gave sources back -> the participant received a high score and one other player in the group -> told there’s too many people in the experiment

The question: Would this individual get rid of highly skilled group members (who they were told was highly skilled) so they are the smartest person in the group?

Answer 28

They found:
* low dominance individuals, did not want to remove the skilled player
* in the high dominance individual, when their power was unstable, they were more likely to tell them to remove / exclude the skilled player (as though to not threaten their position of power)

Question 29

What is the conclusion of the stable / unstable leadership experiment?

Answer 29

unstable leadership led dominance-oriented individuals to act in their own self-interest, undermining group member performance and excluding highly skilled individuals

Question 30

Why does group-based power persist? Group-based dominance occurs across many societies, based on what factors?

Answer 30

gender, religion, ethnicity etc etc.

Question 31

What does group based dominance exert itself via?

Answer 31

• force (e.g., internment camps)
• outgroup derogation (e.g., disproportionate punishment of specific groups)
• ingroup bias (e.g., better provisions for the healthcare or education)

Question 32

There are multiple theories which try to account for group-based dominance, what are these?

Answer 32

• social identity theory / social identity approach
• social dominance theory
• system justification theory

Question 33

What is Social Identity Approach?

Answer 33

our groups provide us with a social identity:
* who we are
* who we ostensibly should be

Question 34

Through a process of categorisation, group identity (or group salience) increases, what?

Answer 34

• (self-)stereotyping
• depersonalisation (less see individuals as individuals, and just see them as their group)
• perceived intergroup differences (will be amplified)

Question 35

We strive for positive distinctiveness such as..

Answer 35

• Individual mobility (if groups are permeable)
• Social creativity (change the rules)
• Social competition (ingroup favouritism) - advocate support for members of your ingroup and not members of your outgroup(s)

Question 36

Minimal group paradigms provide support for the Social Identity Approach. The idea of Minimal group paradigm -> provide a way to study ingroup behaviour on groups which have no history -> any of the findings can’t be attributed to some historical differences because you create it in the laboratory

Participant come into the lab -> assigned to an arbitrary group (means nothing but participants believe it means something - meaningful in some way) such as -> high or low estimators, estimate accuracy, aesthetic preference, scarf colour. This results in two different groups so we can look at how they behave towards in group and outgrip behaviours

What will we be able to see?

Answer 36

Will result in their being two different groups and many individuals will show in-group favouritism

Question 37

What is a criticism of Social Identity Theory?

Answer 37

what about intergroup/societal hierarchies? -> these group based hierarchies show some group have greater social value as shown by social dominance theory

Question 38

What does Social Dominance Theory suggest?

Answer 38

Group-based hierarchies exist across societies
* some have positive social value (access to power, wealth, health care, etc.)
* some have negative social value (substandard housing, underemployment, etc.)

Question 39

How is discrimination coordinated?

Answer 39

legitimising myths [shared beliefs and myths to why one group gets treated differently] * (things/myths that are perpetuation like gender based that cause a hierarchy maintenance)
* societal, shared social ideologies -> cause in-group favouritism (asymmetry hypothesis shows endorsement of these myths and in-group biases)

Question 40

What is the asymmetry hypothesis?

Answer 40

• asymmetrical ingroup bias (higher you are on the hierarchy, the more likely you are to put intellectuals higher on the hierarchy)
  ideological asymmetry (higher you are on the hierarchy, the more likely you are to put intellectuals higher on the hierarchy) - but not very group legitimises all these myths

Higher on the hierarchy = more ingroup favouritism

• According to SD -> higher you are on the hierarchy, the higher your group is on the hierarchy, the more you will endorse these legitimising myths -> i.e. more likely men will endorse the myth that women are intellectually inferior because they are a member of a higher status group and by peptuating that myth, they maintain a position of power -> asymmetry because not every group equally endorses these legitimising myth -> also proposes the degree to which one shows ingroup bias will depend on the group’s level in the hierarchy -> higher in the hierarchy = more in group favouritism

Question 41

What is Social Dominance Orientation?

Answer 41

an individual orientation toward group-based dominance

Question 42

Social Dominance Orientation Example Scale

1. some groups of people are simply inferior to other groups
2. in getting what you want, it is sometimes necessary to use force against other groups
3. If certain groups stayed in their place, we would have fewer problems
4. It’s probably a good thing that certain groups are at the top of the other groups are at the bottom

Answer 42

• if you endorse these statement, you’d be positively correlated*

These statements correlate positively with:
* Sexism
* Racism
* Nationalism
* Support for the US invasion of Iraq

These statements correlate negatively with
* Tolerance
* Egalitarianism
* Support for human rights
* support for the military intervention in the Yugoslavian civil war

Question 43

What is System Justification Theory?

Answer 43

we all possess a general desire to live in a well ordered world and there’s confidence in the status quo; this motives is responsible for outgroup favouritism among (idk)
* System justification is the process by which existing social arrangements are legitimized, even at the expense of personal and group interest.

Question 44

What does Social Justification theory argue?

Answer 44

• There is a general ideological motive to justify the existing social order.
• This motive is at least partially responsible for the internalization of inferiority among members of disadvantaged groups (outgroup favoritism).
• It is observed most readily at an implicit, nonconscious level of awareness.
• It is sometimes strongest among those who are most harmed by the status quo.

Question 45

What is System Justification Theory based on?

Answer 45

Ego: Ego-based motivation -> the desire to maintain a favourable self image to feel valid, justified and legitimate as an individual

System: Desire to imbue the status quo with legitimacy and to see it as good, fair, natural, desirable, and even inevitable societal structure that is a safe place to be

Group: The desire to maintain favourable images of one’s group and to justify the actions of in-group members

Question 46

Justification among disadvantaged groups..

Answer 46

• Members of low-status groups will exhibit more outgroup favouritism (i.e. gay people - potentially so other people like you)
• As political conservatism increases, (a) members of high status groups will exhibit increased ingroup favoritism, and (b) members of low-status groups will exhibit increased outgroup favouritism [liberal individuals no contrast, at far end of the scale, they are the high status individuals, straight people show more in-group favouritism than outgroup favouritism compared to the outgroup] - supports the general idea of systematic justification.

Question 47

obedience or coercive compliance

Answer 47

• A change in behaviour or expressed attitudes and beliefs
• In response to the direct request of a powerful person or group
• Does not require internalisation

Question 48

Conformity

Answer 48

• A change in behaviour or expressed attitudes and beliefs
• In response to social norms or others’ behaviour
• Does not require internalisation

Question 49

Persuasion

Answer 49

• A change in attitude, beliefs or behaviour
• In response to direct messages
• Requires internalisation

Question 50

Miligram’s Classical Experiment -> The learner is ostensibly completing a memory test. For every wrong answer, the teacher is instructed to deliver the learner a shock, which get stronger each time.

How far does the teacher go before she/he refuses to continue?

Answer 50

• experts predicted that few people would complete the experiment
• but 65% in the original studies continued to deliver the shocks until the end.
• this pattern has been replicated, even in recent years (Burger, 2009).

Question 51

Disobedience increased when…

Answer 51

• Experimenter provided no explicit direction to increase shocks.
• A group of teachers (confederates) pressured the participant to disobey
• The Teacher was proximal to the Learner (touching vs being in another room).
• The Experimenter was not physically present.
• The Teacher and Learner were friends or relatives.
• Experimenters were inconsistent (providing conflicting instructions).

Question 52

When did obedience increase?

Answer 52

Teacher simply read the words and another person administered the shocks

Question 53

What percentage of non-compliant participants stopped when the learner begged to be released (made the explicit request to stop) around 150-330 volts.

Answer 53

37%

Question 54

How can we potentially explain Milgram?

Answer 54

• Blind obedience to power
• Diffusion of responsibility (people feel like it’s the experimenters/institutions fault)
• The psychology of sunk costs
• Conformity to group norms (social identity theory) (*see themselves as member of experimental group and just believe this is the group norm)
• Persuasion (experimenter convinces them to continue)
• Overstated?

Question 55

What is a situational account for this?

Answer 55

“For the social psychology of this century reveals a major lesson: Often, it is not so much the kind of person a man is as the kind of situation in which he finds himself that determines how he will act.”

Question 56

Who is Hannah Arendt?

Answer 56

• Her writings on Eichmann and “the banality of evil” are often associated with the Milgram studies.
• But personal responsibility was central to her arguments.
• “There is no such thing as obedience in political and moral matters.”