The Authoritarian Personality Adorno et al 1950 The Authoritarian Personality

Obedience Research Quiz What did Milgram’s variation show about the power of a uniform? What did Milgram’s variation show about the role of location? What did Milgram’s variation show about the role of proximity? Why may all of Milgram’s research be low in internal validity? Why may all of Milgram’s research be low in historical/temporal validity? The research by Milgram is considered socially sensitive. How does the example of Major Trapp support this criticism? What is the difference between an agentic and an autonomous state? Why does an Agentic State make people more likely to obey? How does Milgram operationalise obedience (make obedience measurable) in his study and variations? The explanations of obedience known as Agentic State can explain examples of real life obedience. How does the example of the My Lai Massacre support this strength?

How is this relevant? My Lai Massacre, Lt. Calley Major Trap and Polish Village

Evaluation: Legitimacy of Authority and Agentic State Can they explain real life examples of obedience? My Lai Massacre 1968 (Vietnam War) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnvTyMptOt8 Lt. Calley ordered a village of non-combatants murdered. 500 murdered. Calley’s defense? Just following orders- agentic shift Orders given by Capt. Medina- Legitimate authority.

Using the A3 summary sheet write what you would say for each question. Recap Exam Questions

A3 Summary Sheet

The Authoritarian Personality Read the information about he Authoritarian Personality. Label the man with 6 key characteristics. Read the excerpt from the F Scale. Discuss the questions at the bottom together.

Elms and Milgram 1966 Research into Authoritarian Personality Procedure 20 obedient to 450V 20 defiant at some point Personality questionnaire and F Scale, open qs about feelings towards parents and those in the study. Findings Obedient less close to fathers, more negative. Admired experimenter, much less for learner. Not the case for defiant Conclusion More authoritarian=more obedient Elms and Milgram 1966 Research into Authoritarian Personality

Evaluation- in groups. Annotate. Can’t explain widespread obedience Can’t explain other variations by Milgram based on situations Could be education or left wing instead? Middendorp ’90- Less educated more obedient Begue et al 14- replication of Milgram in a game show then World Values Survey. Left less obedient. Evaluation- in groups. Annotate.

Resistance to Social Influence Social support Conformity Obedience Locus of Control Internal External

Social Support- Conformity and Obedience What do we mean by this? What did Asch find about this? What did Milgram find about this? Why do you think it helps people to resist influence?

Evaluation of Social Support Rosentrasse ’43 in 1943 German women protested here in Berlin where the Gestapo were holding 2000 Jewish men because they had or were from mixed marriages. As in Milgram, with support of peers they prevailed. Rees and Wallace ’15 if your friends drink alcohol, you are more likely to have got drunk and binged in last 2 months BUT you are more likely to resist this if there was a non-drinking ally. Consistent with the lab studies, social support explains resistance.

Locus of Control Take Add up Call While Take the test. 0-23 (External) While you are waiting complete the information on the sheet using p.30 Call Call them out Add up Add up your scores Take Take the test. 0-23 (External)

Are they internal or external- AO2 Apply your knowledge to the examples

Evaluation- Locus of Control Cant explain Rosentrasse or any widespread actions of obedience or defiance. Why not? Can help to identify social trends. Twenge ’04, meta analysis. Steadily more external in young people since 1962. Rely on luck and others. Likely due to alienation.

Behavioural Types for an effective conversion from majority to minority viewpoint Consistency- presses majority to look more closely at arguments. Commitment- certainty and confidence against hostility and great costs Flexibility- need to negotiate with powerful majority to avoid appearing dogmatic but without being inconsistent Explanation Real Life Examples Minority Influence

Moscovici et al. (1969) Blue-Green Study Type of Experiment: Control Variable: Aim: Design: Moscovici et al. (1969) Blue-Green Study Aimed to investigate the effects of a consistent minority on a majority. Moscovici (1969) conducted a re-run of Asch’s experiment, but in reverse. Instead of one subject amongst a majority of confederates, he placed two confederates together with four genuine participants. The participants were first given eye tests to ensure they were not color-blind. Placed in a group consisting of four participants and two confederates. They were shown 36 slides which were clearly different shades of blue and asked to state the color of each slide out loud. In the first part of the experiment the two confederates answered green for each of the 36 slides. They were totally consistent in their responses. In the second part of the experiment they answered green 24 times and blue 12 times. In this case they were inconsistent in their answers. In condition one it was found that the consistent minority had an affect on the majority (8.42%) compared to an inconsistent minority (only 1.25% said green). A third (32%) of all participants judged the slide to be green at least once. A third (32%) of al participants judged the slide to be green at least once. Minorities can influence a majority, but not all the time and only when they behave in certain ways (e.g. consistent behavior style). The study used the lab experiments – i.e. are the results true to real life (ecological validity)? Also Moscovici used female students as participants (i.e. unrepresentative sample), so it would be wrong to generalize his result to all people – they only tell us about the behavior of female students. Findings about inconsistency: Findings about consistency: IV: DV: Conclusion: Evaluation:

Evaluation- Minority Influence Too Simplistic- minorities more about size, oppression e.g. Sufragettes Low Ecological Validity, not like real minority group although well controlled Acceptance or Tolerance? Nemeth’10 claims that people listen on the surface but eventually become irritated by the dissenters and don’t want the disharmony or ridicule of being ‘deviant’.

Social Influences Processes in Social Change Minority influence Majority influence

What is social change

Change through minority influence Draw attention Cognitive Conflict Consistency Augmentation Principle Snowball Effect

Change through majority influence Most of us don’t drink and drive

Evaluation Minority Very challenging, often gradual e.g. suffragettes Seen as deviant, e.g. gay rights 60s but the Communist Manifesto Majority Boomerang Effect, Shultz ’07 dragging down majority. Doesn’t always work, DeJong ’09 and drinking