Social Influence Obedience
- Created by: ChazCL
- Created on: 05-03-19 11:33
View mindmap
- Social Influence Obedience
- Explanations for Obedience
- Agency Theory (Milgram) (1974)
- Autonomous State Accepting Responsibility
- Agentic State Denying Responsibility "Just Following Orders"
- My Lai Massacre
- Limitation: Rank and Jacobsen (1977)
- This does not, however, explain individual differences.
- Strength: Hofling et al. (1966)
- High Ecological Validity (Naturalistic Setting)
- Agency Theory (Milgram) (1974)
- Stanley Milgram (1963)
- AO1 Knowledge
- Aim: To investigate obedience to an authority figure using a laboratory based procedure.
- Procedure
- 40 Men
- 20 to 50 years old.
- Experimenter would prompt participants if they refused to administer shocks.
- DV: How far in volts the participants would go to shock the learner.
- Experimenter would prompt participants if they refused to administer shocks.
- Participants gave learners in separate rooms electric shocks for giving wrong answers to a quiz.
- These shocks went to 450 'volts'. They were actually fake, unbeknownst to the participants.
- IV: Experimenter Prompts
- DV: How far in volts the participants would go to shock the learner.
- IV: Experimenter Prompts
- These shocks went to 450 'volts'. They were actually fake, unbeknownst to the participants.
- Procedure
- Aim: To investigate obedience to an authority figure using a laboratory based procedure.
- AO2 Analysis
- Results and Findings
- Participants became very tense.
- All participants went up to 300 volts.
- 14 defied the experimenter above 300 volts.
- 26 obeyed up to 450 volts (evidence of an agentic shift).
- Results and Findings
- AO3 Evaluation
- High Internal Validity: Participants believed experiment to be true
- Participants were thoroughly debriefed and 84% of participants said they were pleased to have taken part.
- Low ecological validity. The task did not reflect real life obedience.
- Lack of informed consent. Participants not protected, some became very distressed.
- Only men were included in the study.
- Lack of informed consent. Participants not protected, some became very distressed.
- AO1 Knowledge
- Situational Variables (Milgram)
- Learner Proximity
- Voice Feedback Condition: 65% OR.
- Same Room Condition: OR fell to 40%.
- Shock Plate Condition: OR fell to 30%.
- Location
- Run Down Office: 48%.
- Baseline Condition: 65%
- Authority Proximity: When instructions gave over the phone, obedience rate fell to 22.5%.
- Uniform
- Without uniform, obedience rates plummeted to 20%, with prompting.
- AO3 Evaluation
- High standardised and controlled experiments are very reliable.
- Qualitative and quantitative data was collected - scientific merit.
- Samples were from the same area with very few women included - not representative
- Learner Proximity
- Dispositional Explanations for Obedience
- Adorno et al. 1950 proposed the concept of an authoritarian personality.
- Sample of 2000 American middle class participants and attempted to measure their fascism levels (F-Scale).
- Those who measured high on the scale found to have an 'us and them' mentality.
- These people disliked foreigners, and had a high respect for authority, power, toughness and the law.
- Those who measured high on the scale found to have an 'us and them' mentality.
- He concluded that those with authoritarian personalities grew up in strict households where they could not show anger (based on interviews).
- Sample of 2000 American middle class participants and attempted to measure their fascism levels (F-Scale).
- A03 Limitation: Rokeach (1960) showed that the F-Scale only measured right-wing authoritarian-ism and was therefore politically biased.
- Adorno et al. 1950 proposed the concept of an authoritarian personality.
- Resistance to Social Influence
- Rotter (1966) theorised the concept of the locus of control. It 'measures' how much an individual is willing to accept responsibility for their actions.
- Internal LOC: In control, healthy, responsible.
- External LOC: Fatalistic, Less Healthy, Gullible, Likely to Follow Orders
- Chubb et al. (1997)
- Sherman et al. (2007)
- AO3 Evaluation: Strength: High Validity
- Rotter (1966) theorised the concept of the locus of control. It 'measures' how much an individual is willing to accept responsibility for their actions.
- Resisting through social support
- Gamson et al. (1982): The MHRC Set-UP
- A group of strangers is hired individually by a large company (MHRC) to perform a meeting on camera. Each individual believes they have learned of wrongdoing on the company.
- In 16 out of the 33 groups, one third of participants rebelled when asked to take the company view in the early protest phases.
- High ecological validity as the participants believed the setting to be real. It also had high internal validity and strong results indicating the effect of a supportive minority.
- High ecological validity as the participants believed the setting to be real. It also had high internal validity and strong results indicating the effect of a supportive minority.
- Lots of deception and stress was cause to the participants.
- In 16 out of the 33 groups, one third of participants rebelled when asked to take the company view in the early protest phases.
- In 16 out of the 33 groups, one third of participants rebelled when asked to take the company view in the early protest phases.
- In 16 out of the 33 groups, one third of participants rebelled when asked to take the company view in the early protest phases.
- A group of strangers is hired individually by a large company (MHRC) to perform a meeting on camera. Each individual believes they have learned of wrongdoing on the company.
- Gamson et al. (1982): The MHRC Set-UP
- Minority Influence
- Conversion Theory: A minority can use new ISI to convince the majority.
- Consistency: Synchronic and Diachronic
- Commitment: Minority must show commitment to their cause
- Flexibility: Minorities who are consistent but less flexible are less persuasive.
- Clark (2001) Twelve Angry Men Paradigm
- Internalisation - Majority influence qualitatively different to minority influence (Martin et al. 2003)
- Moscovici et al. (1969) (STRENGTH)
- These studies used artificial lab experiments - lack ecological and internal validity.
- Nemeth (2005)
- How Social Influences Affect Social Change
- Minority Influence (IRA)
- The Snowball Effect
- Majority Influence (Public Smoking Ban 2007)
- Evaluation: Minority Influences Take A Long Time To Turn Majority
- Nemeth's (1987) Theory of Minority Influence
- Convergent - Divergent Theory
- In order for the minority to become influential, they must take highly informational and broader thought. This leads to better decisions and more creative solutions (divergent thinking).
- Convergent - Divergent Theory
- Explanations for Obedience
Comments
No comments have yet been made