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)
    • 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.
            • 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.
      • 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).
      • 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.
    • 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
    • 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.
        • He concluded that those with authoritarian personalities grew up in strict households where they could not show anger (based on interviews).
      • A03 Limitation: Rokeach (1960) showed that the F-Scale only measured right-wing authoritarian-ism and was therefore politically biased.
    • 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
    • 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.
      • 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).

    Comments

    No comments have yet been made

    Similar resources:

    See all resources »