Psychology: Social Influence - Obedience and Resisting Social Influence

what is obedience?

• following direct orders - usually from an authority figure as they have power to punish if order isn’t followed

milgram’s research 1963

procedure

• ppt consisted of 40 american male

• set at yale university

• ppt always had the role of teacher and confederates are students

• the ppt was instructed by researcher to deliver the shocks at increasing level whenever learner got something wrong (15V-400V & labelled with warnings as it got higher)

• if the teacher refused to give shocks, researcher would give verbal prods

milgram’s research 1963

findings

• all ppt went up to 300V

• 65% - 450V

• soon, ppt showed signs of distress

> shows that under the right situational circumstances, ordinary ppl will obey unjust orders from an authority figure

STRENGTHS of milgram’s research

• research has good external validity - it reflected wider real life authorities, e.g. (Holfing) found that nurses were very obedient to the unjustified order of doctors

> research can be generalised

WEAKNESSES of milgram’s research

• the research lacked internal validity - ppts may have guessed it was a study, therefore may be influenced by demand characteristics which is little use in explaining obedience

• it also lacked population validity as the sample was not representative - volunteering shows a certain personality type + some research shown collectivist cultures tend to be more conformist

agentic state (explanation for obedience)

• we are socialised from a young age to follow rules of society

• autonomous state: when a person acts independently

• agentic shift: follows orders of someone in authority

• 'acting as an agent' - a person may take little personal responsibility over their actions - it reduces moral strain for them, so they may know what they're doing is wrong but feel powerless to disobey

STRENGTH for agentic state

• a supporting research of (Blass 2001) found that most blamed the experimenter and not the actual ppts for delivering the 'shocks' when he showed students Milgram’s study

  > students saw legitimacy of authority as the cause of obedience, so the responsibility is on the person who is giving the orders

WEAKNESSES of agentic state

• unable to explain some research, e.g. (Hoffling) - experiment where nurses were told to give lethal dose of unknown meds to a patient to follow doctor's orders and 21/22 obeyed. meaning nurses handed the responsibility to the doctor, however they didn't feel anxious, which shows that this contradicts AGENTIC SHIFT

legitimacy of authority (LOA)

• belief that if we accept a hierarchy as a society, it will help run smoothly - authority is legitimate if the society agrees on it, e.g. we trust doctors as they are qualified that job and they will exercise their authority properly

STRENGTHS of legitimacy of authority

• (Blass 2001) found that most blamed the experimenter and not the actual ppts for delivering the 'shocks' when he showed students Milgram’s study

  > students saw legitimacy of authority as the cause of obedience, so the responsibility is on the person who is giving the orders

  > so when authority figure is in uniform, ppts/ppl are more likely to obey as they expect them to use their power wisely and make good decisions. therefore, the explanation has validity

WEAKNESSES of legitimacy of authority

• there are differences in cultures - a research has replicated Milgram’s study and found that 81% conformed in Germany showing in some cultures, authority is more likely to be accepted. also shows the way different societies are structured.

  > social hierarchy dictates obedience

authoritarian personality

(dispositional explanation for obedience)

• believes it starts at a young age as a result of harsh parenting, then grows up resentful - lead to inability to express their feelings due to fear of being punished so they displace feelings on to people they think are weaker

authoritarian personality research

• (Adorno 1947) - research consisted of 200 white middle class american male

• unconscious attitudes towards racial groups

• collected data using questionnaires, then conducted in depth interviews of high/low scorers

• they analysed the transcripts and used this to develop F(fascist)-SCALE to measure levels