Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
PSYCHOLOGY SOCIAL INFLUENCE - Coggle Diagram
PSYCHOLOGY SOCIAL INFLUENCE
EXPLANATIONS FOR OBEDIENCE
Situational
Social psychological
Agency theory
Binding factors
Aspects of a situation which allow us to ignore our behaviour to reduce moral strain
Factors which keep us in the agentic state
Allow us to justify behaviour
Examples
Shifting blame to the victim
If they leave the agentic state they have to take responsibility for thier actions, so they stay in it
Being scared to be the only one who isn't obeying
Anxiety associated with being disobedient
Evaluation
+
Milgram research
Supports the idea that whilst in the agentic state you know what you are doing is wrong causing moral strain
When participants chose to disobey and now entered the autonomous state they no longer showed signs of moral strain because they were autonomous
Milgram's research supports this theory as participants showed moral strain whilst supposedly in the agentic state
Real life apps
War criminals were defended in court under the arguemnt that they were following orders and didn't feel responsible for thier actions
Theory can highlight how ignoring feelings of moral strain can result in the extremes of human bahaviour
This has real life applications to the actions of the Nazis
_
Human cruelty
In the stanford prison experient, when guards becmae harsh and diciplinary, nobody was telling them to do so suggesting they were acting autonomously
Shows that agentic control may not cause cruel behaviours perhaps just human nature
Perhaps it is just human nature to be cruel sometimes and cannot be explained
Doesn't explain how
It does not explain HOW someone makes an agentic shift and what processes are involved in this
Agency theory describes obedience rather than explaining how it occurs
This lack of detail means that agentic state is hard to research and therefore a less reliable theory, and less valid
Other explanations
There are other explanations for obedience such as social power by French and Raven
Proposed different types of power, legitimate, reward, coercive, expert, referent
Other explanations means that Milgram has not considered other possible factors in obedience so the agency theory is not exhaustive
Societal issues
Suggests that those under authority are not still free thinking independent people
Suggests people aren't responsible for thier own actions (Nazis)
States
Agentic state- when we act as agents of an authority figure and hand responsibility for our actions over to them
Autonomous state- when we are responsible for our own behaviour
The agentic shift is what its called when someone stops being autonomous and becomes an agent
Milgram suggests that we have evolved to give up our free will sometimes in order for society to run smoothly
Legitimate authority
It is suggested that obedience is more likely when the authority figure is believed to be legitimate and credible
Milgrams results
Original obedience levels were 65% at yale university with a lab coated researcher
Obedience dropped to 48% when changed to a location which did not connote legitimate authority
We can see how the perception of legitimate authority affects how much people obey with the resuts of milgrams conditions in his study
Obedience dropped to 20% when the researcher was swapped with a 'random member of the public' in plain clothes, showing that status and uniform make a significant difference to how an authority figure is percieved
What is legitimate authority
Milgram suggested that we are more likely to obey a person who has a higher position or status in a social hierarchy.
Factors
Societal agreement, society agrees generally that authority figures should have the right to excersise power over others to keep things running smoothly
We learned to accept authority from parents and teachers in childhood
People in certain heirarchical positions, parents, teachers, police officers
How the authority figure is perceived through the context of location (prestigious university or dark alley) and uniform (lab coat with name badge or mankini)
Legitimacy of authority is an explanation of obedience offered by Milgram.
There are factors/ symbols/ details which create an image of legitimate authority to someone below another
Evaluation
+
Supportive research
Analysing the recordings, he found that too often the crew relied on the captains expertise as they believed him to be more skilled due to associated legitimate authority
Because of this trust, they overlooked mistakes by the captain, and as they percieve him as more knowledgeable they did not correct or question risky decisions which resulted in the crash
Tarnow studies aviation accidents where there was a black box and where flight crews actions resulted in the crash
This shows the strength of legitimate authority as it could lead people to trust blindly in potentially fatal situations
Real life application
Kelman and Hamilton suggest that massacres carried out by USA soldiers in the Vietnam war may be due to the strong hierarchical structure of the US army
Because the army is associated with strong hierarchical forces such as US government and law, soldiers assumed orders to be legal, even rape murder and destruction
This suggests that thier destructive obedience was due to the trust and belief in the knowledge of superior forces
ALSO SUGGESTS THEY AREN'T RESPONSIBLE FOR ACTIONS
-
Better explanations
There are many theories as to why people obey and so Legitimacy of authority may not be the most accurate
Zimbardo suggests the theory of gradual commitment also known as the foot in the door technique
Suggests that firstly people obey to trivial harmless requests and when they gradually become harsher it becomes more difficult to disobey
This means its not only having a legitimate authority figure that causes obedience
Justified cruelty?
Despite instructions, humans still have free thought and free will where they can make thier own judgements about the consequences of thier actions
To suggest that humans can sometimes not be responsible for thier actions can reduce blame on individuals who may have happily obeyed and chosed to do something bad, later blaming it on authority
This causes social and ethical issues when considering behaviour such as war crimes with Nazis and US troops (Kelman and Hamilton)
Milgram's study
Procedure
Milgram selected participants for his experiment by newspaper advertising for male participants to take part in a study of learning at Yale University
'Learner' is taught a list of words pairs and has to recall them correctly on command
If the teacher refused they were prompted by the experimenter that they must continue
The teacher is told to administer an electric shock every time the learner makes a mistake, increasing the level of shock each time. There were 30 switches on the shock generator marked from 15 volts (slight shock) to 450 (danger – severe shock)
The participant was paired with another person and they drew lots to find out who would be the ‘learner’ and who would be the ‘teacher.’ The draw was fixed so that the participant was always the teacher, and the learner was one of Milgram’s confederates (pretending to be a real participant)
Was interested in researching how far people would go in obeying an instruction if it involved harming another person
Variations
Location
Instead of Yale and researchers, location is moved to a run down office block and is organised by an 'advertising agency'
Reduces legitimate power of authority figure
Obedience drops to 48%
Uniform
Researcher is replaced during the study by a confederate wearing plain clothes
Reduces legitimate authority
Obedience drops to 20%
Proximity of researcher to teacher
Experimenter gives orders over the phone instead of being in the room
Authority figure is depersonalised making it easier to disobey
Obedience drops to 21%
Two teacher condition
Participants can instruct a confederate to press the buttons
Less personal responsibility for actions
Relates to Milgram's agency theory
Obedience RISES considerably to 92.5%
Proximity of learner to teacher
Learner is no longer depersonalised so it is harder to obey
Both teacher and learner are in the same room so the teacher can see and hear them
Obedience drops to 40%
Results- 65% (two-thirds) of participants (i.e., teachers) continued to the highest level of 450 volts. All the participants continued to 300 volts.
Conclusions
Ordinary people ca do awful dangerous things if told to and put in the right situation
Ordinary people can be very obedient to authority
Evaluation
+
High control
Allows replicability and therefore reliability
Ability to establish cause and effect as the influence of confounding variables is unlikely
Bickman research
Had a confederate dressed either in a suit and tie, as a milkman or a security guard and then asked passers by to put a coin in the parking meter
People were twice as likely to obey the security guard than the jacket and tie confederate
Looked at the effect of uniform on obedience
Practical applications- helps explain real life human behaviours such as that of Nazi soldiers although some believe it is offensive to suggest that Nazis were victims of authority
_
Manipulation
Some believe that the participants would have realised the aims of the experiment due to the extra manipulation in the variations
This allows potential demand characteristics to have affected the results which is a confounding variable, this means it is hard to establish cause and effect between situational factors and obedience
Some believe that the participants would have realised the aims of the experiment due to the extra manipulation in the variations
Ethical issues
Participants were not protected from psychological harm as they believed they had no choice but to hurt someone, 3 original participants had actual seizures (THIS IS HARMFUL)
Ethical issues mean that you can't replicate a study to check for reliability, so results aren't reliable
Participants were deceived as screams from the 'learner' were prerecorded and they believed they were going to do an experiment about learning, not obedience
Dispositional- Authoritarian personality
Adorno
Made the f scale
Study
Procedure- 2000 white middle class americans took the f scale questionnaire and also has thier views about others investigated
Findings- People who scored highly on the f scale identified with strong people and showed excessive respect to authority figures, there was a strong correlation between authoritarianism and prejudice
Aim- to understand anti-semitism in the holocaust and see whether obedience is determined by the personality of the individual
Conclusion- People with authoritarian personality tend to be obedient to authroity
Adorno proposed that prejudice is the result of an individuals personality type
Elms and Milgram
20 of the participants who had given the full 450 volts and 20 who had refused were made to take the F scale and were asked questions about thier childhood relationships and thier attitudes towards the original study
There were highers levels of authoritarianism amongst the obedient participants then the defiant ones
Did a follow up study of the original participants in Milgram's study
Obedient participants also reported less close relationships with thier father in childhood and more admiration for the authority figure in Milgram's original study
Concluded that authoritarian personality may induce obedience
Measuring
Adorno created the F- Scale, F for facism, based on the idea that deep seated personality traits predisposed people to certain idealologies and so by measuring ones perspective we can analyse thier personality
Agreeing with all statements would make u maximum facist
Was a questionnaire measuring prejudice
Contained statements like, 'Rules are set to be followed and not to be changed'
Evaluation
_
Its been found that people with lower education are more likely to have authoritarian characteristics and disobey, suggesting that other factors such as quality of education may be affecting obedience not just personality
Elms and Milgram found that not all obedient participants displayed characteristics of the authoritarian personality, suggesting that different individual differences can contribute towards obedience
Dispositional factors are deterministic and ignore the evidence Milgram foud that situation affects obedience as seen by the variety of obedience levels in his situational variations, if obedience was only dispositional then levels wouldn't have varied
+
Elms and Milgram research
Adorno research
Authoritarian personality
Features
Rigid in beliefs and opinions
Hostile to those of inferior status
Conventional, upholding traditional values
Obedient to those with high status
Categorising people into 'us' and 'them' with thier own group as superior
Contributing factors
Very strict upbringing
Physical punishment
Critical and harsh parents
Inability to be hostile to parents causing displaced aggression onto inferiors
What is obedience
Emphasis is on power
Occurs within a hierarchy
Compliance with an order, request, or law or submission to another's authority
RESISTANCE TO SOCIAL INFLUENCE
Locus of control
Refers to the extent to which people believe they have control over the events that occur in thier life
Concept suggested by Rotter
Can be measured on a linear scale from Internal to External
External
People believe that happens to them is due to external factors
Life is not controlled by them but rather forces such as luck or fate
Rely on instruction opinion and information from other people
More likely to conform and obey
Internal
People believe what happens to them is down to thier own behaviour
Believe they can control and manage situations and therefore succeed under stress
Independent individuals who dont rely on others
Less likely to be influenced by others as they trust thier own judgement so they are less likely to obey or conform
Evaluation
+
Atgis meta analysis
Results were statistically significant and suggested that there are higher rates of conformity amongst externals than internals, that this view of life does affect your behaviour
However this research is correlational so cause and effect cannot be confidently established
Found that those who scored higher on external locus of control were easier pursuaded and more likely to conform than those with high scores on internal
Holland
Found that 37% of internals did not obey and 23% of externals did not obey
Repeated milgrams study and also took into account scores on locus of control
Suggests again that externals are more likely to obey
Oliner and Oliner
Interviewed two groups of non jewish people who lived through the holocaust, either people who rescued jews or people who did not rescue
Found that rescuers had a higher internal locus of control than non rescuers, suggesting that they were more able to resist the pressure to obey nazi regime, so found it easier to rebel
Prac apps
Using locus of control information you could give people better suited jobs as a soldier would need high external locus of control for obedience and a nurse would need high internal to make thier own judgements over a patients health
This gets a bit ethically difficult as it is close to removing free will and is then not beneficial
_
Methodological issues
Cant establish cause and effect for Atgis as its correlational
Oliner and Oliner had issues because there are confounding variables which could have caused the rebellion such as a disobedient model therefore we cant establish cause and effect
Many factors influence behaviour not just a dispositional factor such as locus of control and personality traits, there are situational factors which are also important
Social support
Other people act as models to remind an individual that resistance is possible
The prescence of other people who resist conformity or obendience can help others do the same
Evaluation
+
In milgram's variations when the participant was joined by a disobedient confederate the obedience rate dropped from 65% to 10%
In Aschs study, when a confederate resisted conforming with the other confeds, the participant was more confident to give thier own answer and resist
Mullen
Found that people were more likely to jaywalk (illegal) when they see other people jaywalk infront of them
Everyday example that social support can make us do things like break the law
_
In everyday life, seeing someone rebel/ dissent is not enough to make everyone replicate them as often free will is involved, you dont just copy everything you see people do
Asch suggests that social support alone is not a sufficient explanation because sometimes the time at which someone dissents is more important as his results were different when the confederate dissented earlier or later, social support alone is not the only factor
MINORITY INFLUENCE
Key factors
Needed for the minority to be successful when influencing the majority
Consistency
Supported also by Moscovici's study
Wood conducted a meta analysis of 97 studies, found that minorities who were most consistent in expressing thier position were the most influencial
A minority needs to be consistent in thier viewpoint in order to be the most influencial
Commitment
Makes the majority more likely to take them seriously
Allows minority to be confident and show courage to a hostile majority
Flexibility
Minorities should be careful with flexibility as they don't want to appear too dogmatic ( strongly expressing your beliefs as if they were facts) or too willing to comprimise as this can make them look weak and inconsistent
Nemeth research
When the confederate comprimised with thier view they had more influence
This only worked in later parts of the negociation showing that being flexible too early is not effective as it makes you look weak
Simulated a jury and had a confederate propose an alternative idea to them, with no influence.
Can be more effective than a rigid argument
Moscovici study
Procedure
Participants were all asked to describe the colour of 36 slides, all were blue but of varying shades and brightnesses
In the consistent condition, the 2 confeds called all slides green (incorrect)
in the inconsistent condition, the 2 confeds called 24 slides green and the rest blue (inconsistently incorrect)
There were 6 participants, 4 real ones and 2 confederates (minority)
Minority influence was measured by the % of pps that called the slides green
Aimed to demonstrate that a minority's influence can change a majority's view, wanted to compare the effects of a consistent and inconsistent minority on influencing an incorrect answer in a colour perception test
Findings
Consistent condition- pps called slides green 8.42% and 32% of pps were influenced to give a wrong answer at least once
Inconsistent condition- pps called slides green 1.25% of the time LOTS LESS
Consistency of minority drastically affects the influence they acheive
Research suggests that in order for a minority group in society to cause a long term attitude change in the majority (conversion) they must adopt a certain behavioural style
Evaluation
+
Prac apps- research into minority influence can help effect change in real life, suffragetes were a minority who created majoirty change so this supports the role of psychology in real life situations in society
Wood meta analysis- Over 100 studies, found that while minority is not as influencial as the majority, they are still more influencial than controls, this adds reliability to Moscovici and Nemeths findings
Moscovici study- the study was done in a lab and had high control, all participants had good eyesight and saw the same number of slides ect) This high internal validity means its easier to establish cause and effect
Nemeth research
When the confederate comprimised with thier view they had more influence
This only worked in later parts of the negociation showing that being flexible too early is not effective as it makes you look weak
Simulated a jury and had a confederate propose an alternative idea to them, with no influence.
_
Ignores other social factors involved in conversion such as morals or attached stereotypes to a minority which can affect a majority's willingness to join a minority
Turner
Suggests that in society people move towards thier in group and away from thier out group
Suggests that being flexible commited and consistent isn't always enough, people may have to feel they share something with or relate to a minority to join them
Moscovici study- because it is a lab experiment it lacks ecological validity and mundane realism, naming coloured slides in a lab may not be applicable to real life minority influences
Real life situation
Majority members showed no movement onto his side
Shows that these factors do not guarantee social change in real life
In Britian Tony Benn, a labour MP challenged the leader for his leadership using the classic 3 factors strategy