Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Social Influence - Coggle Diagram

- - - - :red_cross: Findings arent due to blind obedience: Haslam et al (2014) found that every Pp given the first 3 prods obeyed the Experimenter, but those given the 4th prod disobeyed, according to the social identity theory, the first 3 prods required identification, but the 4th prod required blind obedience. This shows that the findings are best explained in terms of identification with scientific aims and not as blind obedience to authority.
  - - - :check: LoA can explain cultural differences: research shows that countries differ in obedience to authority, e.g., 16% of Australian women obeyed, and 85% of Germana Pps did. This shows that authority is more likely seen as legitimate in some cultures.
        :red_cross: LoA can't explain obedience: people may disobey even when they accept LoA, e.g., most of Rank and Jacobsen's nurses were disobedient, as were Milgram's Pps. This suggests that innate tendencies towards obedience may be more important than LoA.
  - - - :red_cross: F-scale is politically biased: Christie and Jahoda (1954) suggest the F-scale aims to measure the tendency towards extreme right-wing ideology, but right-wing and left-wing authoritarianism both insist on complete obedience to political authority. therefore Adorno's theory isn't a comprehensive dispositional explanation as it doesn't explain obedience to left-wing authoritarianism.
- - - - :red_cross: Exaggerated the power of roles: only 1/3 of the guards behaved brutally, another 1/3 applied rules fairly, the rest supported the prisoners. Suggests SPE overstates the view that the guards were conforming to a brutal role and minimised dispositional influences