Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Social Influence (Obedience (Milgram's Research (Findings (65% gave…

- - - - PPs gave fake electric shocks to a 'learner' in obedience to instructions from the 'experimenter'
    - - 65% gave highest shock of 450v
      - 100% gave shocks up to 300v
      - Many showed signs of anxiety
  - - - Obidience decreased to 40% when teacher could hear learner, and to 30% in touch proximity
    - - Obedience decreased to 47.5% when study moved to run-down office block
    - - Obedience decreased to 20% when 'member of the public' was the experimenter
    - - Bickman showed power of uniform in field experiment
      - Some of Milgram's procedures contrived, so not genuine obedience (Orne and Holland)
      - Cross-cultural findings support Milgram
        
        Almost all studies in similar culture to USA so cannot be generalised universally
  - - - Agentic state, acting as an agent of another
      - Autonomous state, free to act according to conscience
        
        Switch between two- agentic shift
      - Binding factors, allow individual to ignore the damaging effects of obedient behaviour
      - Evaluation
        
        Blass and Schmitt found that people do blame the legitimate authority for the PPs behaviour
        
        Cannot explain why some of Milgram's PPs disobeyed or the lack of moral strain in Hofling et al.'s nurses
    - - Created by heirachal nature of society
      - Destructive authority, problem's arise, e.g. Hitler
      - Evaluation
        
        Explains obedience in different cultures due to different social heirachies
  - - - Findings
        
        People with authoritarian personalities identify with the 'strong' and have fixed cognitive style
      - Characteristics
        
        Extreme respect for authority and obedience to it
      - Procedure
        
        Adorno et al. used F-scale study to unconscious attitudes towards other racial groups
      - Origins
        
        Harsh parenting creates hositility that cannot be expressed against parents so is displaced
    - - Some of Milgram's obedient PPs had authoritarian personalities (Elms)
      - Can't explain an increase in obedience across a whole culture, better explanation is social identity theory
      - Equates authoritarian personality with right-wing ideology and ignore extreme left-wing authoritarianism
      - Correlation, not causation
- - - - Internalisation - Private and public identification of group norms
      - Identification - change behaviour to match group we identify with
      - Compliance - Go along with group publicly, privately no change of behaviour
    - - Informational Social Influence (ISI)
        
        Conform to be right, assume others know better
        
        More conformity to incorrect maths answers when they were difficult
      - Normative Social Influence (NSI)
        
        Desire to be liked or accepted in groups
        
        nAffiliators want to be liked more
  - - - Confederates gave deliberately wrong answers to see if participants would conform
    - - Naive participants conformed on 32.6% of trials 25% Never conformed
    - - Conformity increased up to group size of four
      - Dissenter reduced conformity
      - Conformity increased when task was harder
    - - Perrin and Spencer found less conformity in 1980s than 1950s
      - Demand characteristics meant PPs just went along with trivial task
      - Only conducted on American men
  - - - Mock prison with students randomly assigned to guards or prisoners
    - - Guards became increasingly brutal, prisoners increasingly withdrawn and depressed
    - - PPs conformed to their roles as guards or prisoners
    - - Random assignment to roles increased internal validity
      - PPs were play-acting their roles according to media-derived stereotypes
      - Only one third of guards were brutal so conclusions exaggerated
      - Ethics
        
        Zimbardo's dual role as investigator and 'prison superintendant'
        
        Right to withdraw
        
        Protection from harm, psychological (depressed and withdrawn)
        
        Lack of informed consent
        
        Cost-benefit
- - - - Conformity, reduced by presence of dissenter from the group
      - Obedience, decreases in presence of disobedient peer who acts as a model
      - Conformity decreases when one person dissents, no matter their credibility (Allen and Levine)
      - Obedience drops when disobedient role models are present (Gamson et al.)
    - - LOC is sense of what controls events in our life (Rotter)
      - Continuum, high internal at one end, high external at the other
      - People with high LOC are more able to resist pressures to conform or obey
      - Internals less likely to obey in Milgram-type experiment (Holland)
      - People may have become more external and more disobedient recently (Twenge et al.)