Social Influence

Question 1

Definition of compliance?

Answer 1

Shallowest form of conformity. When we go along with a group for approval. Change in behaviour publicly but not privately. Results in superficial change and behaviour stops as soon as group pressure ceases.

Question 2

Definition of identification?

Answer 2

Has elements of both compliance and internalisation as we accept the group norms as true but purpose of doing so is to be accepted as a member. We go along with a group that we value and want to become a part of. Not true conformity as we only go along with the group to gain approval. Also happens when conforming to social roles.

Question 3

Definition of internalisation?

Answer 3

Genuine acceptance of group norms both publicly and privately. This is true conformity.

Question 4

What is informational social influence?

Answer 4

A cognitive process with the desire to be right and not the odd one out. Happens in ambiguous situations where most people believe the majority is correct so go along with them to reduce uncertainty. High likelihood that the individual believes the opinions they are adopting. It results in internalisation.

Question 5

What is normative social influence?

Answer 5

Is an emotional process with the desire to be liked and act as others without looking foolish. Motivation is to be accepted, respected and liked by others and the easiest way to do this is by agreeing. Happens when you don’t know the norms in a social setting with people you know so conform to gain social approval. Privately, beliefs don’t change and conformity depends on groups prescience so results in compliance.

Question 6

What are the brief negatives of Asch’s study?

Answer 6

1. Artificial situation so low ecological validity and unable to be generalised.
2. Involves deception which is unethical as the naive participants were unaware that the others were confederates.

Question 7

What is the brief positive of Asch;s study?

Answer 7

Was in a lab setting so variables were strictly controlled which makes it easier to replicate and minimises extraneous variables.

Question 8

What is the evaluation about lack of temporal validity for Asch?
And the double about individual differences?

Answer 8

It has been argued that Asch’s study lacks temporal validity due to the high conformity rates at the time due to McCarthyism. For example, research by Perrin and Spencer replicating Asch found virtually no conformity by science and engineering students but similar levels in students on probation. Therefore, it is unclear whether the mixed results are due to a lack of temporal validity or individual differences.
Individual differences may be due to affiliations like gender. For example, Asch only used male participants and Neto 1995 suggested that women are more conformist, possibly because they are more concerned with social relationships and being accepted. Additionally, the participants were only from the USA which is an individualistic culture where they care more about themselves than social groups. This is supported by Smith and Bond’s 1998 research suggesting that individualistic cultures do in fact have lower conformity rates. Therefore, this suggests that conformity levels may sometimes be even higher than Asch found and his research may be limited to American men.

Question 9

What is the evaluation about artificial task and situation for Asch?

Answer 9

A limitation of Asch’s study was that the task and situation were artificial. Participants knew they were in a study so may have responded to demand characteristics. Additionally, the line task was trivial so there was no reason not to conform and the naive participants were in a ‘group’ but not a group we would find in every life. Therefore, the results were unable to be generalised to everyday situations where conformity has more important consequences, and where we interact and communicate in groups much more directly.

Question 10

What is the evaluation for cultural differences for Asch?

Answer 10

Research suggests that there are important cultural differences in conformity and we might therefore expect different results depending on the culture in which a study takes place. For example, Smith et al 2006 analysed results from Asch type studies across different cultures and found the average conformity rate was 31.2%. However, differences were found between different cultures. For example, individualistic cultures has 25% whereas collectivist cultures had 37%. Markus and Kitayama 1991 suggested that higher rates of conformity arise in collectivist cultures as they view conformity more favourably as a form of social glue that binds communities together.

Question 11

What are the 3 things that affect conformity and explain them?

Answer 11

1. Group size: the higher the number of people in the majority, the more likely an individual will conform. However, there is an upper limit where adding more members does not increase conformity which is 7 for Asch. Conformity increased by 30% from 2-3 confederates.
2. Unanimity of majority: in the presence of a dissenter/non-conformist, conformity decreases whether the answer is right or wrong as the naive participant is able to behave more independently. When all confederates gave the same answer, conformity was 33% but dropped to 5.5% when one confederate gave the right answer.
3. Task difficulty: Conformity increases when the task is more difficult. It is made more difficult by making the comparison and stimulus line closer in length. ISI plays a big role as the situation is ambiguous so we are more likely to look to others for guidance.

Question 12

What are social roles?

Answer 12

Social roles are the part that people play as members of a social group. With each new social role you adopt, you change your behaviour to fit the expectations that you and others have of that role.

Question 13

Which type of conformity represents conforming to social roles?

Answer 13

This type of conformity represents identification where a person changes their beliefs publicly and privately but only whilst in a particular social role.

Question 14

What is the aim of Zimbardo’s SPE?

Answer 14

To see whether the brutality of prison guards was due to sadistic personality or created by the situation.

Question 15

What is the conclusion of Zimbardo’s SPE?

Answer 15

Zimbardo’s research suggests that situational factors rather than individual personality traits can drive behaviour, as people considered normal and healthy before the experiment according to the psych evals, engaged in abusive or submissive behaviours as a result of their assigned social roles and the prison environment. This showed the power of the situation and social roles on the influence of normal people’s behaviour.

Question 16

What is the evaluation for SPE being criticised as androcentric?

Answer 16

The Stanford prison experiment is often criticised for being androcentric. This is because it only focuses on male participants. The problem with this is that Zimbardo believed the results could be generalised to everyone as male behaviour was seen as the ‘norm’. However, it has been suggested that women conform differently to men. For example Jenness 1932 did a study to see whether individual judgements of jelly beans in a jar were influenced by group discussion. Participants were given a second chance to change their estimate after a group discussion and he found that men changed their estimate by 256 jelly beans and women changed theirs by 382. Therefore, this shows that due to beta bias, the results of the SPE may be unable to be generalised to the wider public.

Question 17

What is the evaluation for Zimbardo lacking internal validity due to demand characteristics?

Answer 17

Some researchers argue that Zimbardo’s study lacks internal validity due to demand characteristics. Banuazizi and Movahedi 1975 presented some details of the SPE to a large sample of students who had never heard of it. The vast majority correctly guessed that the purpose of the experiment was to show how ordinary people when assigned the role of guard or prisoner would act like real guards or real prisoners. They also correctly predicted that the guards would act in a hostile and domineering way and the prisoners would act passively. Furthermore, the participants were being paid $15 a day so may have felt bound to complete the experiment even after being told that if opted out, they would still be paid. This suggests that the behaviour of Zimbardo’s prisoners and guards may not have been due to the ‘compelling prison environment’ but instead, to the powerful demand characteristics within the experimental situation itself.

Question 18

What is the evaluation for Zimbardo’s study being unethical?

Answer 18

Zimbardo’s study is often criticised for being unethical, despite following the guidelines of the Stanford University’s ethics committee who approved it. For example, 3 participants had to be removed early due to signs of psychological distress, and prisoners were found to be engaging in anxious behaviours such as rocking back and fourth. Zimbardo acknowledges that perhaps the study should have been stopped sooner as so many participants experienced emotional distress. To make amends for this, he carried out debriefing sessions for several years afterwards and concluded that there was no negative long lasting effects. Due to these findings, Zimbardo’s study has been unable to be exactly replicated but similar future studies have been able to take greater steps to minimise potential harm to participants for example Reicher and Haslam.

Question 19

What is the evaluation for Zimbardo’s study explaining Abu Ghraib?

Answer 19

Zimbardo argues that the conformity to social roles effect can be used to explain events in Abu Ghraib, a military prison notorious for the torture and abuse of Iraqi prisoners by US soldiers in 2003+4. As in the SPE, Zimbardo believes that the guards committing the abuse were victims of situational factors that made it more likely. Factors such as little training, unrelenting boredom, and no accountability to a higher authority were present in both the SPE and AG. Zimbardo concludes that these factors combined with the opportunity to misuse the power associated with the role of the guard led to the abuse of prisoners in both situations.

Question 20

What was Milgram’s aim?

Answer 20

To see why the Germans were willing to kill Jews in the holocaust. He thought Germans were evil and that Americans wouldnt follow such orders.

Question 21

What was Milgram’s procedure (8)?

Answer 21

1. 40 males from a newspaper ad ranging from unskilled to professional
2. Took place at Yale as a controlled lab experiment
3. They were paid $4.50 for just turning up
4. Naive participants were all given the role of teacher and confederates were given the learner.
5. Teacher and learner were in separate rooms and the experimenter instructed the teachers to shock the learner every time they got a word wrong going up in voltage each time.
6. Went from 15 volts to 450
7. At 300 v the learner would pound on the wall and then stop responding.
8. The experimenter had 4 prompts increasing in pressure: 1. Please continue 2. The experiment requires that you continue 3. It is absolutely essential that you continue 4. You have no other choice you must go on.

Question 22

What were the results of Milgram’s study? (

Answer 22

1. 65% went up to the full 450V and all continued to 300V.
2. Participants were observed to show signs of extreme stress such as biting lips, groaning, trembling, digging their nails into their palms.
3. 3 participants had full blown uncontrollable seizures.
4. All were debriefed after and 84% they were glad to have taken part and 74% said they learnt something of personal importance.
5. The results were shocking to everyone as people like psychologists, students and colleagues said that only 1% of Americans would go beyond 150v.

Question 23

What are the three factors that Milgram found affect obedience?

Answer 23

Proximity, location and uniform

Question 24

What happened in Milgram’s proximity variation?
What happened in touch proximity variation?
What happened in remote instruction proximity variation?

Answer 24

The teacher and learner where in the same room and obedience rates dropped from 65% to 40% as the teacher was able to experience the learners pain more directly.

The teacher had to force the learner’s hand onto the shock plate. Obedience rates dropped again to 30%.

The proximity to authority figures also affects obedience. Experimenter left and gave instructions over the phone and obedience dropped again to 21%

Question 25

Why does proximity affect obedience?

Answer 25

Being closer to the consequences of our own actions decreases obedience. The emotional distress was easier to see so makes it harder to shift the blame (entering the agentic shift) onto the experimenter and even harder when he’s absent.

Question 26

What happened in the location variation of Milgram’s experiment?

Answer 26

In this variation, the study took place at a rundown building instead of the prestigious Yale and the study was no longer associated with Yale either as it was run by the research association of Bridgeport. Obedience rates dropped to 47.5%

Question 27

Why does location affect obedience?

Answer 27

The legitimacy of setting impacts whether people associate the location with expertise and esteem. Places and locations can also be seen as more or less authoritative leading to lower obedience rates.

Question 28

What happened in the uniform variation of Milgram?

Answer 28

In the initial variation, the experimenter wore a grey lab coat as a symbol of his authority. In this variation, the experimenter was called out and a confederate wearing everyday clothes came back in the place of the experimenter. Obedience decreased to 20%.

Question 29

Why does uniform affect obedience?

Answer 29

People relate uniform to characteristics of expertise, knowledge and high regard. This suggests that uniform does act as a strong visual authority symbol and cue to behave in an obedient manner.

Question 30

What is the evaluation point about Mandel for proximity variation?

Answer 30

Mandel 1998 challenges the relevance of obedience research as an explanation for real life atrocities, claiming that Milgram’s conclusions about situational determinants aren’t borne out of real life events. In 1942, the men of police battalion 101 received orders for mass killings of Jews in Poland. Their commanding officer Major Willhelm Trapp made an offer that anyone not up to the duty could be assigned a different task. However, despite the factors shown by Milgram to increase defiance, like being in close proximity to victims, only a small percentage took up the offer and the majority carried out the orders. Mandel concludes that using obedience as an explanation for atrocities only serves as an alibi and masks the real issues.

Question 31

What is the evaluation for Fromm for location variation?

Answer 31

Fromm 1973 claims that because Milgram’s subjects knew they were in a study, they were more likely to obey in real life. In lab settings, the experimenter acts as a representative of science which is highly respected. Fromm suggested that the high levels of obedience at 65% was less surprising than the low levels of disobedience at 35%. In contrast to lab experiments, real life obedience takes a lot more time and difficulty, especially destructive obedience. For example, the genocide in Rwanda 1994 required years of manipulation and dehumanisation. As a result, we should be cautious about broadly generalising Milgram’s study, believing that most people would commit crimes of obedience in real life.

Question 32

What is the evaluation for uniform variation for Durkin and Jeffery?

Answer 32

Durkin and Jeffery 2000 demonstrated that young children’s understanding of police authority was determined by visual cues, specifically uniform. Using illustrations, children aged 5-9 were asked to identify who could make an arrest. The options were: policeman wearing civilian clothes, non policeman temporarily wearing police uniform, and man wearing other uniform. They tended to go for the man wearing the police uniform. These findings suggest that young children’s initial perceptions of authority are heavily dominated by superficial aspects of appearance which are more easily accessible than socially conferred status.

Question 33

Definition of the autonomous state?

Answer 33

Where a person sees themselves as responsible for their own actions.

Question 34

Definition of agentic state?

Answer 34

Where a person sees themselves as an agent for carrying out someone else’s wishes. They do not believe they are responsible or that their actions reflect upon their self image. They are guilt free actions

Question 35

Definition of the agentic shift?

Answer 35

In the presence of a perceived authority figure, where people shift from operating as an autonomous individual to the agentic state.

Question 36

What is the benefit of the agentic state?

Answer 36

It helps people maintain their positive self image as they dont believe they are responsible

Question 37

What are binding factors? (3)

Answer 37

1. Aspects that allow people to minimise or disregard the damaging effects that their actions cause. 2. In all social situations, there is a social etiquette that plays a part in regulating our behaviour. In experiments, the subject must breach their commitment to the experimenter in order to disobey them and worried that this may seem rude. 3. Along with violence, these emotions bind the subject to obedience.

Question 38

What is the evaluation for agentic shift about desensitisation?

Answer 38

Some people think that rather an agentic shift being responsible for most people’s cruelty, it’s the act of carrying out increasingly evil acts over time. For example, Lifton 1986 claims that doctors in Auschwitz changed gradually and irreversibly from individuals that wanted to care for people and help them get better to ones that wanted to carry out horrifying experiments. These pieces of evidence suggest that the agentic shift cannot fully explain obedience and that perhaps desensitisation is a better explanation.

Question 39

What does resistance to social influence mean?

Answer 39

The ability of an individual to oppose the pressure to conform to a majority group or obey an authority figure by maintaining personal autonomy and integrity in their decisions, thoughts and actions.

Question 40

What are the 2 study examples of resistance to social influence?

Answer 40

1. Asch: 33% conformity rate, 25% resisted pressure to conform on every trial. 2. Milgram: 65% obedience rate, 35% resisted to obey by not delivering full 450 volts.

Question 41

What are the 2 explanations of resistance to social influence?

Answer 41

Social support and locus of control

Question 42

What is social support? (3) And what are the 2 extra reasons?

Answer 42

Where the presence of others like allies/dissenters who defy authority figures and go against the majority opinion. Even the presence of one ally can significantly decrease the perceived risk of nonconformity and disobedience. which allows individuals to be more confident to make their own independent assessments and also break unanimity. 1. It is associated with diffusion of responsibility as the more people who dissent or disobey, the less severe the consequences will be. 2. The allies also give an alternate group to belong to which decreases feelings of isolation and vulnerability.

Question 43

What is the social support explanation for resisting conformity and an example? What is the social support explanation for resisting obedience?

Answer 43

1. Individuals who have a non conformist ally are more likely to resist conforming to group pressure as the ally breaks the unanimity and acts as an alternate group to belong to. E.g In a variation of Asch’s study, a confederate acted as a dissenter and gave the right answer which caused conformity rates to sharply drop from 32% to 5.5%. 2. Individuals with a disobedient role model are more likely to resist obeying orders from an authority figure as the role model challenges the legitimacy of authority and gives the individuals something to model their behaviour off of.

Question 44

What is the evaluation for social support in obedience about Milgram’s variation?

Answer 44

Social support has been shown to help individuals resist the pressure to obey. For example, Milgram conducted a variation of his original study called the ‘two peers rebel study’, with 3 participants (2 confederates and 1 real) where teacher 1 read the list of words, teacher 2 told the confederate if they were right and teacher 3 (the real ppt) shocked the learner. Teacher 1 withdrew at 105 volts and teacher 2 withdrew at 150 volts which led to only 10% of the real participants continuing to the full 450 volts. This could be because an alternate way of behaving was modelled which helped decrease binding factors. Milgram argues that the reduction in obedience was due to defiance of peers which reduces the experimenter’s legitimacy of authority.

Question 45

What is the definition of minority influence?

Answer 45

Minority influence is a form of social influence which occurs when an individual or small group of people influence a larger group or majority group to change their behaviours/attitudes towards an issue due to being exposed to a persuasive minority.

Question 46

How is minority influence different to majority influence?

Answer 46

In Majority influence, people identify with them to try and ‘fit in’ due to fear of rejection which results in compliance as they have little scrutiny of the message. However, minority influence uses a process of conversion rather than compliance.

Question 47

What is the process of conversion?

Answer 47

This is where the minority adopt a consistent and committed approach which makes people scrutinise them more closely and want to understand why they hold this position. It results in a deeper level of process and longer lasting as people have internalised the minority’s point of view so outlasts groups presence.

Question 48

Who was the key study for consistency?

Answer 48

Moscovici 1969

Question 49

What was Moscovici’s procedure (5)?

Answer 49

1. Similar to Asch but reversed as put 2 confederates with 4 naive participants. 2. Each participants had an eye test to ensure they weren’t colour blind. 3. They were shown 36 series of blue slides only varying in intensity and were asked to say the colour out loud. 4. In condition one, the confederates answered green to all 36 slides so were consistent in their responses. 5. In condition 2, the confederates answered green to 24 slides and blue to 12 so were inconsistent.

Question 50

What were Moscovici’s findings (4)?

Answer 50

1. In condition one, the consistent minority influenced the majority 8.42% of the time. 2. In condition 2, the inconsistent minority only influenced the majority 1.25% of the time. 3. After the experiment, participants were given 16 discs and were asked to sort them into blue or green. There were 3 obvious green ones and 3 obvious blue ones, the other 10 were ambiguous. The participants in condition one said more of the discs were green than participants in condition 2. 4. The effect was larger on the participants from condition one who didn’t conform during the experiment, suggesting that initial influence is more private than public.

Question 51

What are the 3 characteristics of a successful minority?

Answer 51

1. Consistency= If members of a minority group give the same answer every time (diachronic consistency) and each member gives the same answer (synchronic consistency), members of the majority are more likely to consider the minority position and reconsider their own as the beliefs seem fixed which gives the majority the impression that they are well thought out and defensible. 2. Commitment( augmentation principle)= Commitment is an important part of the conversion process as it suggests confidence, certainty and courage in the face of a hostile majority. If the minority group are willing to suffer for their views and still hold them (e.g piggy comments), the majority will take them and their ideas seriously as they consider the causes of behaviour. It helps to know that they aren’t acting out of self interest. 3. Flexibility= Mugny 1982 suggests that flexibility is more effective at changing majority opinion than rigidity of argument. Because minorities are typically powerless compared to majorities, they need to negotiate their views rather than enforce them. Mugny distinguishes between flexible and rigid negotiating styles, arguing that a rigid minority is at risk of being perceived as dogmatic (narrow minded) and not considering other valid counterarguments. The minority need to show that they are reasonable. However, if they are too flexible and ready to compromise it can come off as being inconsistent.

Question 52

Whose study is evidence for commitment?

Answer 52

Xie et al 2011

Question 53

What is the procedure (2) and findings (4) for Xie et al 2011?

Answer 53

1. They created several computer models of social networks with individuals who where ‘free to chat’ across the networks. 2. They had the majority of individuals hold a ‘traditional’ viewpoint but say that they were open to change, and had a small number of individuals hold an alternative viewpoint which they expressed consistently. 1. If the listener held the same opinions as the speaker, their belief was reinforced. 2. However, if the speaker had a different opinion, the listener would consider their view and then move on. If the new individual held the same opinion as the previous one, the listener would adopt the belief. 3. Once 10% of the group population held this new viewpoint, a ‘tipping point’ was reached where the majority quickly ‘tipped’ into accepting the new viewpoint. 4. Therefore, Xie et al reported that when just 10% of the population holds an unshakable belief, it will always be adopted by the majority.

Question 54

Whose study is evidence for flexibility?

Answer 54

Nemeth 1986

Question 55

What is the procedure and findings of Nemeth 1986?

Answer 55

1. He based his study on a mock jury where groups of 3 participants and 1 confederate where asked to decide an amount of compensation to award a victim of a ski lift accident. 1. When the consistent minority (the confederate) argued for a low amount and refused to change his position, he had no effect on the majority. 2. However, when the confederate compromised and moved some way towards the majority position, the majority also compromised and changed their view.

Question 56

What is the double evaluation for minority influence about task artificiality and real life examples?

Answer 56

A limitation of minority influence research is that studies are often highly artificial which may reduce external validity. For example, Moscovici’s task was identifying the colour of slides which is far removed from the way that minorities try to influence majority opinion in real life. Nemeth’s ski lift compensation study is also highly artificial meaning that the results may lack ecological validity and may not be valid when generalising to real world minority influence where the consequences of social issues are much more important than determining slide colours. However, there are many real life examples of minority groups using commitment, flexibility and consistency to influence members of majority population. For example, the suffragettes displayed commitment by going on hunger strikes, and the leaders of the civil rights movement delivered speeches with the consistent message of equality. Additionally, the LGBTQ+ rights movement campaigned for civil partnership, a strategic and flexible compromise which ultimately resulted in the end goal of legalised same sex marriage. Therefore, while research into this area may lack external validity, these real life examples of minority influence can be used as support for psychological theories and can be practically applied to future movements.

Question 57

What is the evaluation for minority influence about convincing people the value of dissent?

Answer 57

Despite evidence for higher quality decision making, Nemeth 2010, claims that it is still difficult to convince people of the value of dissent. For example, people accept the principle only on the surface i.e. they appear tolerant, but quickly become irritated by a dissenting view that persists. They may also fear creating a lack of harmony within the group by welcoming dissent, or may have been made to fear repercussions, including being ridiculed by being associated with a ‘deviant’ point of view. As a consequence, this results in the majority view persisting and the opportunities for innovative thinking associated with minority influence, being lost.

Question 58

What is the definition of social change?

Answer 58

The process by which society changes their beliefs, attitudes and behaviours in order to create new social norms.

Question 59

What is the evaluation for agentic shift about people having an innate desire to be cruel and sadistic?

Answer 59

Some suggest that studies such as the SPE offer evidence that some people may just have an innate desire to be cruel and sadistic and that such situations bring this out. For example, in the SPE, the guards were not allowed to physically abuse the prisoners but they did force them to do push ups and physically abuse themselves. Some of the guards even said after the experiment that they were sad that it was over and that they enjoyed torturing the prisoners. This may be because they enjoyed feeling powerful and didnt have anyone to answer to. This further evidence also suggests that the agentic shift cannot fully explain obedience and therefore this may mean that that the explanation lacks predictive validity.

Question 60

What is the evaluation for agentic shift about Milgrams variation supporting it?

Answer 60

Supporting evidence for the agentic shift explanation can be seen in a variation of Milgram’s experiment where a confederate administers the shock for the teacher. For example, in this variation, the percentage of participants who administered the full 450 volts rose dramatically from 65% to 92.5%. This variation supports the agentic shift explanation as the higher levels of obedience could be because the participants shifted their responsibility onto the confederates administering the shocks for them. Therefore, the ability to enter the agentic state increased the levels of obedience as the level of personal responsibility decreased.

Question 61

What are the 3 explanations for obedience?

Answer 61

Agentic state, legitimacy of authority and authoritarian personality.

Question 62

What are the 3 points and an example of who we perceive as legitimate authority figures?

Answer 62

1. We obey people at the top of a social hierarchy. Most societies are structured hierarchally. 2. Milgram believes that there is a shared expectation between most people that a situation has a social controlling figure. These are people in a certain position who hold power over the rest of us like parents, teachers, police officers and bouncers. 3. Individuals are more likely to obey someone seen as an authority figure, these people do not need specific traits, they have legitimate authority through perceived position in a social situation. E.G- In Milgram’s study participants entered the lab expecting there to be someone in control, when the experimenter presents themselves in a white lab coat with an air of authority this meets their expectations so they do not challenge this.

Question 63

What are the 2 points and example of why we obey ‘legitimate authority figures’?

Answer 63

1. We tend to hand control of our behaviour over to authority figures due to trust and upbringing. 2. People tend to accept definitions of situations provided by legitimate authority figures, although the individual is carrying out the action, it is the authority figure who defines its meaning. E.G- the participants could clearly see the great deal of pain the leaner was in but the experimenter, a legitimate authority, reassured them and told them it was fine.

Question 64

What is the point about where we obey legitimate authority figures?

Answer 64

In order for instructions that are potentially harmful or disruptive to be perceived as legitimate, they must occur within an institutional structure such as the military or a university.

Question 65

What is the evaluation for legitimate authority about bickman?

Answer 65

Bickman 1974 investigated the power of uniform in New York using a field study. He used 3 male actors one dressed as a milkman, one dressed as a security guard and one in ordinary clothes. They asked the members of the public to do 1 out of 3 instructions. Either to pick up a bag, to give someone money for a parking meter or to stand on the other side of a bus sign which said ‘no standing’. The security guard was obeyed on average 76% of times, the milkman 47% and the civilian 30%. This evidence suggests that people are more likely to obey when instructed by someone wearing a uniform. This could be because a uniform infers a sense of legitimate authority and power.

Question 66

What is the evaluation for legitimate authority about desensitisation?

Answer 66

Some people believe that rather than legitimacy of authority being responsible for some people’s cruelty it is the act of carrying out increasingly evil acts over time. For example, Lifton 1986 claims that doctors in Auschwitz changed gradually and irreversibly from individuals who wanted to care for people and help them get better to ones that wanted to carry out horrifying experiments. As seen in Milgrams for a double. Therefore, this research suggests that legitimacy of authority cannot fully explain obedience and that perhaps desensitisation is a better explanation.

Question 67

What is the evaluation for legitimacy of authority about innate desire to be cruel?

Answer 67

Some suggest that studies such as the SPE offer evidence that some people may just have the innate desire to be cruel and sadistic and that such situations bring this out. For example, in the SPE the guards were not allowed to physically abuse the prisoners but they did force them to do push ups and physically abuse themselves. Some of the guards even admitted after the experiment that they were sad it was over and that they enjoyed torturing the prisoners. This may have been because they enjoyed the feeling of power and didnt have anyone to answer to. This further research also suggests that legitimacy of authority cannot fully explain obedience and that the research might therefore lack predictive validity.

Question 68

What are the 2 points about the authoritarian personality?

Answer 68

1. After conducting research stimulated by the atrocities of WW2, Adorno et al 1950 felt that dispositional factors would better explain obedience than situational and so proposed the authoritarian personality. 2. The authoritarian personality= a distinct personality pattern characterised by a strict adherence to conventional values and belief in absolute obedience and submission to authority figures.

Question 69

What are the 3 points about the causes of authoritarian personality?

Answer 69

1. People with this personality type are usually brought up by parents with an authoritarian parenting styles for example using physical punishment and strictness. 2. They tend to assume that due to their families strong emphasis on obedience that this is the social norm through processes of learning and imitation. 3. Additionally, linking to Freud, Adorno suggested that the anger people felt towards their parents was displaced onto others such as minority groups.

Question 70

What is Adorno’s study for authoritarian personality?

Answer 70

The California F scale: - F stands for fascist - Investigated 2000 white middle class Americans on their unconscious attitudes to racial groups. - Included questions such as ‘obedience and respect for authority are the 2 most important virtues a child should learn’. And ‘nobody ever learnt anything important except from suffering”. FINDINGS: - Those with high scores tended to have authoritarian parents. - They identified with strong people and were contemptuous of the weak. - They were conscious of their own and other’s status and showed extreme respect to those of a higher status.

Question 71

Who is the other study for authoritarian personality?

Answer 71

Elms and Milgram 1966

Question 72

What was Elms and Milgram’s 1966 study?

Answer 72

1. They did a follow up study using the participants from Milgrams original study 2. Chose 20 obedient participants who went to 450 volts and 20 defiant participants who refused at some point. 3. They completed the MMPI and F scale and were asked open ended questions about their relationship with their parents during childhood and their attitudes towards the experimenter and learner. FINDINGS: 1. There were little difference between obedient and defiant in MMPI scale. 2. Obedient showed higher levels of authoritarianism 3. They did find significant differences between the 2 that were consistent with the idea of the authoritarian personality e.g obedient were more likely to report being less close with their dad during childhood and speak negatively of him. 4. Obedient clearly viewed the experimenter as more admirable and the learner less so which was not the case with the defiant.

Question 73

What is the evaluation for authoritarian personality about support?

Answer 73

There is support for the authoritarian personality as an explanation for obedience. For example, Elms and Milgram 1966 conducted a follow up study using 20 ‘obedient’ participants who went to the full 450 volts and 20 ‘defiant’ participants who refused at some point from Milgram’s original study. They found that the obedient participants did score higher on the F scale. Additionally, they found significant differences between the two. For example, the obedient participants were more likely to report not being close with their dad during childhood and clearly viewed the experimenter as more admirable than the learner which was not the case with the defiant participants. Therefore, it was concluded that the obedient participants from Milgram’s original experiment showed higher levels of authoritarianism.

Question 74

What is the double about elms and Milgram study about limiting it’s usefulness?

Answer 74

Although research by Elms and Milgram found evidence for the theory, there is also evidence that seems to limit the usefulness of the authoritarian personality theory in explaining all obedient behaviours. For example, when Milgram asked participants about their upbringing, most of the obedient participants stated that they had a good relationship with their families, rather than growing up in a strict family environment which is associated with the authoritarian personality. Additionally, Milgram stated that it seems implausible that given the large number of participants who obeyed in his original study (65%), that they would all have grown up in such a harsh environment with a punitive father. Therefore, Milgram is suggesting that there are other factors not just the authoritarian personality that may have influenced the participants to obey the instructions to authority or not.

Question 75

What is the evaluation about high authoritarianism being similar to a psychological disorder?

Answer 75

Adorno et al came to believe that a high degree of authoritarianism was similar to suffering from a psychological disorder, with the cause lying within the individual’s personality (nature), but originally caused by the treatment they received from their parents at a young age (nurture). This is suggesting that our obedient behaviour is therefore determined by our socialisation experiences and not a result of free will. However, some psychologists such as humanistic psychologists would dismiss these claims and argue that humans do have the capacity for free will and change and that these dispositional explanations for obedience are overly deterministic.

Question 76

What is the evaluation about less educated people are more authoritarian?

Answer 76

Another criticism is that research by Middendorp and Melloen 1990 generally found people who were less educated were consistently more authoritarian than more well educated people. Milgram also found that participants with less education were more obedient than those with higher levels of education. This suggests that rather than authoritarianism causing obedience, a lack of education may be responsible for both authoritarianism and obedience. As a result, any apparent causal relationship between authoritarianism and obedience may be more illusory than real.

Question 77

Who proposed the locus of control?

Answer 77

Rotter 1966

Question 78

What is the definition of locus of control?

Answer 78

Refers to the extent to which people believe they can control events affecting them. People’s beliefs differ in what they consider to determine the outcomes of their actions. For example, either what they do or events outside of their personal control.

Question 79

What is the definition of high internal locus and high external locus?

Answer 79

High internal= People believe that outcomes are within their control and are determined by their hard work, attributes and decisions. High external= People believe that outcomes are outside of their control and are heavily determined by fate, independent of their hard work and decisions.

Question 80

How does high internal locus of control explain resistance to conformity? How does high internal locus of control explain resistance to obedience?

Answer 80

1. Individuals with a high internal locus of control are more likely to resist conforming to group pressure as they believe in their ability to form independent judgements and decisions. Their sense of personal agency and responsibility encourages them to stand to by their convictions even under social pressure. 2. Individuals with a high internal locus of control are more likely to resist obeying an authority figure due to their sense of independence, self confidence and personal responsibility for their actions. They are willing to question orders of an authority figure, ultimately defying commands that conflict with their values and reasoning.

Question 81

What is the research evidence for high internal LOC decreasing obedience?

Answer 81

Oliner and Oliner 1998: They interviewed non-Jewish survivors of WW2 and compared individuals who resisted orders and protected Jews from the Nazis with those who didnt. They found that the 406 ‘rescuers’ were more likely to have an internal locus of control than the 126 who simply followed orders.

Question 82

What is the evaluation for locus of control about supporting evidence: Spector ?

Answer 82

There is evidence supporting the idea that individuals with an internal locus of control are more likely to resist conformity. For example, Spector 1983 used Rotter’s locus of control scale to determine whether locus of control is associated with conformity. He found that out of 157 students, those with a high internal locus of control were less likely to conform than those with a high external locus of control, but only in situations of normative social influence, conforming to be accepted. There were no differences found between the groups in situations of informational social influence. This suggests that normative social influence, desire to fit in, is more powerful than informational social influence, desire to be right, when considering locus of control. Therefore, individuals with a high internal locus of control are more likely to resist conformity due to their sense of personal agency and independence, but only in cases of normative social influence.