Social inflluence

HideShow resource information
View mindmap
  • Social Influence
    • Milgram (1951)
      • Predictions and Findings
        • He predicted that nearly all would refuse. Only a few would go to 150V. 4% to 300V and 1/1000 to 450V
        • Found that 100% went to 300V. 65% to 450V
        • Situational    perspective: this is where you can explain obedience in terms of situational pressure
      • Milgrams variations
        • Proximity: L and T in different room: 62.5%. L and T in same room: 40%  T forces L hand down: 30%
        • Proximity of authority: out of office: 48% over the phone 20%
        • Presence of allies: when with 2 other Ts, when they stopped the Pps also stopped.
        • Increasing teachers discretion: level up to them stayed at low V.
      • External validity
        • Field setting: Bickman (1974) 'Give bus money' Uniform 92% No uniform 49%
        • Cross cultural: 90% Europe        (Netherlands and Spain). Lowest in Australia 16%
        • Temporal: Burger (2007) did replication and found almost identical results
    • Why do people obey?
      • Situational         Factors
        • Legitimate    Authority
          • In hierarchical society people have authority and we trust them.
          • Proximity of authority: out of office: 48% over the phone 20%
        • Graduated commitment
          • People said that they wouldn't have gone it at 180V straight away.  Was only because of the small increments
        • Responsibility
          • People said they felt like an agent of the researcher. However signs of stress on video not indictive of agentic state.
        • Buffers
          • These protected the Pps from seeing the implications of their actions.
          • Proximity: L and T in different room: 62.5%. L and T in same room: 40%  T forces L hand down: 30%
      • Personality Factors
        • Authoritarian : respect people who have authority and look down on those below them
        • Locus of control
          • Elms and Milgram (1974) founds that the participants who disobey had high scores of social     responsibly and internal LOC
  • External validity
    • Field setting: Bickman (1974) 'Give bus money' Uniform 92% No uniform 49%
    • Cross cultural: 90% Europe        (Netherlands and Spain). Lowest in Australia 16%
    • Temporal: Burger (2007) did replication and found almost identical results

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Psychology resources:

See all Psychology resources »See all resources »