social influence explanations for obedience evaluation

Question 1

strength

Answer 1

supported by research findings
participants asked experimeter who would take responsibility for ant harm done to the learner and was reassured that the responsibility was the experimenters-showing agents state. they consequently continued to deliver the shocks. when the experimenter left the room they were much less likely to obey because they shifted to an autonomous state.

the ps obeyed destructive orders when they believe that they were not responsible for their acions.

Question 2

case study support

Answer 2

blass and scmidtt
showed students za film of milligrams study and found that they attributed responsibility for mr Wallace to the experimenter than the ps.
this means ps were seen to be in agents state and therefore not responsible for their actions.

Question 3

obedience alibi

Answer 3

mandel argues that agency theory has created this.
it is used to support idea holocaust perpetrators were only following orders, and has deflected attention away from them onto higher ranking nazi officers

this means they can be seen as passing the blame leading to people not being held accountable for their actions.

Question 4

limitation

Answer 4

cant be applied to all nazis behaviours
some were told they didn’t have yo shoot civilians in small town in Polands. des[ite this they obeyed original orders to shoot and kill

agency theory cant be used tp explain actions of police battalion in this case

Question 5

doesn’t account for individual differences

Answer 5

35 percent oof milligrams participants didnt obey the authority figure. if human beings. are social animals who have evolved in hierarchy’s they should.

means that personality c an have an effect on obedience.