SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY - OBEDIENCE Flashcards
KA3 January 2025 (48 cards)
1
Q
4
What are the key assumptions of Social Psychology?
A
- Assumes other people can affect our behaviour
- Suggests that social situations can affect our behaviour
- Being in groups in society also affects our behaviour. We respond to people differently based on the group they’re in. We tend to favour those who are members of our group
- The roles that we play in society can affect our behaviour
2
Q
What is Social Psychology?
A
Study of how people’s behaviours can be influenced by others.
3
Q
What is a social role?
A
Expectations, responsibilities and behaviours we adopt in certain situations
4
Q
4 marker (Describe) structure
A
PE X2
OR
P X4
5
Q
Obedience definition
A
A form of social influence. Obeying direct orders from someone in authority.
6
Q
Compliance definition
A
Going along with what someone says but not necessarily agreeing with it.
7
Q
Dissenting definition
A
Rejecting orders
8
Q
Internalising definition
A
Obeying, with agreement
9
Q
Conformity definition
A
Adopting the behaviours and attitudes of those around you.
10
Q
Autonomy
A
Acting on one’s own free will
11
Q
Moral strain
A
Experiencing anxiety because you are asked to do something agains your own moral judgement.
12
Q
Pilot study of Milgram’s 1963 Behavioural Study on Obedience
A
Milgram described the experimental situation to a sample of psychiatrists, students and middle-class adults. He asked them to predict - it was predicted that most Americans would stop before the 150 volt shock level and that no more than 4% would continue to 450 volts.
13
Q
Aim of Milgram’s 1963 study
A
To see if volunteer participants would be similarly obedient to inhumane orders; how far would they go in giving electric shocks to another
14
Q
Procedure of Milgram’s 1963 study
A
- Advertisement + direct mail, recruiting sample of 40 men in area of Conneticut. Mix of ages and occupations. $4 fof participation.
- Each participant invited to individual meeting at Yale Uni
- Participants told that the study was on how punishment affected learning.
- One teacher, one learner. P introduced to confederate acting as another P. Rigged drawing; P was always teacher.
- P convinced that shock machine genuine - learner strapped to electric chair and given sample shock of 45v. Fake shocks throughout whole study.
- Teacher went into another room, where he couldn’t see learner but could hear him.
- Teacher was to read a pair of words to learner and then read first word of pair along with 4 terms. Learner had to indicate which of 4 terms is correct.
- Wrong answer = shock. Every time learner provided wrong answer = increase shock voltage.
- 15-450 volts : ‘Slight shock’, ‘danger’, ‘XXX’.
- Preset learner responses: Protesting at 300v (pounding on wall). After, learner stayed silent but continuing to pound wall.
- Teacher told to treat silence as wrong response.
- Experimenter prods:
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.” - After procedure participants were interviewed using open questions and attitude scales. Debriefing proccess. P were reassured that their behaviour was normal and justifiable.
Andocentric study - focused on men
15
Q
Results of Milgram’s 1963 study
A
- 100% of P’s obeyed to 300 volts
- 14 P’s stopped before 450 volts
- 65% continued to max of 450 volts
- Visible signs of distress shown: protest, nervous twitching, nervous laughing. Some remained calm throughout
16
Q
Possible reasons why participants obeyed:
A
- Prestigious reputation of Yale Uni, therefore P’s believed something unethical is unlikely to occur
- Study seemed to have a worthy cause
- Learner agreed to take part in study
- Participant made committment and volunteered
- Participants felt obligation as was paid (+ volunteered)
17
Q
GRAVE
Evaluation of Milgram’s Study
A
G - Cannot be generalised; Sample consisted of white American men. Unrepresentative.
R - Standardised procedure = replication. Can be applied cross-cultrually. Ethical problems cause difficulty in replicability
A - Understanding historical events and human behaviours + capacity for resistance
V - Lack of ecological validity. Supported and given credibility by Milgram’s variation studies
E - Study extremey deceived participants (although necessary evil for sake of study) and caused them severe stress. Right to withdraw was offered but this could be argued to be violated by the verbal prods used by the experimenter.
Generalisability, Reliability, Application, Validity, Ethics
Fairly objective; Standardised procedure and collection of quantitative, measurable data
18
Q
Milgram’s variation studies
A
- Variation 7 - telephonic instructions
- Variation 10 - rundown office block
- Variation 13 - Ordinary man giving instructions
19
Q
Variation 7
Telephonic instructions study
A
- Does having the experimenter physically present in the room affect the level of obedience?
- IV = proximity of experimenter
- After giving instructions in person, experimenter left room and gave further instructions over telephone
- Number of P’s continuing to max voltage dropped from 65% to 22.5%
- Some P’s chose to repeatedly administer lower voltage shocks rather than increasing + lied to experimenter about this
- If experimenter returned, P would become obedient again
Shows that distance acts as a buffer to obedience. The closer the authority figure, the higher the level of obedience
20
Q
Evaluation of Variation 7
Telephonic instructions study
A
- Only one variation, allowing comparison of effects by manipulating IV which shows cause + effect
- P’s may not have believed shocks were real, expecting reputable uni to protect P’s. This means validity may be low
- Not a natrual situation
21
Q
Variation 10
Rundown office block study
A
- Does the setting of the study influence obedience?
- Industrial part of Bridgeport town
- Three, sparesely furnished rooms used
- Dissasociated from Yale Uni
- P’s told study is being conducted by research body called ‘Research Associates of Bridgeport’ - private company
- Same procedures as original study
- Reduction of obedience: 47.5% gave max voltage
Suggests that less reputable setting reduces legitimacy of study. Supported by debriefing, when P’s said they questioned the credidentials of the company upon arrival
22
Q
Evaluation of Variation 10
Rundown office block study
A
- Only one variation, allowing comparison of effects by manipulating IV which shows cause + effect
- Use of office block increases mundane realism. Increase of ecological validity.
- Set-up still scientific rather that everyday - still fairly low in mundane realism (shock generators etc)
23
Q
Variation 13
Ordinary man gives orders
A
- Does the authority and status of the experimenter influence obedience?
- 3 people arrived at labaratory: 1 P and 2 confederates
- Rigged draw: P = teacher. C1 = learner. C2 = role of recording times from experimenter’s desk
- Usual procedure, but experimenter did not tell teacher levels of shock to give
- Experimenter received rigged phone call and left room. Teacher told to continue with assigned tasks.
- C2 (recorder) suggested that a good way of teaching learner is to increase shock voltage each time learner was wrong. Repeated this in persuasive and insistent way throughout experiment.
- 80% broke off before max voltage. 20% obedience rate.
Concludes that authoritative level + status of experimenter increases obedience
24
Q
Evaluation of Variation 13
Ordinary man gives orders
A
- Withdrawal of experimenter seemed staged + fake. May undermine credibility
- Only one variation, allowing comparison of effects by manipulating IV which shows cause + effect
- P saw C draw lots, reinforcing idea that he is ordinary man. Increases validity
- P’s may not have believed shocks were real, expecting reputable uni to protect P’s. This means validity may be low
25
# Standardised procedures
Evaluation of Milgram's variation studies
Use of **standardised procedures** meant that study could be **replicated** in different circumstances. By keeping everything the same and **manipulating 1 variable**, **cause + effect** can be inferred. This increases **scientific credibility.**
26
# Which study had the highest and lowest obedience rate.
Conclusions and results from Milgram's studies
* Original study had highest obedience rate
* Variation 13 (ordinary man) had lowest obedience rates
* Participants are more obedient when there's an authoritative figure present + conducted at a reputable place
* Variations support Milgram's OG study, giving it credibility
27
Methodological issues of Milgam's studies
* Highly **standardised** + controlled
* Each P **debrief**ed
* **Objective qualitative and quantitative data** gathered, making research highly **credible** in terms of being **scientific**
* Small sample is **unrepresentative **and cannot be generalised
* **Volunteer sampling** = P's are more likely to be compliant
* Laboratory setting = unrealistic, low **mundane realism** and **ecological validity**
28
Studies supporting Milgram's experiment
* *Milgram's variation studies*
* *Hofling et al. 1966* (nurses obeying doctors) - tackles critisism of low mundane realism in Milgram's study
* *Burger (2009)* - tackles the problem of Milgram's androcentric study. The study indicates that women are equally obedient.
29
# %
What level of obedience did Milgram's OG study show?
65%
30
What level of obedience did Milgram's Variation 7 study show?
| Telephonic Instructions Study
22.5%
31
What level of obedience did Milgram's Variation 10 study show?
| Rundown Office Building
47.5%
32
What level of obedience did Milgram's Variation 13 study show?
| Ordinary man gives instructions
20%
33
What does Milgram's Social Agency Theory suggest?
## Footnote
1973-1974
People's tendency to obey helps keep society running smoothly.
People have two states: autonomous state and agentic state
34
Autonomous state
Person believes they have power and freely choses their own behaviour. Guided by their own moral code.
35
Agentic state
Person allows someone else to direct their behaviour. Assume that because some else is directing them, the other is responsible for the consequences of their behaviour. May lead to them acting **against their own moral code**. Person gives up their free will in order to serve society. Milgram suggests that this state can be explained by **evolution**, as a **survival strategy**. Agentic state helps society run smoothly. Learned from childhood by teachers and parents and reinforced in adulthood by legal state.
36
Milgram suggests that people experience _ _ _ _ _ when they act against their own moral code.
Moral strain
37
Sources of moral strain in Milgram's experiments were:
* P's hearing the cries of learner
* P's fearing retaliation of learner
* Going against their moral values
* Conflict between needs of learner and experimenter
38
What reduces moral strain?
Displacing responsibility onto authority (shifting into agentic state) or dissenting.
39
Evidence for Milgram's Agency Theory
| Evaluation
* Concept of **moral strain** supported; participants showed evidence of distress
* Provides evidence for concept of **displacement of responsibility**; in debriefing, some P's reported that their behaviour was the responsibility of the experimenter
* Supported by other research; **Hofling et al (1966)**
40
Evidence against Milgram's Agency Theory
| Evaluation
* Lacks direct evidence; agency is an internal mental process and therefore cannot be directly observed + evolutionary theory of development cannot be directly tested. Low in **validity**.
* Theory is more of a description than an explanation
41
Evaluation of methodology in Milgram's Agency Theory
* **Standardised procedures **used; can be **replicated** in different circumstances/ changing a variable. Allows us to infer **cause + effect** = increases **scientific credibility**
* Explains the different levels of obedience found in variations of the OG study
* Lacked **mundane realism** - shocking someone is not an everyday task. Lacks **ecological validity** and doesn't **generalise.**
42
Evaluation of application of Milgram's Agency Theory
* *Explains real life events* such as the WW's and military obedience to authority in doing inhumane tasks
* *Studies from different cultures approve* eg. Meeus and Raajmaker
* Can be applied to real life eg. Hofling et al. 1966
* Does not explain **individual difference**
43
Alternative theory to Milgram's Agency Theory
**French and Raven 1990** explains *motivational issues* behind obedience, that Milgram's AT doesn't.
5 bases of power identified, said to influence + motivate behaviour: legitimate, reward, referent, expert and coercive power.
**Social Agency Theory.**
44
Social Impact Theory
**Latane 1981**. How likely we are to be influenced by others. *Presence of others causes behavioural/cognitive/emotional changes in a person.*
Person being impacted on = ***target***. Person influencing = ***source***.
Likelihood that person will respond to social influence increased with:
**Strength**: determined by ***status, authority, age***.*Perrin + Spencer* found that probation officers have high levels of influence of those under probation; high level of authority.
**Immediacy**: *distance between source and target at time of influence attempt*
**Number**: how many sources + targets there are.
S+I+N can have multiplicative effect (*multiplication of impact*)
*Division of impact* = social influence becomes weaker if target has ally
45
Evidence for SIT
| Evalutaion
* *Supported by research* (Milgram, Latane - provide evidence for impact of s+i+n).
* Divisional effect supported + demonstrated by Milgram's variational study where two peers rebel against instructions of authority
* Milgram's Variation 7 supports proximity as an obedience factor
* Sedikides + Jackson 1990 - obeying a uniformed zoo keeper
46
Evidence against SIT
| Evaluation
* Ignores *individual differences*. Does not explain why some of us are more resistant to social impact
* Doesn't explain *why* people are influenced, just under what conditions they're more likely to be influenced
47
Evaluation of SIT methodology
* *Lab + field* experiments; increase **scientific credibility**. **Standardised procedures** + controls used allowing **cause + effect** links
* Analysing people's obedience using math formula can be considered **reductionist**
48
Application of SIT
| Evaluation
* Reliable if same measurements put in formula
* Doesn't take into account relationship between target + source and how they interact
