Social Theory

Agency theory

Milgram

Agency theory : S

Milgram 1963 study

Milgram 1963 study

shock generator study

Agency theory : O

Rank and Jacobson 1977 study

Rank and Jacobson 1977 study

valium overdose refusal study: out of 18 nurses, only 2 obeyed

Social impact theory

Latane

Sedikes and Jackson 1990 study

zoo railing study: strength (30%) , immediacy (54%) and number (46%) manipulated to influence obedience rate

Social impact theory: o

Hofling et al 1966 study

Social impact theory: s

Sedikes and Jackson 1990 study

Hofling et al 1966 study

unknown doctor phoned nurses study: out of 22, 95% obeyed

milgram baseline study: aim

understand behaviour of the Nazis during the holocaust

milgram baseline study: procedure

sample \= 40 white American males with range of professions, rigged role allocation (p's \= teacher,) confederate strapped to electric chair, p's taken to shock generator and ordered to shock confed for every mistake in a word pairing task and increase each time

milgram baseline study: findings

65% administered full shock (450V), 100% administered 300V, p's showed physical signs of moral strain (sweating, crying, biting nails, seizures)

milgram basline study: conclusion

Americans are surprisingly obedient to authority

milgram baseline study: G

not generalisable - sample was only 40 white men

milgram baseline study: R

standardised procedure (script, actors) so it is replicable

milgram baseline study: A

pilot training - prevent 20% crashes

milgram baseline study: V

lacks external validity - p's didn't believe the shocks were real as the task was so strange

milgram baseline study: evaluation

applications of his work have contributed positively to society but the study was highly unethical

milgram variation 7: procedure

experimenter gave orders over the phone

milgram variation 7: findings

22.5% o.r - some lied on the phone but became obedient again when researcher entered the room

milgram variation 7 conclusion

physical presence of authority is an important situational factor influencing obedience

milgram variation 10 procedure

study conducted in run down office block

milgram variation 10 findings

47.5% o.r - p's voiced doubts about legitimacy of the study

milgram variation 10 conclusion

prestigious context is an important situational factor influencing obedience

milgram variation 13 procedure

researcher receives fake phone call calling him away so ordinary man gives orders

milgram variation 13 findings

20% o.r - p's refused to continue when ordinary man gave orders

milgram variation 13 conclusion

legitimate source is an important situational factor influencing obedience

milgram variation 7 evaluation

high external validity - supported by sedikes and Jacobson: milligram's results generalise well to more naturalistic situations

milgram variation 10 evaluation

reliable - milgram collected qualitative and quantitive data which can be reanalysed and understood

milgram variation 13 evaluation

lacks internal validity: withdrawal was awkward so initial aim was hard to achieve due to traces of derived authority (experimenter had already detailed the procedure)

authoritarian personality

adorno et al 1950

locus of control

rotter 1966

obedience factors: gender (women)

Sheridan and king 1972 study

Sheridan and king 1972 study

puppy shocks: women 100% men 54%

obedience factors: gender (men)

Kilham and Mann 1974 study

Kilham and Mann 1974 study

replicated milligram's study in Australia: women 16% men 40%

factors affecting obedience: culture

individualism-collectivism and power distance index

individualism-collectivism

Hofstede 2011

power distance index

Hofstede

factors affecting obedience: situation

legitimacy, proximity, behaviour of others and momentum of compliance

evaluating obedience factors: personality

strength \= Milgram weakness \= Schurz

LOC can't be supported by Schurz 1985

Austrian p's ordered to give painful ultrasound to female participant - results did not correlate obedience with LOC from questionnaire

Authoritarian personality can be supported by Milgram 1966

used F scale with p's and found obedient P's scored higher on F scale (authoritarian personality - p's reported lack of closeness with fathers)

evaluating obedience factors: gender

Gilligan 1988

Gilligan 1988

male and female p's asked about real life moral dilemmas and found men favoured justice while women favoured compassion

factors affecting obedience: personality

authoritarian personality and locus of control

factors affecting obedience: gender

women more obedient, men more obedient

evaluating obedience factors: situation

strength \= Meeus , weakness \= milligram's variations

Meeus and Raaijmakers 1986

asked p's to deliver mean insults to a confederate and found 90% delivered all 15, 36% when experimenter left the room and 16% when they witnessed 2 rebellious individuals

Milgrams variations can be a weakness of situation affecting obedience

there were individual differences in all of the variations

evaluating obedience factors: culture

strength \= Hofstede, weakness \= Blass

Hofstede can support culture affecting obedience

close relationship between PDI and obedience - low rates of obedience correlated with low PDI scores

Social identity theory: S

Tajfel minimal group study 1970

Tajfel minimal group study 1970

created ingroups between school boys through tasks and asked them to allocate points to each other - found more points were awarded to in-groups

Social identity theory: O

Wetherell 1982

Wetherell 1982

replicated Tajfels minimal group study in New Zealand and found indigenous Polynesian children were more generous with point allocation to outgroups than white classmates

Social identity theory

tajfel and turner 1979

realistic conflict theory

sherif 1966

Realistic conflict theory: S

Sherif Robbers cave study 1961

Robber's cave study supporting RCT

in stage 2, intergroup conflict was generated through the competition for resources

realistic conflict theory: O

Tajfel minimal group study

Tajfel as a weakness of RCT

experiment shows that prejudice can be created without conflict - others treated differently due to group membership

Factors affecting prejudice: personality

authoritarian personality, generalised tolerance, RWA, SDO

Generalised tolerance personality type

Allport 1954

Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA)

Altemeyer 1988

Social dominance orientation

Pratto 1994

Evaluating factors affecting prejudice: Personality

strength \= Cohrs weakness \= Louis

Cohrs 2012

found RWA and SDO are positively correlated with prejudice - RWA \= lower openness with experience, SDO \= lower agreeableness

Louis 2003

RWA and SDO don't include items heavily affected by social norms - ignored in research

Factors affecting prejudice: situation

social norms, competition and resource stress

Factors affecting prejudice: culture

norm of intolerance, norm of fairness

Evaluating factors affecting prejudice: Situation

Akrami 2009

Akrami 2009 strength

manipulated social norms by asking confederates to cast opinions that changes levels of prejudice in a room of p's

Akrami 2009 weakness

personality variables also had an influence of levels of prejudice in the room

Evaluating factors affecting prejudice: culture

Orpen 1971

Orpen 1971 strength

measures of social conformity, cultural pressure and norms correlated positively with prejudice

Orpen 1971 weakness

participants were 16 year old students with a strong desire to fit social groups

Robbers cave study

sherif 1954

robbers cave aims

explore how competition and frustration of group goals can lead to competition and prejudice

robbers cave procedure sample

sample - 22 middle class 11 year old boys divided into 2 equal groups unaware of each other

Robber's cave procedure stage 1

group formation - non competitive activities to form group bond

Robber's cave procedure stage 2

friction - groups learned of the others existence and competition introduced through a tournament with prizes

robbers cave procedure stage 3

reducing friction - superordinate goals introduced which required group cooperation

robbers cave findings stage 1

social norms and leaders formed: called themselves the Eagles and the Rattlers

robbers cave findings stage 2

on discovery, groups wanted to challenge and hostility developed quickly

robbers cave findings stage 3

over time superordinate goals reduced friction

robbers cave conclusion

intergroup competition increases friction and superordinate goals reduce it

robbers cave evaluation

valid as the groups were equal, applicable as it can be used to reduce prejudice in society, however it can't be supported by subsequent research

Burger 2009 aims

see if Milgram's results were era-bound and whether obedience is affected by gender/personality

burger procedure sample

sample - 29 men and 41 women with various ages and professions

burger procedure

replicated Milgram's studies but took ethical precautions

SCROME: S

screening process excluded people aware of the study or those with mental health issues

SCROME: C

clinical psychologists supervised every trial in case they needed to end it

SCROME: R

remained right to withdraw

SCROME: O

only went up to 150V to avoid excess distress

SCROME: M

milder real shock: 15V

SCROME: E

effective and immediate debrief

Burger findings

obedience rate was only slightly lower, no significant difference in gender, defiant p's had higher desire for control

burger conclusion

milligram's findings are not era bound and desire for personal control affects dissent