Lesson 8 – Factors affecting obedience INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES (PERSONALITY AND GENDER) SITUATION AND CULTURAL

Individual differences – Personality  Locus of control  Authoritarian Personality  Empathy  In pairs – Look up these terms  Define and discuss how these relate to obedience

Take the locus of control personality test   Evaluation of this test?

Locus of control Personality Theory Rotter (1966)  Locus of control: sense of control people have over successes or failures and events in their life

Locus of control (Rotter (1966) External: Behaviour beyond their control, due to external factors, more influenced by others Internal: In control, feels responsible, less influenced by others

 Thinking back to Milgram’s findings relate this to locus of control.  Obedient people have ___________ locus of control  More likely to be influenced by an authority figure  More likely to believe they are not responsible  Dissenters have an ____________ locus of control  More likely to be resistant to authority  More likely to take personal responsibility  Link between obedience and personality seems plausible and can account for individual differences (example of individual differences?)  Research in this area is mix and there is a lack of strong evidence to suggest that those with internal locus of control resist and those with external locus of control obey.

Personality  The Authoritarian Personality  Tendency to be extremely obedient  Respect for authority/ hostile to lower rank ( subordinates )  Adorno: key to understanding extreme obedience and racial prejudice: early childhood experiences  Personality formed

Personality  Adorno (1959)  2000 American students – mainly white middle class  Interviewed about political views and childhood experiences  Strict parents + harsh punishment = hostile and angry  Adorno developed the “f-scale” a test to measure the authoritarian personality  Milgram and Elms (1966): Compared F Scale scores on 20 obedient and 20 defiant participants.  Fully obedient participants – scored higher on tests of authoritarian personality compared to dissenters.  They found that those who tested highest on the F-Scale - gave more stronger shocks and held the shock buttons down longer than those who were low scorers. e found that those who tested highest on the F-Scale - gave more stronger shocks and held the shock buttons down longer than those who were low scorers.

Gender  Links to developmental psychology  Gender Role Schema (Bem, 1981)  Sense of masculinity and femininity developed as we are brought up and socialised  Affects how we perceive ourselves and others  List a few stereotypes  Men are often depicted as__________________  Females are often depicted as_______________  Who thinks females would me more obedient than men?  This prediction may not be accurate Schema is a cognitive framework that helps organise and interpret information in the world around us

 Milgram study – 40 female participants  Level of obedience 65%  27.5 broke off at 300v  Level of anxiety was a lot higher than males (links to empathy)  Sheridan and King (1972) – live puppy as victim  All 13 female participants delivered the max level of shock to the puppy compared to males. 6 participants refused to carry on and these were all male

 Kilham and Mann (1974) direct replication of Milgram’s research (Australia)  Females less obedient (16%) than males (40%)  Male teachers were paired with male learners  Female teachers paired with female learners  Joined together in alliance against the demands of the male experimenter?  Very little evidence to show gender differences in obedience despite traditional beliefs Gender

 Blass (1991) Meta-analysis  Overall set of results (similar in procedure)  9 studies  Only 1 found gender differences (Kilham and Mann)  Therefore conclude: there are no gender differences in obedience Meta –analysis: method that takes the results of many studies in one area and examines the results to look for overall conclusions

Factors affecting obedience – Situational Factors and Cultural Factors  Situational Factors 1. Gradual commitment 2. Proximity 3. Status of authority

1. Gradual commitment  Trivial requests- request increases (duty bound to continue)  Binding relationship that escalated  Examples?  Slow 15 volt increments

2. Proximity  Distance – buffer to obedience (telephonic condition)  Learner and teacher in the same room – obedience dropped (30%)  Generator – physical buffer (more inclined to use machinery rather than doing something first hand) Buffer : psychological or physical barrier

3. Status of authority  Legitimate authority figure  Yale rather than run down office or when conducted by ordinary man  4. Personal responsibility  Variation study – participants had to sign a contract stating they were acting of their own free will  Could not displace responsibility  Obedience fell to 40%  Relate to Agency theory

Factors affecting obedience – Cultural differences  Could different cultures have different levels of obedience?  Nature vs Nurture debate  Nature to obey  However situation led to obedience (nurture)  Milgram – human nature to obey and the situation affects the level of obedience  Two main types of cultures  Individualistic  Collectivist

 Assumption:  Collectivist cultures will be more obedient because such traits are beneficial to that kind of culture

Culture – Blass (1999) review of obedience research ResearcherCountry% of obedience Milgram (1962)US65% Edwards et al. (1969)South Africa87.5% Bock (1972)US40% Kilham and Mann (1974) Australia28% Shanab and Yahya (1977) Jordan73% Miranda et al. (1981)Spain50% Schurz (1985)Austria80% Ancona and Pareyson (1968) Italy85% Burley and McGuiness (1977) UK50% kingdom.html

 Is this cultural variation or could the difference be explained by something else? Think about replication….. Examples: Ancona and Pareyson (1968) Italy – 85%  Max shock was 330 volts  Less dangerous than 450 volts  Students used – Milgram avoided students due to their compliant and competitive nature  Shanab and Yahya (1977) Jordan – 73%  Participants were children 6-16

 Blass (2012) concluded there were similarities found despite differences in procedure/situation/participants  Average in the US: 60.94%  Average from other countries: 65.94%  Powerful tendency to obey authority  May be ‘one of the universals of social behaviour’ (Blass 2012, pg. 203)  Due to the differences however – studies that are examining different cultures should have the same procedures and similar participants in order to conclude that differences in obedience are down to culture and not differences in the studies.

 Recap  What did Blass conclude after the meta-analysis when looking at gender?  What are situational factors?  Explain how the gradual commitment could explain obedience in Milgram’s study  Explain one variation that used proximity as a situation factor  How does signing a contract in one of the variations link to the levels of obedience?  How can we relate this to the agency theory?  What did Blass conclude after the meta-analysis when looking at culture?

H/W To read up on your contemporary study  This is one of your key studies and should be covered in detail.  Complete APRC for the study using the resources on the learning space  A video is up on the learning space – this may help you understand the study (27 mins)  The full journal article has been uploaded (stretch and challenge opportunity)  Summary of the study is available on the learning space (from a text book)  The next lesson will depend on you having completed your homework. We will be testing your knowledge and trying to commit the details to memory by completing activities. You should be able to explain the study  The differences between this study and Milgram’s  What happened at the different voltage levels in the main experiment (75 V and 150V)  Results  The second part of the study (using two teachers where one was a confederate working with the experimenter)  Results  Ethical changes in this study?