PSYCHOLOGY FINAL EXAM PAPER 1 REVISION
SOCIAL
Obedience
Theories of obedience including agency theory
Milgram conducted his obedience experiments on normal healthy participants to see whether they would yield to an
authority figure, he concluded we are all capable of complying to the demands of an authority figure even if it meant
hurting others. He observed that human society was hierarchical in nature an obedience helps to maintain social
order and we are all capable of complying to the demands of an authority figure even if it mean hurting others.
Agency theory – the idea that people submit to an authority figure when they enter the agentic state which is when
responsibility is transferred from themselves to the authority figure, they see themselves as an agent of the authority
figure, and then exit the autonomous state, the shift into agentic state often relieves any moral strain experienced for
being instructed to do something they perceive as immoral which can exhibit itself as sweating of anxious behaviour
such as shuffling, moving etc… as they no longer feel responsible
Strengths of agency theory
supported by Milgram’s studies into obedience, presence of an authority figure meant that all participants
shocked up to 300 volts and 65% shocked up to 450 volts however in a variation study where instead of an
authority figure the experimenter was perceived as an ordinary man obedience levels dropped to 20.5%
suggesting perceived authority affects compliance to instructions.
In debrief participants said behaviour was responsibility of the authority figure and they did not want to do
it, proves evidence for displacement of responsibility.
Hofling et al – hospital setting, nurses were not allowed to administer medicine unless they had face to face
confirmation from a superior however in the study, phone calls from the authority figure instructing them to
administer the medicine resulted in 21/22 nurses giving the medicine against policy suggesting that the
influence of an authority figure is able to manipulate ordinary behaviour as it was justified as a result of
hierarchy.
Weakness of agency theory
does not explain individual differences in compliance, why some are more likely to comply and enter agentic
state and others are not, suggests that it is reductionist and other individual factors combine to explain
compliance such as gender, personality and empathy
concept of autonomy and agency are not objective and are difficult to define and measure
it does not explain motivational issues behind obedience such as the bases of power French and raven
identified bases of power which would explain why people are more or less likely to obey e.g. legitimate,
rewards coercive etc.
and social impact theory
Bibb Latane suggested we are greatly influences by the actions of others, we can be persuaded, inhibited or
threatened by other people. social impact theory explains obedience as a result of targets and influencers, the
influencers impact upon the targets and the effect is measure through a formula of strength, immediacy and number,
strength refers to their perceived authority, immediacy refers to proximity either literally or in the sense of a
relationship e.ge father or number which refers to the number of targets and sources
Berkowitz Bickman and Milgram conducted a study on social impact theory and discovered a reduction in social
impact. They realised that increasing the number of confederates has a multiplicative effect up to a point at where
more passersby imitated and craned their necks, but the number of passersby grew smaller relative to the size of the
confederate group and the effect levelled off, had a divisional impact. Latane also discovered that a lone person was
more likely to help a person in need, evidencing diffusion of responsibility in large groups this shows that authority
figures have less effect on groups with allies to lean on
,Strengths of social impact theory
supported by Milgram’s study, provides evidence for the effects of influencers upon the targets behaviours a
objective formula can be used to calculate f(SIN) which means you can accurately predict behaviours
weaknesses of social impact theory
views us as passive receivers of others’ behaviours towards us, ignores the active nature of social interaction
disregards individual differences
reductionist as it does not take into account how targets and source interact does not account for the fact or
explain what happen if two equal forces impacted upon each other e.g. two football club fan groups
research into obedience including Milgram’s research into obedience
aim – to investigate the impact of authority of the compliance when instructed to harm others
procedure – volunteer sample, $4 incentive newspaper advert, 160 participants all male, conducted at yale
university, a rigged draw assigned the participant as the teacher and the confederate as the learner, the teacher
instructed by the experimenter to teach the leaner a list of word pairs, if the learner got these wrong they were to be
shocked using a volt machine that they had previously been shown and given a 45v sample shock of, they were
instructed that with each wrong answer they must increase the shock voltage, it went from 15v to 450v in 15v
increments. Verbal prods were used to ensure participants continued such as “it is essential that you continue” and
“the experiment requires you to continue”
Results – 100% of participants shocked up to 300v and 65% shocked up to 450v
Conclusion – the presence of an authority figure meant that the teacher/participant was able to justify causing harm
to the confederate as they had been instructed to do so and were in an agentic state rather than an autonomous
state
G- androcentric data, volunteer sample-volunteer bias
R – standardised procedure, was repeated and produced the same results
A – can be applied to real life scenarios e.g. my Lai massacre and Abu Ghraib prison
V – well standardised, obedience was operationalised, however lacked mundane realism, demand
characteristics and had low ecological validity
E – right to withdraw infringed upon
variation 7 telephonic instructions
establishing whether proximity had an influence on level of obedience displayed, initial instructions were given in
person and the rest of them were given through a telephone, the procedure was kept the same as were verbal prods,
but it resulted in a decrease in obedience to 22.5% showing that the presence of the authority figure affected
obedience levels. Participants began to administer lower shocks rather than increase shocks and even lied about it. In
a slightly modified version where initial instructions were telephonic and rest were in person, initial disobedience
switched to obedience upon return.
variation 10 run down office block
there was a decrease of obedience to 48%. Some believed that the prestige of yale university was affecting the
participants behaviours and so this variation took place in a run-down office block in Bridgeport. Many participants
questioned the organisations credentials upon arrival, the procedure was kept the same however the prestige of the
location decreased the obedience of participants from 65% to 48%
variation 13 ordinary man
investigated the impact of power relations upon obedience. In this variation there were two confederates, and a
rigged draw assigned the roles of experimenter and learner to the confederates while the teacher was assigned to
the participant. 16/20 participants protested to this situation and 5 physically restrained the teacher or tampered
with the generator to end the experiment. Obedience was reduced to 20.5%.
, factors affecting obedience and dissent
authoritarian personality – more likely to obey authority figure, prefer systems of hierarchical nature and
harsh to those who aren’t/don’t subordinate themselves
internal locus of control – less likely to obey as they believe in self-responsibility and that consequences are
as a result of their own actions
external locus of control – more likely to obey, believe that consequences are due to factors outside of their
own control, belief in fate and destiny
gender however Milgram found virtually no difference as did burger
empathy – higher levels of empathy mean less obedience as less likely to obey when instructed to harm
others
situational
culture – individualist, values independence and resisting conformity and therefore less likely to obey and
collectivist, more homogenous and therefore more likely to be obedient.
status of authority
proximity – closer the authority figure the higher the obedience, distance acts as a buffer
momentum of compliance, starting with small demands/minimal requests, building up sense of duty to
continue e.ge increments in Milgram’s study
Prejudice
Explanations and research into prejudice including social identity theory
Social identity theory was proposed by Tajfel and turner and suggested the idea of in and out groups and the process
of social categorisation, identification and comparison as leading to prejudice arising. Suggests membership alone in
the absence of competition can cause prejudice. A person categorises what groups exist and then which ones they
identify with so their in group and then which groups they do not which would be their out groups. In order to uplift
their group and in in turn personal identity they compare to uplift their own group and put down the outgroup
through which conflict arises. Negative out group bias and positive in group favouritism is a result. Viewing your
group as unique and heterogenous but the outgroup as homogenous or unfavourable.
Evidence:
Klee and Kandinsky, 48 boys from a comprehensive school split into three groups of 16 and asked for what they
thought was their preference on a painting. they were then given the opportunity to reward and punish the rest of
the participants, the rewards represented in group favouritism and punishments negative out group bias. A matrix
system was used, and results showed significant in group favouritism and in some cases, participants favoured
punishments rather than maximising their own teams score. It could be argued that it is competition however rather
than prejudice.
Weatherall 1982 – NZ Polynesians favoured the out group suggesting that a collectivist culture shows less prejudice
and less in group favouritism
Strengths – supported by minimal group paradigm study e.g. Klee and Kandinsky
Weaknesses – has poor predictive value, can explain why conflict arises but poor ay predicting what will occur as a
result
Realistic conflict theory
Sherif explains conflict as arising as a result of competition for scarce or limited resources and the only way that it can
be solved is through superordinate goals to be implemented
Strengths – supported by Robbers cave study
Weaknesses – issues of validity with robbers cave study
