Obedience; social-psychological factors evaluation

Created by: JazzEastman
Created on: 18-02-20 16:03


	Obedience; social-psychological factors evaluation
	Advantages research support Blass and Schmitt - showed a film of Milgram's study to students and asked them to identify who they felt was responsible for the harm to the learner students blamed 'experimenter' and indicated that the responsiblity was due to legitimate authority but also due to expert authority legitimacy of authority's explanation is useful due to account of cultural differences in obedience Kilham and Mann; replicated Milgram's study in Australia and found only 16% went all the way to the top of the voltage scale Mantell; german participants; 85% conformed cross-cultural research increases validity	Disadvantages limited explanation agentic shift doesn't explain why some of the participants did not obey it doesn't explain Hofling's study; the explanation predicts that, as the nurses handed over responsibility to the doctor, they should have shown levels of anxiety similar to Milgram's participants as they understood their role in a destructive process, but they did not
	Evaluation Blass and Schmitt's study showed that they recognised legitimate authority as the cause of obedience, supporting this explanation. However, there is a limited explanation. It doesn't explain why some participants didn't obey, and it doesn't explain Hofling's study on nurses, which suggests that agentic shift can only account for some situations of obedience. Another strength is that there is cross-cultural research in legitmacy of authority, showing only 16% of Australians went to 450v but 85% Germans did. This increases the validity of the explanation and shows that in some cultures, authority is likely to be accepted as legitimate and entitled to demand obedience from individuals.

Obedience; social-psychological factors evaluation

Advantages

research support
Blass and Schmitt - showed a film of Milgram's study to students and asked them to identify who they felt was responsible for the harm to the learner
students blamed 'experimenter' and indicated that the responsiblity was due to legitimate authority but also due to expert authority
legitimacy of authority's explanation is useful due to account of cultural differences in obedience
Kilham and Mann; replicated Milgram's study in Australia and found only 16% went all the way to the top of the voltage scale
Mantell; german participants; 85% conformed
cross-cultural research increases validity

Disadvantages

limited explanation
agentic shift doesn't explain why some of the participants did not obey
it doesn't explain Hofling's study; the explanation predicts that, as the nurses handed over responsibility to the doctor, they should have shown levels of anxiety similar to Milgram's participants as they understood their role in a destructive process, but they did not

Evaluation

Blass and Schmitt's study showed that they recognised legitimate authority as the cause of obedience, supporting this explanation. However, there is a limited explanation. It doesn't explain why some participants didn't obey, and it doesn't explain Hofling's study on nurses, which suggests that agentic shift can only account for some situations of obedience. Another strength is that there is cross-cultural research in legitmacy of authority, showing only 16% of Australians went to 450v but 85% Germans did. This increases the validity of the explanation and shows that in some cultures, authority is likely to be accepted as legitimate and entitled to demand obedience from individuals.

Get Revising

Obedience; social-psychological factors evaluation