Social Psychological factors

Lesson 4 (Miss Evans)

Social Psychology

The branch of psychology that deals with social interactions, including their origins and their effects on the individual

Legitimacy of Authority explanation

an explanation for obedience which suggests we are more likely to obey people who we perceive to have legitimate authority over us. This authority is justified (legitimise) by the individuals position of power within a social hierarchy.

Legitimacy of Authority- link to Milgram’s research

• the participants were more likely to do the shocks because they were in a prestigious university, and had the experimenter in a lab coat

• the lab coat is giving them legitimacy of authority and making people more likely to conform

• most societies are structured in a hierarchal way, meaning people in certain positions hold more authority over the rest of us

• Most of us accept that the police and courts have the power to punish wrongdoers. So we are willing to give up some of our independence and to hand control of our behaviour over to people we trust to exercise their authority appropriately

Destructive authority

Problems arise when legitimate authority comes destructive. History has shown that powerful charismatic leaders (e.g. Hitler) can use their legitimate powers for destructive purposes. This was clearly shown in Milgram’s study where the experimenter used prods to order participants to behave in ways that went against their consciences 

Agentic State definition

A mental state where we feel no personal responsibility for our behaviour because we believe ourselves to be acting for an authority figure i.e. As their agent. This frees us from the demands of our conscience and allows us to obey even a destructive authority figure,

Agentic state part 2

• agent for carrying out another person’s wishes (Milgram 1974)

• no longer feel responsibility for their actions

• move from being autonomous (free will) to someone else being responsible for their behaviour - agentic shift (must percieve person as being legitimate authority). Can revert back to autonomous state - not always in agentic state

Self image and agentic state

• Self-image -May occur as we want to maintain positive self-image (our behaviour is therefore no longer our responsibility). The participant might hesitate to shock the learner, considering the impact this action might have on their (the participant’s) self-image. However, once they have moved into the agentic state, this concern is no longer relevant. Because they don’t feel responsible for their actions, shocking the learner doesn’t affect their self-image. From their perspective, actions taken in the agentic state are almost guilt-free, no matter how inhumane they might be.

Binding Factors and agentic state

Once in the agentic state, binding factors keep us there:

• Fear of being rude and for example spoiling someone’s experiment.

In all social situations, including experiments, there is a social etiquette that plays a part in regulating our behaviour. In order to break off the experiment, the participant must breach the commitment that they made to the experimenter. Thus, the subject fears that by breaking it off, they will appear arrogant and rude. These emotions, although they appear minor alongside the violence being done to the learner, nonetheless help bind subject into obedience.

 

• Fear of increasing our levels of anxiety by disobeying.

Gradual commitment (not on spec)

• Participants gradually commit to acts. i.e. The shocks in Milgram's experiment started small (15v), but increased steadily, until all p's shocked at 300v.

 

Support - (SCAPID evaluation sheet of types and explanations of SI)

Point - There is research to support the idea that social psychological factors cause obedience.

Evidence - For example, Blass and Schmitt (2001)in their experiment found that students observing Milgram’s study held the experimenter accountable for the shocks.

Explain - In other words they recognised legitimate authority as the cause of obedience, supporting this explanation.

Contradict - (SCAPID evaluation sheet of types and explanations of SI)

Point - This provides a limited explanation of obedience as the agentic shift doesn’t explain many of the research findings.

Evidence - For example, it doesn’t explain why some of the participants did not obey (humans are social animals and involved in social hierarchies and therefore should all obey).

Explain- This suggests that, at best, agentic shift can only account for some situations of obedience.

 

Alternative - (SCAPID evaluation sheet of types and explanations of SI)

Point - An alternative explanation is that people obeyed (or not) due to their disposition (their individual differences).

Evidence -For example, some individuals may have an internal locus of control (LOC) and therefore be less likely to obey compared to those with an external LOC

Explain - This suggests that individual difference may play a key role in whether an individual obeys the experimenter or not.

Practical application - (SCAPID evaluation sheet of types and explanations of SI)

Point - A strength of the legitimacy of authority explanation is that it can help explain how obedience can lead to real-life war crimes.

Evidence - Kelman and Hamilton (1989) argue that My Lai massacre (Vietnam- 504 civilians were killed by USA soldiers) can be understood in terms of the power hierarchy of the US army.

Explain -This supports legitimacy of authority as the explanation Calley (the only solider to face charges)gave the explanation that he was following orders.

Issues and Debates-  (SCAPID evaluation sheet of types and explanations of SI)

Point- A strength of the legitimacy of authority explanation is that it is a useful account of cultural differences in obedience.

Evidence -For example Mantell (1971) found that 85% of Germans went to the top voltage, which is more than what was initially found in the USA.

Explain- This suggests that in some cultures authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimate and be entitled to demand obedience from individuals.