social influence - obedience Flashcards
(96 cards)
1
Q
define obedience
A
a form of social influence that is a direct response to an order from another person
2
Q
why did milgram investigate obedience?
A
-he examined justifications for acts of genocide offered by those accused at the WWII, nuremberg war criminal trials
-their defense often was based on obedience - they were just following orders from their superiors
3
Q
when did milgrams experiments begin?
A
july 1961,
4
Q
define situational attribution
A
suggests that a person’s behaviour is caused by the environment / situation they are in
5
Q
define dispositional attribution
A
suggests a person’s behaviour is caused by something about themselves, such as their personality
6
Q
what was the aim of milgrams study?
A
to investigate whether ordinary people would obey an unjust order from an authority figure and injure an innocent person
7
Q
how did milgram collect his participants?
A
-recruited through a newspaper advert
-all volunteers were paid $4.50 to take part
8
Q
who were the participants in milgram’s study?
A
40 male american participants
9
Q
where did milgram’s study take place?
A
-ppts were invited to a laboratory at yale uni where they met the experimenter and another participant (who were both confederates)
10
Q
how were the roles assigned in milgram’s study?
A
-they ‘drew lots’ to see who would be assigned to each role within the study
-this was fixed so that the real ppt was always the teacher
11
Q
what was the ppt in milgram’s study told to do & told about the learner?
A
-administer an electric shock of increasing strength to the ‘learner’ every time he made a mistake when recalling a list of word pairs
-told that the learner had heart issues
12
Q
method of milgram’s study:
A
-the learner was strapped by the arms into a chair in the room next door
-a shock was demonstrated to the teacher to make the ‘shocks’ appear real
-the ppt needed to test the learner’s ability to recall pairs of words
-each time the learner got an answer wrong, the teacher administered an electric shock of increasing voltage, starting at 15 volts going up in intervals of 15 to 450 volts
13
Q
how long did milgram’s experiment last?
A
1) until either the participant refused to continue
2) until the maximum level of 450 volts, labelled ‘danger severe shock’, was reached.
14
Q
what happened if the ppt tried to stop milgram’s study?
A
the experimenter would respond with a series of verbal prods
15
Q
example of a verbal prod:
A
-the experiment requires that you continue
-you have no other choice you must go on
16
Q
labels of electric shocks:
A
35 volts - strong shock
255 Volts- intense shock
375 volts- danger-severe shock
455 volts- XXX
17
Q
learner’s fake responses:
A
105 volts- makes a little grunt
180 volts - shouts “I can’t stand the pain”
315 volts- lets out a violent scream
18
Q
results of milgram’s study
A
-all of the participants went to at least 300 volts
-65% continued and administered the full 450 volts
-qualitative observations: ppts showed signs of distress and tension = sweating, stuttering
19
Q
what did milgram conclude from his study?
A
under the right situational circumstances, ordinary people will obey unjust orders from someone perceived to be a legitimate authority figure
20
Q
ao3 strengths of milgram’s study:
A
-results are reflected by other studies
21
Q
ao3 weaknesses of milgram’s study:
A
-lack ecoval
-lacks popval
-lacks internal validity
22
Q
ao3 milgram strength: support from another case study
A
hofling et al:
P - high external validity
E - ppts were 22 nurses who were unaware that a study was taking place
↳ the nurses received a phone call whilst they were working from a ‘dr smith’ who told them to give 20mg of astrofen to a patient on the ward
↳ this was twice the maximum dose stated on the bottle, and could have been very harmfulto the patient
↳ 21 out of the 22 nurses attempted to give the medication
L - reflects real life
23
Q
ao3 milgram weakness: ethical issues
A
P - one criticism of Milgram’s study is that it broke several ethical guidelines
E - milgram deceived his ppts, they thought they were taking part in a study on how punishment affects learning, rather than on obedience
↳ they were also deceived by the rigging of the role allocation that was in fact pre-determined
↳ milgram didn’t protect the ppts from psychological harm, many of them showed signs of real distress during the experiment and may have continued to feel guilty following the experiment
L - this is an issue because some critics of milgram believed that these breaches could damage the reputation of psychology
24
Q
ao3 milgram weakness: lacks ecoval
A
P - lacks ecological validity
E - milgram conducted a lab study, which is very different from real-life situations of obedience
↳ in everyday life we obey far more harmless instructions, rather than giving people electric shocks
L - we are unable to generalise his findings to real-life situations of obedience and cannot conclude that people would obey less severe instructions to the same degree
25
ao3 weakness - lacks popval
P - lacks population validity
E - milgram used a biased sample of 40 male american volunteers from a broadly individualistic society
↳ we can’t generalise the results to other populations (collectivist cultures, females)
↳ can’t be said that those with other cultural experiences, or female participants, would respond in a similar way to that observed originally by milgram
COUNTER: milgram repeated his study with females and found 65% obedience
26
ao3 weakness - internal validity has been criticised
P - internal validity of Milgram's study has also been criticised
E - orne and Holland propose that so many of the participants went to the higher voltages because they did not believe the shocks to be real and they weren’t fooled by the experimental set-up
↳ a recent review of the original tape recordings reports that many more of the participants vocalise doubt about the genuine nature of the electric shocks
L - this means that milgram may not have been testing what he intended to investigate, lowering the internal validity
27
the situational factors of obedience:
-proximity
-location
-uniform
28
what is proximity? (milgram)
how close you are to someone or something
29
3 ways proximity variated in milgram’s study:
-how close the teacher & learner are
-how close the teacher & experimenter are
-touch proximity
30
teacher and learner variation of milgram’s study (proximity)
-teacher and learner were seated in the
same room
-the percentage of ppts who administered the full 450 volts dropped from 65% to 40%
-obedience levels fell, as the teacher was able to understand the learner's pain more directly
31
teacher and experimenter variation of milgram’s study (remote proximity)
-the experimenter left the room and gave the instructions over the telephone
-obedience levels fell to 20.5%
-many ppts pretended to administer shocks
32
touch proximity
-the teacher forced the learners hand onto an electro shock plate
-obedience fell to 30%
33
what is location? (milgram)
where the study takes place
34
location variation
-milgram conducted his original research in a lab of yale uni
-milgram conducted a variation in a rundown building in connecticut
-the percentage of participants who administered the full 450 volts dropped from 65% to 47.5%
-highlighting the importance of location in creating a prestigious atmosphere generating respect and obedience
35
why did the change in location reduce obedience?
-the change in location reduced the legitimacy of the authority as ppts were less likely to trust the experimenter
36
uniform variation (milgram)
-in most of milgram's variations, the experimenter wore a grey lab coat, indicating his status as a university professor or scientist
-the experimenter was called away and replaced by another participant in casual clothes pretending to be an ordinary member of the public, who was another confederate
-in this variation, the man in ordinary clothes came up with the idea of increasing the voltage every time the learner made a mistake
-the percentage of ppts who administered the full 450 volts dropped from 65% to 20%, demonstrating the dramatic power that uniform can have on levels of obedience
37
ao3: milgram’s variations strengths
-there is research support for how uniform affects obedience rates
-baseline study & variations have been replicated in other cultures with similar results
-methodological approach
38
ao3: milgram’s variations weaknesses
-milgram’s findings are an obedience alibi
-variations lack interval validity
39
milgram’s variation strengths: support for uniform variation
P - there is research support for the role of the situational variable of uniform affecting obedience rates
E - field experiment in NYC where confederates stood on the street and asked members of the public who were passing by to perform a small task such as picking up a piece of litter or providing a coin for the parking meter
↳ outfit that the confederate was wearing varied from a smart suit jacket and tie, a milkman's outfit or a security guard's uniform
↳ in guards uniform, members of the public were twice as likely to obey the order
L - supports milgram's idea that a uniform adds to the legitimacy of the authority figure and is a situational variable which increases obedience levels
40
milgram’s variation strengths: baseline studies & variations have been replicated similarly
P - both milgram's baseline study, and his variations have been replicated in other cultures and have found similar results
E - found over 90% obedience in spanish students
↳ this suggest that milgram's findings are not limited to american males, but are valid across all cultures (& women)
L - milgram’s study has high pop val
COUNTER:
↳ other psychologists note that most replications have taken place in western societies, culturally not that different from the USA
↳ it is premature to conclude that Milgram's findings about proximity, location and uniform apply to people everywhere
41
milgram’s variation strength: methodological approach
P - methodological approach: systematically changing one variable at a time in his experiments & investigating the effect of variations on obedience can be praised for having high reliability and validity
E - since milgram had high control over these variations it was possible to closely monitor the effect each was having on obedience rates
↳ standardised methods
↳ over 1,000 participants took part across all studies, more representative
L - this control gives us more certainty that changes in obedience were caused by the manipulated variable, showing cause and effect relationships.
↳ the ability to replicate allows reliability to be established
42
milgram’s variation weaknesses: may lack internal validity
P - milgram's variations may lack internal validity
E - suggest ppts in Milgram's variations were even more likely to realise the procedure was faked because of the extra experimental manipulation
↳ in the variation where the experimenter was replaced by a member of the public, even milgram recognised this was so contrived that some ppts may have worked it out
L - it is unclear whether the results are due to obedience or because the ppts saw the deception and "play acted" and acted on the demand characteristics
↳ please you
↳ casts doubts on the findings of research into obedience
43
milgram’s variation weaknesses: milgram’s findings give an obedience alibi
P - milgram’s findings give an obedience alibi
E - milgram’s conclusion focuses on situational attributes
↳ people consider a situational perspective of the holocaust offensive
↳ it removes personal responsibility from perpetrators
L - trivialises genocide, criticism of the study
44
define agentic state
a mindset which allows us to carry out orders from an authority figure, even if they conflict with our morals
(act as an agent for an authority figure)
45
define autonomous state
where individuals act on their own behalf and take responsibility for the consequences of their actions
46
define moral strain
a state of mental discomfort /anxiety experienced in the agentic state when a person's actions conflict with their morality
47
define legitimacy of authority
the perceived right of an authority figure to have power and control over others
48
which 2 explanations of obedience are there?
-situational
-dispositional
49
explain agency theory
-suggests that we are socialised from a very young age to follow the **rules** of society
-for this to happen, a person needs to surrender some of their free will
50
why do authority figures have greater power than other people?
because they have a higher position in a social hierarchy
51
what happens in most social groups when someone is in charge?
when one person is in charge others defer responsibility to **the legitimate authority** of this person and shift from autonomous state to agentic state
52
what is it called when someone switches from the autonomous state to the agentic state?
agentic shift
53
evidence of the agentic state from milgram’s study:
-in milgram's original experiment, 65% of participants administered the full 450 volts and were arguably in an agentic state
-in one variation of milgram's experiment, an additional confederate administered the electric shocks on behalf of the teacher
-the percentage of ppts who administered the full 450 volts rose dramatically, from 65% to 92.5%, which **highlights the power of shifting responsibility to another person by having them act as the agent**
54
what are binding factors?
keep people in the agentic state
55
what can keep us in the agentic state + examples?
binding factors
↳ fear of increasing our levels of anxiety by disobeying
56
what can binding factors do for behaviour?
they help us justify & rationalise our unjust behaviour
57
ao3 of the agentic state: strengths
-milgram's research gives support for agentic state theory
58
ao3 of the agentic state: weaknesses
-some research conflicts the idea of the agentic state leading to obedience
-other cases could better be explained by personality
59
agentic state strength: milgram's research gives support for agentic state theory
P - milgram's research gives support for agentic state theory as an explanation for obedience
E - most of milgram's participants resisted giving the shocks at some point & often asked the experimenter questions about the procedure
↳ eg: " who is responsible if the learner is harmed?"
↳ when the experimenter replied “i'm responsible", the participants often went through the rest of the shocks fairly quickly with no further objections
L - this shows that once participants perceived they were no longer responsible for their own behaviour, they acted more easily as the experimenters agent, supporting agentic state as an explanation of obedience
60
agentic state weakness: the agentic shift does not explain the findings from all research
P - the agentic shift does not explain the findings from all research
E - rank and Jacobsen found 16 out of 18 hospital nurses disobeyed orders from a doctor to administer an excessive dose of a drug to a patient
↳ the doctor was an obvious authority figure
↳ almost all the nurses remained autonomous, as did many of milgram's participants
L - suggests that agentic state can only account for some situations of obedience or all the ppts would have obeyed
61
agentic state weakness: other cases could better be explained by personality
S - other cases could better be explained by the authoritarian personality
E - some ppts did not obey - humans are social animals in social hierarchies and therefore should all obey
↳ in Hofling's nurse study, the nurses should have shown anxiety as they gave responsibility over to the doctor, because they understood their role in a destructive process / this was not the case.
L - agentic shift can only account for some situations of obedience and obedience may be due to personality instead e.g. authoritarian personality
62
how are most societies structured?
hierarchically
63
what does a hierarchical structure mean? (+ examples)
that people in certain positions hold **authority** over the rest of us
↳ teachers, police
64
why is the authority that figures have legitimate?
-it is agreed by society
-most of us accept the authority figure because this allows society to function smoothly
65
what is a consequence for legitimacy of authority?
-people are granted the power to punish others (e.g police and courts have the power to punish wrongdoers)
-we hand control of our behaviour over to people we trust to exercise their authority appropriately
66
when do we learn to accept the of legitimacy of authority?
from childhood, from parents initially and then teachers and adults generally
67
evidence of the legitimacy of authority in milgram’s study
-milgram believed that, by following the instructions that were given by the experimenter, the participants were recognising the legitimate authority of the researcher
-in milgram's original research, which took place at the prestigious yale university, the percentage of participants administering the full 450 volts was 65%. -however, when the experiment was replicated in a rundown building in, obedience levels dropped to 47.5%
-this change in location reduced the legitimacy of the authority, as participants were less likely to trust the experiment, and the power of the authority figure was diminished
68
what is destructive authority?
when authorities use their **legitimate** powers for destructive purpose
69
issues of the destructive personality
when legitimate authority becomes destructive leaders in history (hitler) they can use their legitimate powers to order people to behave cruelly (for destructive purposes)
70
example of destructive authority in milgram’s study:
-the experimenter uses prods to order ppts to behave in ways that went against their morals
71
ao3 strengths of the legitimacy of authority:
-the legitimacy of authority explanation has research support
-legitimacy of authority is a useful account of cultural differences in obedience
72
ao3 limitations of the legitimacy of authority:
-legitimacy of authority can’t explain of disobedience in a hierarchy where the legitimacy of authority is clear and accepted
73
legitimacy of authority strength: has research support
S - the legitimacy of authority explanation has research support
E - students were showed a film of milgram's study and asked to identify who was responsible for harm to the learner
↳ students blamed the 'experimenter' rather than the participant
↳ this responsibility was due to legitimate authority figure (experimenter was a scientist)
L - the students recognised legitimate authority as the cause of obedience supporting this explanation
74
legitimacy of authority strength: a useful to explain cultural differences in obedience
S - legitimacy of authority is a useful account of cultural differences in obedience
E - countries differ in obedience to authority: only 16% of female australians went to the top of the voltage scale; 85% of germans did
↳ this cross-cultural comparison shows that different societies follow different hierarchical structures and children may be socialised differently from a young age to be more, or less, obedient towards figures who are viewed as legitimate within that specific culture
L - this means legitimacy of authority has real life applications and is valid as an explanation for obedience
75
legitimacy of authority weakness: cannot explain disobedience in a hierarchy where the legitimacy of authority is clear & accepted
S - legitimacy of authority cannot explain disobedience in a hierarchy where the legitimacy of authority is clear & accepted
E - rank and jacobsen found 16 out of 18 hospital nurses disobeyed orders from a doctor to administer an excessive dose to a patient
↳ most were disobedient despite working in a rigid hierarchal authority structure
L - LoA cannot account for all situations of obedience and perhaps there may be other factors, such as personality
76
what is the authoritarian personality?
a personality characterised by strict adherence to conventional values & a belief in absolute obedience or submission to authority
77
what has the authoritarian personality been associated with?
higher levels of obedience
78
who is the main figure of the authoritarian personality key study?
adorno
79
when did adorno believe the authoritarian personality formed?
-in childhood, mostly as a result of harsh parenting & strict discipline
-an expectation of absolute loyalty and **impossibly** high standards
-severe criticism of perceived failings
-parents give conditional (dependent on behaviour) love
80
what does the childhood of a person with an authoritarian personality lead to?
-resentment and hostility in a child
-the child cannot express these feelings directly against their parents, so they displace them onto others who they perceive as weaker & lower than them (scapegoating)
81
what is scapegoating & what approach does it relate to?
-displacing anger onto those they perceive lower than them
↳ psychodynamic explanation
82
characteristics of the authoritarian personality:
-belief in traditional ideas
-hostility towards other groups
-dogmatic
83
who were the participants in adorno’s study?
2,000 middle-class caucasian americans
84
the aim of adornos study:
to find out the unconscious views of middle class caucasian americans towards other groups (1950)
85
method of adorno’s study:
-adorno et al developed a number of questionnaires including one called the F-scale, which measures fascist tendencies (as fascism is thought to be at the core of the AP)
86
define fascism
characterized by a dictatorial leader, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy
87
examples of items from the f-scale:
-'obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtues children should learn'
-'homosexuals are hardly better than criminals and ought to be severely punished'
88
findings from adorno’s study
ppl who scored high on the f-scale and the other questionnaires…
identified with 'strong' people and showed disrespect towards the 'weak’
-were status-conscious
-showed excessive respect to those in higher power
89
what did adorno find out about people with the authoritarian personality and prejudice?
-authoritarian people had a particular cognitive style
-this categorised other people into specific stereotypical categories, leading to a strong correlation between authoritarianism and prejudice
90
conclusion of adorno’s study: beliefs of those with AP
individuals with an authoritarian personality were…
-more obedient to authority figures and showed an extreme submissiveness and respect
-uncomfortable with uncertainty, with everything being seen as either right or wrong (inflexible)
-they believe that society requires strong leadership to enforce rigid, traditional values
91
ao3 strengths of adorno’s study:
-there is research support for the authoritarian personality as an explanation for obedience
92
ao3 weaknesses of adorno’s study:
-individual differences may contribute to the development of the authoritarian personality
-explanation is limited
-methodological criticisms
93
adorno strength: there is research support for the authoritarian personality as an explanation for obedience
P - there is research support for the authoritarian personality as an explanation for obedience
E - milgram and elms did post-experimental interviews with participants who were fully obedient in milgram's original study, to see if there was a link between high levels of obedience and an authoritarian personality
↳ it was found that the obedient participants scored higher on the F-scale in comparison to the disobedient participants
↳ the obedient participants were less close to their fathers during childhood and admired the experimenter in milgram's study, which was quite the opposite for disobedient participants
L - supports the theory of AP as an explanation for obedience
COUNTER:
-this link is just a correlation between measured variables
we cannot conclude from this that authoritarian personality causes obedience (a 'third' factor may be involved)
-both obedience and authoritarian personality may be caused by another factor e.g. lower level of education
94
adorno weakness: individual differences can contribute to the development of the authoritarian personality
S - individual differences can contribute to the development of the authoritarian personality
E - research has found that less-educated people are more likely than well-educated people to display authoritarian personality characteristics
L - it is possible to conclude that it is not authoritarian personality characteristics alone that lead to obedience, but levels of education
95
adorno weakness: the authoritarian personality is limited
P - the authoritarian personality is limited
E - millions in germany were anti-semitic & racist but they didn’t all have the same personality
↳ an alternative explanation is social identity theory most germans identified with the anti semetic nazi status
L - AP can’t explain all obedience
96
adorno weakness: methodological criticisms
P - there may be methodological criticisms with the measures used to determine authoritarian personality traits
E - the F-scale suffers from response bias or social desirability, where ppts give
answers that are socially acceptable
↳ participants may appear more authoritarian because they believe that their answers are the socially 'correct' and consequently they are incorrectly classified as authoritarian when they are not
L - reduces the internal validity of the questionnaire research method used in determining the degree of authoritarianism
