1
Q
Outline agentic state theory
A
- AGENTIC STATE - person acts on behalf of an authority figure as an agent. Agent feels no responsibility for their actions
- AUTONOMOUS STATE - person acts on their own principles and feels responsible for their actions
- AGENTIC SHIFT - shift from autonomy to agent. According to Milgram, this occurs when we perceive someone else as an authority figure because of their position in the social hierarchy
- BINDING FACTORS - aspects of a situation that allow a person to ignore the damaging effects of their behaviour and reduce the “moral strain” they feel, e.g. shifting responsibility to the victims or denying damage being done to the victims
2
Q
Outline legitimacy of authority
A
- SOCIAL HIERARCHY - people in certain positions hold authority over others, e.g. teachers, police, parents due to their position on the social hierarchy
- LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY - most of us accept that authority figures should exercise power over others to allow society to function properly
- CONTROL - authority figures have the power to punish others. We give up some independence to people we trust to exercise authority properly. We learn to accept authority during childhood through parents and teachers
- DESTRUCTIVE AUTHORITY - history has shown that leaders, e.g. Hitler and Pol Pot use legitimate authority destructively, ordering people to behave in cruel ways
3
Q
Agentic state theory has research support. How is this a strength?
A
- Most of Milgram’s participants asked the Experimenter who was responsible if the learner is harmed
- Experimenter said he was responsible - participants went through the procedure with no objections
- This shows participants acted more easily as an agent when they believed they were not responsible for their actions
4
Q
Rank and Jacobson found that agentic shift doesn’t explain many research findings. How is this a weakness?
A
- Rank and Jacobson found 21 / 22 nurses disobeyed a doctor’s orders to give an excessive dose of Valium
- Doctor = authority figure but nurses remained autonomous, just like some of Milgram’s participants
- This suggests agentic shift can only explain obedience in some situations
5
Q
Kilham and Mann found legitimacy of authority can explain cultural differences. How is this a strength?
A
- 16% Australians showed obedience in their study, whereas Mantell found 85% of German participants obeyed in their study
- This suggests authority more likely seen as legitimate in some cultures, reflecting upbringing
6
Q
Legitimacy of authority can’t explain all (dis)obedience. How is this a weakness? (Rank and Jacobson)
A
- 21 / 22 of Rank and Jacobson’s nurses were disobedient, as were some of Milgram’s participants, even though authority figures were legitimate in both studies
- Suggests innate tendencies towards (dis)obedience may be more important than legitimacy of authority
7
Q
There have been real world crimes of obedience. How is this a strength of legitimacy of authority (destructive authority)?
A
- My Lai Massacre soldiers obeyed their commanding officer, because he had more power to punish than a doctor
- Therefore, there is some evidence in real-world situations that respect for legitimate authority can lead to destructive obedience
8
Q
Outline the Authoritarian Personality criteria
A
- People have extreme respect for authority and submissiveness to it
- Contempt for “inferiors”
- Originates in childhood - harsh parenting, extremely strict discipline, impossibly high standards, etc.
- Feelings of hostility and resentment towards parents from childhood displaced to others who are weaker
9
Q
Outline Adorno’s Authoritarian Personality study (F scale)
A
- 2000 middle class, white Americans
- F-scale used (items included “obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtues for children to learn”)
- Those who scored high on the F-scale identified with the strong and had contempt for the weak
- They were conscious of their own and others’ status, showing excessive respect to those of higher status
- Authoritarian people had a cognitive style, where there was no “fuzziness” between categories of people, with fixed and distinctive prejudices about other groups
10
Q
Elms and Milgram found authoritarians are obedient. How is this a strength of the dispositional explanation for obedience?
A
- Elms and Milgram interviewed 20 fully obedient participants from Milgram’s original obedience studies
- They scored significantly higher on the F-scale than a comparison group of 20 disobedient participants
- This suggests obedient people may share many characteristics of people with an authoritarian personality
11
Q
Authoritarianism may not be a useful predictor of obedience. How is this a weakness of the dispositional explanation for obedience?
A
- Subscales of the F-scale showed obedient participants had characteristics that were unusual for authoritarians, e.g. did not experience high levels of punishment in childhood
- This suggests a complex link and means authoritarianism is not a useful predictor of obedience
12
Q
Authoritarianism can’t explain a whole country’s behaviour. How is this a weakness of the dispositional explanation for obedience?
A
- Millions of people in Germany displayed anti-Semitic behaviour, but can’t have all had an authoritarian personality
- More likely explanation is most Germans identified with the Nazi state
- Therefore, social learning theory may be a better explanation
13
Q
Christie and Jahoda found that the F-scale is politically biased. How is this a weakness of the dispositional explanation for obedience?
A
- Christie and Jahoda suggest the F-scale aims to measure tendency towards extreme right-wing ideology
- Right-wing and left-wing authoritarianism (e.g. Chinese Maoism) both insist on complete obedience to political authority
- Therefore, Adorno’s theory is not a comprehensive dispositional explanation, as it doesn’t explain obedience to left-wing authoritarianism, i.e. it’s politically biased
14
Q
Greenstein found that the F-scale is flawed. How is this a weakness of the dispositional explanation for obedience?
A
- F-scale has been used in many studies that have led to an explanation of obedience based on the authoritarian personality
- HOWEVER, according to Greenstein, the F-scale is flawed, e.g. people who tend to agree with the statements (response bias) are scored as authoritarian
- Therefore, explanations of obedience based on research with the F-scale may not be valid
15
Q
Outline Milgram’s proximity variations (same room, touch, remote)
A
- Teacher and learner in same room - obedience = 65%
- Touch proximity (teacher forced learner’s hand on shock plate) - obedience = 30%
- Remote instruction (Experimenter gave instructions via phone) - obedience = 20.5% (participants also often pretended to give shocks)
16
Q
Explain the effects of Milgram’s proximity variations on obedience
A
Decreased proximity allows people to mentally distance themselves from the consequences of their actions, e.g. when teacher and learner were separated, teacher was less aware of harm being done, so was obedient
17
Q
Outline Milgram’s location variation
A
Study conducted at run-down building, rather than Yale (where baseline study was conducted) - obedience = 47.5%
18
Q
Explain the effects of Milgram’s location variation on obedience
A
Obedience higher at Yale because setting was legitimate, prestigious and had authority, so obedience was expected
19
Q
Outline Milgram’s uniform variation
A
- In baseline study, Experimenter wore grey lab coat
- In uniform variation, Experimenter called away by a phone call at the beginning of the study and was replaced by a “member of the public” (confed in everyday clothes) - obedience = 20%
20
Q
Explain the effects of Milgram’s uniform variation on obedience
A
Uniform = symbol of authority. Someone without uniform has less right to expect obedience
21
Q
There is research support for influence of situational variables. How is this a strength of Milgram’s research? (Bickman)
A
- Bickman’s confeds dressed in different outfits (suit, milkman and security guard) and asked regular people to pick up litter in NYC
- People twice as likely to obey the security guard than the suit confed
- This suggests that situational variables have an effect on obedience
22
Q
There have been cross-cultural replications of Milgram’s research. How is this a strength?
A
- Meeus and Raaijmakers worked with Dutch participants who were ordered to say stressful comments to interviewees
- 90% obedience but obedience fell when proximity decreased (person giving orders not present)
- Suggests Milgram’s findings are not limited to American males, but are valid across cultures
23
Q
Smith and Bond found that Milgram’s variations may not apply across cultures. How is this a weakness?
A
- Smith and Bond noted most replications took place in Western countries that are culturally similar to the USA
- Therefore, we cannot conclude that Milgram’s findings about proximity, location and uniform apply to people in most cultures
24
Q
Milgram’s situational variations have low internal validity. How is this a weakness?
A
- Orne and Holland suggested the variations were even more likely to trigger suspicion because of the extra EXPERIMENTAL MANIPULATION
- In the uniform variation, even Milgram recognised this was so unrealistic that some participants may have worked it out
- Therefore, it’s unclear whether the results are due to obedience or because the participants saw the deception and were influenced by demand characteristics
25
There is a danger of the situational perspective. How is this a weakness of Milgram's situational variables?
* Milgram's conclusions suggest situational factors determine obedience
* Mandel argues that this offers an alibi for GENOCIDE. Situational explanations hugely oversimplify the causes of the Holocaust and are offensive to survivors
* This permits others (e.g. Adolf Eichmann) to excuse destructive behaviour in terms of ***_"I was just following orders"_***
26
Outline the role of social support in resistance to social influence
* Pressure to conform is reduced if a DISSENTER is present
* Asch's research showed dissenter doesn't have to give right answer
* Someone else not following majority frees others to follow their own conscience - dissenter acts as a “model”
* Dissenter shows the majority is no longer UNANIMOUS
* Pressure to obey is reduced if another person disobeys
* Milgram's research showed obedience rates dropped from 65% to 10% in the TWO PEERS REBEL variation
* Participants may not follow the disobedient peer but disobedience allows participants to act on their own principles
* A disobedient model challenges the legitimacy of the authority figure
27
Outline the role of locus of control in resistance to social influence
* Rotter described INTERNAL vs EXTERNAL LOC
* Internals believe they control what happens to them (exam performance depends on amount of revision they did)
* Externals believe things happen out of their control (exam performance depends on question difficulty)
* LOC is not just external and internal, there is a CONTINUUM
* Internals are more likely to resist pressures to conform or obey
* High internals are more confident, more achievement oriented and have higher intelligence (trait of leaders who have less need for social approval)
28
Albrecht provided evidence for social support in resisting conformity. How is this a strength of resistance to social influence?
* In Albrecht's study, social support was given to pregnant adolescents to resist pressure to smoke by an older “buddy”
* Those adolescents were less likely to smoke at the end of the programme than a control group who did not have a buddy
* This suggests social support can help young people resist social influence in real-world situations
29
Gamson provided evidence for social support for dissenting peers. How is this a strength of resistance to social influence?
* Gamson et al. asked groups to give evidence for an oil company to use in a smear campaign
* 29 / 33 groups rebelled against orders, much higher than in Milgram's studies
* Shows how supporters can undermine legitimacy of authority and reduce obedience
30
Allen and Levine showed the social support explanation is valid. How is this a strength of resistance to social influence?
* Only 3% of Allen and Levine's participants resisted conformity when there was no supporter, but 64% resisted when a dissenter refused to conform
* HOWEVER, 36% resisted when the dissenter clearly had poor eyesight and could not be relied on to judge the lines
* This suggests the explanation is valid because we would expect less resistance when participants believed social support was not helpful
31
Holland replicated Milgram's study and provided evidence for locus of control in resisting obedience. How is this a strength of resistance to social influence?
* Holland repeated Milgram's study and measured whether participants were internals or externals
* 37% of internals did NOT continue to highest shock level (showed greater resistance, only 23% of externals did not continue)
* Therefore, resistance is partly related to LOC, increasing the validity of this explanation of disobedience
32
Twenge's meta-analysis suggests not all research supports LOC in resistance to social influence. How is this a weakness?
* Twenge analysed data from American LOC studies over 40 years (1960-2002), showing that people have become more independent but also more EXTERNAL
* This is interesting because if resistance was linked to INTERNAL LOC, we would expect people to have become more internal
* Therefore, LOC may not be a valid explanation for resistance to social influence
33
LOC has a limited role in resistance to social influence. How is this a weakness?
* A lot of studies (e.g. Holland) show that having an internal LOC is linked with being able to resist social influence
* HOWEVER, Rotter pointed out the LOC only significantly influences behaviour in NEW SITUATIONS. In familiar situations, our previous responses are always more important
* Therefore, the validity of the LOC explanation is limited because it can predict resistance in some situations but not in others
34
Outline minority influence
* Minority influence refers to how one person or small group influences the beliefs and behaviour of other people
* This leads to INTERNALISATION - both public and private beliefs are changed
35
Outline consistency in relation to minority influence
* Consistency makes others rethink their own views, since minority keeps saying the same thing
* SYNCHRONIC CONSISTENCY - minority all saying the same thing
* DIACHRONIC CONSISTENCY - they've been saying the same thing for a long time
36
Outline commitment in relation to minority influence (including augmentation principle)
* Activities must create some risk to the minority to demonstrate commitment to the cause
* AUGMENTATION PRINCIPLE - majority pay even more attention to minority (if people see extreme activities and recognise the risk, it makes them think more about minority's commitment, so more likely to change their views)
37
Outline flexibility in relation to minority influence
* Minority should balance consistency and flexibility so they don't appear DOGMATIC
* Nemeth argues being consistent and repeating arguments can be off-putting to majority, so minority should adapt their point of view and accept reasonable counter-arguments
38
Outline the snowball effect in relation to minority influence
* Over time, people become “converted” - there is a switch from minority to majority
* The more this happens, the faster the rate of conversion, so gradually minority view becomes majority view and social change has occurred
39
There is research support from Moscovici and Wood for consistency. How is this a strength of minority influence?
* Moscovici found a consistent minority opinion had a greater effect on other people than an inconsistent opinion
* Wood conducted a meta-analysis of 100 similar studies and found that minorities seen as being consistent were most influential
* This suggests that consistency is a major factor in minority influence
40
Martin provided research support for deeper processing. How is this a strength of minority influence?
* Martin gave participants a message supporting a particular viewpoint, and measured attitudes
* Then they heard an endorsement of the view from either a minority or majority
* Finally they heard a conflicting view, attitudes measured again
* Participants were less willing to change their opinions to the conflicting view if they had originally listened to a minority group than a majority group
* This suggests the minority message had been more deeply processed and had been more deeply processed and had an enduring effect
41
Research studies are limited in what they tell us about real-world minority influence. How is this a weakness?
* In research studies, majority and minority groups are distinguished in terms of numbers
* But there is more to majorities and minorities than just numbers (e.g. power or commitment)
* This means research studies are limited in what they tell us about real-world minority influence
42
Minority influence research often involves artificial tasks. How is this a weakness?
* Moscovici's task was identifying the colour of a slide, far removed from how minorities try to change majority opinion in the real world
* In jury decision-making, outcomes are vastly more important, and sometimes a matter of life and death
* Findings of studies lack external validity and are limited in what they tell us about how minority influence works in real world situations
43
Moscovici's colour slide study showed the power of minority influence. How is this a strength?
* Agreement with the minority was only 8% in Moscovici's study - minority influence must be quite rare so not a useful concept
* HOWEVER, more participants agreed with the minority when writing their answers privately. So those who do publicly change their views must be the “***tip of the iceberg***” and hold their new views strongly (internalisation)
* Therefore, minority influence is valid - it is an unusual form of social influence but can change people's views powerfully and permanently (***conversion***)
