1. Authoritarian Personality Locus of Control
LO: Outline and Evaluate Dispositional explanation for obedience & resistance
Authoritarian Personality
Locus of Control

4. In other words, to Adorno the ‘evil’ people of this world are so because they have authoritarian personalities and therefore are predisposed to cruelty as a result of their upbringing

6. Locus of Control Scale (Rotter) – Scoring
Note there are 6 filler items (1, 8, 14, 19, 24, 27) and
23 scoring items.
Score 1 point for each of the following:
2b 3a 4a 5a 6b
7b 9b 10a 11a 12a
13a 15a 16b 17b 18b
20b 21b 22a 23b 25b
26a 28a 29b
External = low score; Internal = high score
(note that this is reverse-scored from the original Rotter scale).

7. Individual Differences in Independent Behaviour
Locus of Control - Rotter (1966): The individual’s sense of control over their personal life
personal responsibility (i.e. Internal) Vs ‘fate’ (i.e. External).
Avtgis (1998): meta-analysis of LoC & conformity; external locus more likely to conform, correlation coefficient 0.37
Elm & Milgram (1974): disobedient Ps in original studies had higher social responsibility and internal locus scores.
Oliner & Oliner (1988): Compared 406 people who helped Jews during Holocaust to 126 who didn’t; ‘rescuers’ had higher social responsibility and internal locus scores.

8. Why Do People Disobey?
Importance of a group – groups can be a force for good!
 Milgram found this with Social influence:
If a second ‘teacher’ was present who complied, obedience soared to 92% full compliance
If the 2nd ‘teacher’ disobeys, only 10% of Ps went up to 450V
Rank & Jacobson (1975) found the same with nurses:
In their study, (amongst other factors) the nurses were not alone when they got the call from the authority (the doctor); they were able to consult with colleagues about the order – only 1 of the 18 nurses in the study obeyed the order

9. Developing Independent Behaviour
Nemeth & Chiles (1988): can independent behaviour be cultivated? Examined using the Moscovici model.
First part involved exposure to a consistent or inconsistent minority confederate.
In second part, confederates formed the majority; those who were exposed to the consistent independent minority were more likely to resist compliance.
Suggests that exposure to models of independence can help in help breed independent behaviour.