Social Influence- Obedience

Question 1

Obedience

Answer 1

Following a direct order given by an authority figure

Question 2

GAD hypothesis

Answer 2

Germans Are Different hypothesis is that after WW2, due to the Holocaust, people believed that Germans were too obedient, which is why Nazis were able to indoctrinate others.

Question 3

Milgram (1963)

Answer 3

P- Lab experiment with a sample of 40 American, male, volunteers, aged 20-50
Participants allocated as ‘teacher’s and confederates acted as ‘learners’.
Learner sat on the other side of a wall, answering questions. The participant had to shock the learner when they got a question wrong.
Shocks went to 450V, the confederate began complaining at 300V.
A researcher in the room used verbal prods to prompt the participant into continuing
F- 100% went to 300V
65% went to 450V
12.5% left when the confederate complained

Question 4

Strengths of Milgram (1963)

Answer 4

Lab experiment- highly controlled environment and limited extraneous variables
High internal validity- standardised procedure using set prods used by researchers and set complaints from the confederate.

Question 5

Weaknesses of Milgram (1963)

Answer 5

Demand characteristics- may have been likely due to the lab setting and artificial environment
Ethics- protection from harm, informed consent, deception and right to withdraw
Low mundane realism as task was highly artificial
Biased sample- all American so cannot generalise

Question 6

Milgram’s variations

Answer 6

Proximity of victim
Proximity of authority
Location
Uniform
Presence of allies

Question 7

How did Milgram test proximity of victim

Answer 7

Condition 1- learner sat in the same room reduced obedience to 40%
Condition 2- touch proximity, teacher had to force the learner’s hand on a shock plate, reduced obedience to 30%

Question 8

How did Milgram test proximity of authority

Answer 8

The researcher left the room and gave verbal prods over the phone, reduced obedience to 20%

Question 9

How did Milgram test location

Answer 9

Changed location from Yale University to an office in Bridgeport, obedience reduced to 48%

Question 10

How did Milgram test uniform

Answer 10

Changed experimenter from wearing a lab coat to ordinary clothes, though gave the same verbal prods and prompts. Reduced obedience to 20%

Question 11

How did Milgram test presence of allies

Answer 11

The participant was joined by two confederates acting as teachers.
When confederates obeyed, obedience increased to 92.5%. When confederates disobeyed, obedience decreased to 10%.

Question 12

Explanations of obedience

Answer 12

Situational factors
Dispositional factors

Question 13

Situational factors affecting obedience

Answer 13

Agentic state
Legitimacy of authority

Question 14

Agentic state

Answer 14

Acting as an agent of authority figures, shifting responsibility to authority figures and following their orders

Question 16

Autonomous state

Answer 16

Making conscious choices using free will, taking responsibility for their own actions

Question 17

Agentic shift

Answer 17

The movement from autonomous to Agentic state

Question 18

Binding factors

Answer 18

Factors of a situation that allow people to minimise their behaviour when in an Agentic state

Question 19

Limitations of Agentic state theory

Answer 19

Individual differences- participants in Milgram and Zimbardo may have been showing cruel sides of their personalities rather than all acting as an agent of authority.

Real life obedience may not be due to an instant shift but rather doing cruel acts changing behaviour and cognition

Question 20

Legitimacy of authority

Answer 20

Suggests people obey when an authority is higher on the social hierarchy

Authority needs to be supported by an institutional framework

Question 21

Which Milgram variations show legitimacy of authority

Answer 21

Location
Uniform

Question 22

Limitation of situational explanation of obedience

Answer 22

Ignores dispositional factors- Milgram only saw 65% obedience, so other 35% not explained

Question 23

Dispositional explanation for obedience

Answer 23

Adorno’s Authoritarian personality

Question 24

Authoritarian personality

Answer 24

People who strictly adhere to values and believe in absolute obedience and submission to authority

Question 25

Characteristics of authoritarian personality

Answer 25

Aware of social hierarchy
Look down on people with low status
Obeying authority figures

Question 26

Causes of authoritarian personality

Answer 26

Having strict, abusive parents Experiencing conditional love Creating resentment which is displaced onto others, typically of lower social standings

Question 27

F-scale

Answer 27

Questionnaire which measures authoritarian personality

Question 28

Supporting studies for Adorno’s authoritarian personality

Answer 28

Adorno et al (1950) Elms and Milgram (1966) Begue (2014)

Question 29

Adorno et al (1950)

Answer 29

P- 2000, middle class, white Americans. Completed a number of questionnaires including the F-scale which measured facing tendencies. F- Ps who scored highly on the F-scale and other questionnaires self-reported as ‘strong’ and showed disrespect towards ‘weak’ people. Authoritarian people had a particular cognitive style which stereotyped people into categories. Strong positive correlation between authoritarianism and prejudice.

Question 30

Limitations of Adorno et al

Answer 30

Sample- cultural bias with white Americans, also all same social class so may all look down on lower classes F-scale has low face validity

Question 31

Elms and Milgram (1966)

Answer 31

P- 40 participants previously involved in Milgram (1963). 20 were obedient and 20 were defiant. Completed a personality questionaire along with an F-scale to measure authoritarianism. Also interviewed about upbringing and childhood. F- Little difference between obedient and defiant participants when looking at personality scores but higher levels of authoritarianism on F-scale for obedient participants.

Question 32

Moral strain

Answer 32

Psychological stress when Agentic behaviour goes against morals