1
Q
What are the 3 components of Agency Theory and what do they mean?
A
Autonomous state: Acting on ones own free will
Agentic state: When one acts as an agent for another
Moral strain: Experiencing anxiety because you are asked to do something that goes against your judgment
2
Q
Why did Milgram develop Agency theory?
A
Looked at Nazi crimes & wanted to see if German ppl committed crimes due to obedience or character
3
Q
What is Agentic Shift?
A
Switch between the autonomous and agentic state that occurs when we perceive someone to be a legitimate source of authority and allow them to control our behaviour.
4
Q
What’s the evolution explanation of obedience?
A
- Obedience is a survival trait that enabled tribes of early humans flourish
- Early humans who were disobedient → didn’t survive & we haven’t inherited their genes
5
Q
How does conditioning play a part in obedience?
A
- From an early age, parents, neighbours, etc conditioned us to respect authority figures
- They reward us when we are respectful & punish when we disobey
- Later years → condition deeply ingrained
6
Q
What are 2 strengths for Agency Theory?
A
Milgram’s first experiment
- 65% participants obeyed to an authority figure & potentially harm an innocent confederate - Participants shows moral strain when given an order - Debrief of participants → many reported their behaviour was the responsibility of the experimenter & they did not want to do it
Hofling et al (1966)
- Staged a study in a hospital setting - Doctor telephone working nurses to administer twice the daily dose of a drug to a patient (against hospital policy) - 21/22 nurses followed doctors orders - Most nurses justified their behaviour due to the hierarchy of obedience at the hospital
7
Q
What are the weaknesses for Agency Theory?
A
Individual differences
- Does not explain individual differences (why some ppl obey & why do not) - Disobedience can come from personality, gender & situation → obedience is more complex (than is being explained by agency theory)
Define + Measure
- Hard to define & measure agency & autonomy (as its a state of mind) - EXTRA: no direct evidence of the evolution of obedience (cannot go back into the past and study the development of obedience)
8
Q
What is Social impact Theory?
A
- Theory of social influence to explain why people are obedient
- Target → Person being impacted on
- Source → Influencer
9
Q
Who proposed Social Impact Theory?
A
Bibb Latane (1981)
10
Q
What are the 3 principles in Social Impact Theory & what do they mean?
A
Social Forces
- Strength → Determined by status, authority & age - Immediacy → Proximity between the source & target - Numbers → How many people are in the situation & how much social pressure they put on you
Psychosocial Law
- The first source of influence has the most dramatic impact on people
- E.g. One teacher giving you a order generates a lot of social force, but if you resist, bringing in a second & third teacher to repeat the order doesn’t double or triple the social force; bringing in the entire school staff won’t be that effective
Multiplication vs Division of Impact
- Social Force gets spread out between all the people it is directed at - If all the force is directed at a single person → puts a huge pressure on them to obey - If the force is directed at 2 people → Only experience half as much pressure each - If there are ten of them → Only experience one tenth of the pressure - Diffusion of responsibility → the more ppl there is, the less responsibility each feel
11
Q
What are the strengths for Social Impact Theory?
A
- Can predict behaviour under certain conditions
- Principles can be observed in everyday behaviour
- > study: sedikides & Jackson (1990) -> zoo study, told visitors not to lean on railings -> visitors observed to see if they would obey -> if confederate wore uniform, obedience is high & when he left -> obedience was low -> immediacy (proximity) & social force less impactful when asked multiple times & due to group size
12
Q
What are the weaknesses for Social Impact Theory?
A
Social interaction - Oversimply human interaction
- Disregards social interaction & what the target themselves bring to social situation
Individual differences
- Ignores individual differences
No explanation
- Doesn’t explain why people are influenced by others
13
Q
What’s the aim for Milgram’s (1963) study?
A
Investigate which ordinary people would follow orders that can harming someone with electric shocks
14
Q
What’s the procedure for Milgram’s (1963) study?
A
- Controlled environment
- Conducted at Yale University
- Participants = teacher
- Mr Wallace = Learner
- Got participants to electrocute a confederate if they answer wrong
- Volts range from 15-450V and labels say “Danger”, “Slight Shock”
- Presented with verbal prods; “please continue”, “You have no choice you must go on”
15
Q
What’s the results for Milgram’s (1963) study?
A
- Everyone went to 300V
- 65% went to the full 450V
16
Q
What are the strengths for Milgram’s (1963) study?
A
Highly controlled
- Highly controlled laboratory experiment - can be replicated - reliable - similar findings can be established
Results backup the aim of the exp
- Results show people will be carry out destructive obedience if an authority figure gives out orders
17
Q
What are the weaknesses for Milgram’s (1963) study?
A
Sample - unrepresentative
- Done with 40 men - unrepresentative as it only represents a certain type of people → cannot be generalised
Lacks Mundane Realism
- Don’t administer electric shocks in a uni and everyday life - not normal
18
Q
What was the telephonic study (experiment 7)?
A
To test the physical distance between experimenter & teacher by giving orders on the phone
19
Q
What were the results for the telephonic study (exp 7)?
A
22.5% were obedient
20
Q
What were the strengths for the telephonic study (exp 7)?
A
Milgram’s theory of physical distance affecting obedience can be backed up by this exp 7 as obedience did decreases through telephone - high valid
Replicated finding
- Other research that has gotten the same finding as the this Milgram one - E.g. Sedikides & Jackson (1990) study conducted at New York zoo -> Demonstrated that when the authority figure is no longer present, obedience decreases significantly.
21
Q
What was the Rundown office block (experiment 10)?
A
Yale uni could be causing a higher level of obedience, so relocated his experiment to a rundown office building
22
Q
What are the results for the Rundown office block (experiment 10)?
A
47.5% were obedient
23
Q
What are the strengths for the Rundown Office Block (exp 10)
A
Milgram collected not only quantitative data but also qualitative data in the form of audio recordings of the dialogue between researcher & participants
24
Q
What are the weaknesses for the Rundown Office Block (exp 10)?
A
Not generalisable to other cultures - sample were all American ( this answer can be said for his overall study & other variations)
25
What was the Ordinary man gives orders (experiment 13)?
Role of experimenter played by an ordinary (without a lab coat), to test the role of authority & status on obedience
26
What are the results for the Ordinary man gives orders (experiment 13)?
80% refused to continue
27
What are the strengths for the Ordinary man gives orders (exp 13)?
Levels of anger shown towards ordinary man -> 1 participant throws confederate across the room -> pps really believed the set up -> results are valid
28
What are the weaknesses for the Ordinary man gives orders (exp 13)?
Lacks internal validity:
- Although the aim was to see what happens when the orders come from someone who has no legitimate authority → almost impossible to achieve
- There were many traces of derived authority as it was the experimenter who had initially described the study & the idea of administering shocks
Suggests obedience may be lower in situations where the person giving orders is unrelated to any authority figure
29
How does Momentum of compliance affect obedience?
- Gradual commitment is linked
- Start with small & requests - so participant has committed themselves to the experiment
- As requests increase - participants feel **duty bound** to continue
- Situation created a binding relationship which escalated quickly
30
How does Proximity affect obedience?
- Distance affects obedience (e.g. the closer the authority figure, the higher level of obedience)
- Proximity of victim has an affect to obedience
31
How does Status of authority affect obedience?
- Obedience only appears if the authority figure is seen as legitimate
32
How does Personal responsibility affect obedience?
More obedience = personal responsibility is removed & responsibility is placed onto authority figure
33
How does Authoritarian personality affect obedience?
- Theodor Adorno et al (1950) devised the F-scale to detect authoritarian personality traits
- Milgram & Elms (1966) compared F-scale scores with obedience & defiant participants (involved in his experiments)
- Obedience participants = higher f-scale scores → Have authoritarian personality type → More submissive to authority
- Less likely to withdraw to orders
34
What’s a strength of Authoritarian personality?
That Milgram & Elms (1966) findings of the study show that obedience is related to the personality characteristic of authoritarianism
35
What’s a weakness of Authoritarian personality?
- Cannot claim there’s a relationship between childhood experiences & authoritarianism/obedience
- As other factors may be involved - obedience & authoritarian personality can be caused by lower lvls of education - Hyman & Sheatsley (1954)
36
What is (Internal/External) Locus of control & how do these affect obedience?
Internal locus of control: Responsible for own actions & less influenced by others
External locus of control: Take less responsibility (behaviour is beyond their control) & more influenced
- Obedient ppl/more influenced/not responsible for actions = external locus of control
- Dissent/defy orders/take personal responsibility = internal locus of control
37
What’s a weakness of the Locus of control explanation?
- Grete Schurz (1985): participants instructed to give painful doses of ultrasound to a female student
- Participants who were fully obedient didn’t differ to participants who resisted in terms of scores on a questionnaire measuring locus of control
- Suggests personality have little impact on obedience
38
How can Locus of Control explanation be applied in the real world?
- In jobs when they require higher/levels of obedience
- E.g. organisations that require employees to follow procedures may want more obedient ppl
- Use a scale assessing LOC
- Personality tests are part of the recruitment process - result successful matching of people → greater productivity & job satisfaction
39
How does Empathy affect obedience?
- Higher empathy = less likely to harm another person
- Replication of Milgram’s exp - Burger et al (2009): participants more likely to protest (giving electric shocks) but NOT less obedient
40
Does Gender affect Obedience?
Females more obedient than males
- Sheridan & King’s (1972) study: Participants ordered to give real life shocks to a puppy
- 100% females complied
Males more obedient than females
- Kilham & Mann’s (1974) study: Milgram replication in Australia
- Males more obedient than women (40% obedient males)
41
How can culture affect obedience?
Individualistic?
- Behave more independently & resist conformity
- E.g. Britain or America
What’s Collectivistic?
- Behave as a collective group
- Depend on each other
- Compliance is important for stability
- E.g. China or Israel
Collectivistic cultures are more obedient
42
What is Realistic Conflict Theory about?
Explains prejudice as arising from conflict (for resources) between 2 or more groups
43
What are the strengths for Realistic Conflict Theory?
Supported by Robbers Cave Experiment
- The experiment found that competition increases hostility between groups
Anthropological study
- Carol & Melvin Ember (1992) - anthropologists - in tribal societies, intergroup hostility increases when there’s a short supply of necessary resources due to social/natural conditions → increases competition
- This study is evidence being applied to real-life → high ecological validity
44
What evidence supports Realistic Conflict Theory?
Robbers Cave experiment - formed the basis of his realistic conflict theory
45
What are the weaknesses for Realistic Conflict Theory?
Robbers Cave experiment
- Groups showed hostility even before the competitive events → the presence of another groups was enough to bring about prejudice (the competitive tasks weren’t even needed)
46
What is Social Identity Theory about?
- The mere presence of another group (the absence of competition) can lead to prejudice
- Out group = rival group
- In group = someone is part of
47
What are the social identities (in Social Identity Theory)?
Personal Identity
- Our own unique qualities, personality & self-esteem
Social Identity
- The attributes of the group we belong to
If social identity is not favourable → personal identity will be negative → lowers self esteem of individuals
48
What is Social Identification, Categorisation & Comparison?
Social Identification:
Individual behaves in accordance with the norms & values of a group
Social Categorisation:
Decide which group they belong to
Social Comparison:
Perceiving the in-group as better than the out-group
49
What evidence was backed up for Social Identity Theory?
Tajfel conducted a series of studies to demonstrate groups to form social identities & produce prejudice
Experiment 2 ‘Klee and Kandinsky’
- Where boys showed outgroup discrimination even though they weren’t in competition with the outgroup
- They would choose options from the matrix booklets that offered them less points (limited resource) *in order to create competition,* rather than the options that would give their ingroup more points.
50
What are the strengths for Social Identity Theory?
Tajfel’s Minimal group studies
- Offer evidence that we have a natural tendency to favour the in-group & discriminate the out-groups
Replication study - Jane Elliot
- School lesson - divided blue eyes & brown eyes students
- First part: Blue eyes were favoured and brown eyes were unfavoured
- Later: Switched roles
- Findings: dominant group performed better academically & showed discrimination towards the inferior group
- Supports social identity theory - shows how social categorisation leads to prejudice
51
What are the weaknesses for Social Identity Theory?
- Tajfel’s Minimal group studies
- The boy’s wanting rewards for their group may be due to competition rather than favouritism
- Competition giving rise to conflict can be better explained by Realistic Conflict Theory
- Studies are a Lab-based experiment → encourages demand characteristics → unreliable
👇 ANOTHER WEAKNESS - Extra:
- Study replication - Weatherell (1982)
- Observed New Zealand Polynesians
- Found them much more likely to favour the out-group than show bias towards their in-group
This is because...
- Cultures that emphasise collectivism → less group prejudice
52
How does Authoritarian Personality affect prejudice?
More likely to be hostile to people that are different
Ethnocentrism?
- Belief that one owns ethnic groups is superior
Conservatism?
- A belief in tradition and social order - dislike for change - submissive to authority
Anti-democratic beliefs?
- Views that oppose the fair election of gov + majority rule
53
How does culture affect prejudice?
Katz and Braly:
- A questionnaire on students about stereotypes about other countries
- Culture does affect prejudice BUT as the cultures change so do the prejudices they hold
- Individualistic?
- Care only about yourself - self (have interpersonal prejudice)
- Collectivistic?
- Value Family - working together (have intergroup prejudice)
Prejudice can be affected by culture - comes from environmental effects
54
How can situation affect prejudice?
Social Norms:
- Unwritten rules about what is socially acceptable in society
- People follow the norms created by their ingroup because it may lead to rejection - so wish to avoid rejections - as group belongings is a strong motivator - links with self-esteem
55
what types of Authoritarian personality’s are there?
Allports view:
- think in rigid ‘black & white’ categories
- not necessarily prejudiced
- receptive to political arguments -> target their inner fears & insecurities
Right wing (RWA) - Altemeyer: focused on 3 Adornos nine authoritarian traits: submission, aggression & conventionalism - 3 traits don’t heavily link to other 6 traits
- not a product of early parental experiences - develops due to a learned set of beliefs on the world (world is dangerous & threatening) -> causes RWA
- develops as a reaction to fear & uncertainty
- ppl high on RWA seeks security through existing social order -> hostile towards anyone who defies social norms -> closed to new experiences
Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) ->
Pratto et al. created SDO to describe ppl who seek ingroup power, dominance & superiority
- prefer hierarchy’s rather equal distribution of power
- SDO view different to RWA -> SDO sees world as competitive jungle; ppl have to be ruthless & fight for their share of limited resources & power
- RWA worldview through role models (socialisation process)
- SDO linked to key personality characteristics (tough-mindness)
- SDO common in men -> exposure to social situations of inequality & competition (sibley et al. 2007)
56
What are the strengths for Authoritarian personality?
relationship between personality & prejudice:
- Cohrs et al. 2012 -> RWA & SDO positively correlated with prejudice
- RWA negatively correlated with agreeableness
- suggests lvl of prejudice accurately predicted from ppls personality traits
Application to reducing prejudice:
- Allport & Altemeyer-> prejudice learnt through exposure to specific worldviews & prejudicial rhetoric -> greater regulation of media sources (social media promoting prejudice views) may be beneficial
- strategies (international exchanges, school twinning projects) that challenge the dangerous, threatening world view combat SDO & RWA
57
What are the weaknesses for Authoritarian Personality?
[Counterpoint] on first point in strengths:
- RWA & SDO not consistent over time
- Levin (1996) -> Jewish pps to think about their social identity in Israel -> shows Ashkenazi Jews showed higher SDO scores compared to other types of Jews
BUT -> differences in SDO disappeared when asked to think about the relationship between Israel & Palestine
- suggests change in SDO
Prejudice ignores social norms & situational factors:
- Louis et al (2013) -> RWA & SDO scales don't include items which are heavily affected by social attitudes/norms -> role of these factors is ignored
- > Australian study strongly disagreed with statement 'The white race is the best race' but agreed with exclusion of asylum seekers
- suggests it's important to understand the social as well as individual factors in order to address the consequences for prejudice effectively
Hyman & sheatsley -> other factors may be involved : authoritarian personality can be caused by lower lvls of education
Psychology Edexcel A level
flashcards
Decks in class (14)
# Cards
-
All Research Methods97
-
Topic 1 Social - Content57
-
Topic 1 Social - Classical & Contemporary Studies16
-
Topic 2 Cognitive - Content40
-
Topic 2 Cognitive - Classical & Contemporary studies12
-
Topic 3 Bio - Content41
-
Topic 3 Bio - Classical & Contemporary studies12
-
Topic 4 Learning Theories - Content35
-
Topic 4 Learning Theories - Classical & Contemporary Studies12
-
Topic 5 Clinical - Content63
-
Topic 5 Clinical - Classical & Contemporary studies9
-
Topic 6 Criminal - Content47
-
Issues & Debates1
-
Topic 1 Social - Practical Investigation11
