1. The Authoritarian Personality
Adorno et al 1950
The Authoritarian Personality

2. 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?

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

4. Evaluation: Legitimacy of Authority and Agentic State
Can they explain real life examples of obedience?
My Lai Massacre 1968 (Vietnam War)
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.

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

6. A3 Summary Sheet

7. 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.

8. 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

9. 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.

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

11. 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?

12. Evaluation of Social Support
Rosentrasse ’43 in 1943 German women protested here in Berlin where the Gestapo were holding 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.

13. 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 (External)

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

15. 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 Rely on luck and others. Likely due to alienation.

16. 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

17. 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:

18. 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’.

19. Social Influences Processes in Social Change
Minority influence
Majority influence

20. What is social change

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

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

23. 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