social psychology

• Obedience


  Obeying direct orders from someone in authority
• Agency Theory


  People obey others as they perceive them as having 'legitimate authority'. When obeying it is believed that the person in authority will take responsibility of the agents action. The person is said to be in an agentic state despite their being moral strain which is when you do something that opposes to your own, individual moral beliefs. Those that disobey tend to be in an autonomous state.
• Autonomous State


  When people direct their own actions, and they take responsibility for the result of those actions
• Agentic State


  People allow others to direct their actions, and they pass off their responsibility for the consequences to the person giving orders. In other words, they act as agents for another person's will.
• Agentic Shift


  The change from one state to another (e.g. autonomous state to agentic state)
• Social Impact Theory


  The theory suggests that the likelihood that a person will respond to social influence depends on the Strength (of the source), Immediacy (proximity/distance between source and target), and Number (of sources and targets)
• Social Impact Theory


  • The greater the strength, immediacy and number of the source of authority, the greater the impact on sources
  • The greater number of targets in a social situation (compared to the number of sources) causes the social impact to be divided amongst all of the targets
  • The more sources (number) of influence and their increasing strength and immediacy may multiply the social impact on the target(s)
• Divisional Effect: The greater number of targets in a social situation (compared to the number of sources) causes the social impact to be divided amongst all of the targets
• Multiplication Effect: The more sources (number) of influence and their increasing strength and immediacy may multiply the social impact on the target(s)
• Milgram's (1963) Study of Obedience


  Milgram was interested in the idea that German's where somehow different from other people as during the reign of the Nazi's they were able to carry out barbaric acts. He wanted to see how far one would go, whether they would blindly obey and give electric shocks that were potentially harmful or would they disobey.
• Milgram's (1963) Study of Obedience

  1. Participants were 40 males, aged between 20 and 50, whose jobs ranged from unskilled to professional, from the New Haven (US) area

  2. Participant teacher would watch the confederate learner be strapped up into an electric chair in another room

  3. The experiment began. Each question the confederate learner would get wrong meant an increase in the voltage of shocks by 15V

  4. When the teacher refused to administer a shock, the experimenter was to give a series of orders/prods to ensure they continued
• fe, teachers are not asked to deliver electric shocks to learners
• The setting is artificial as it is a lab experiment this may have enabled artificial, unnatural behaviour
• Other factors may have manipulated the obedience such as the location, pay, prompts, danger of the shocks
• They were volunteers who gave their consent, despite not giving informed consent
• They were given the right to withdraw
• They were debriefed afterwards and had full knowledge of the situation and reassured
• Milgram employed the use of a psychiatrist to interview the participants a year after and the majority were fine, only 2 expressed criticism
• Participants were deceived in numerous occasions e.g. the (fake) shocks, the confederate learner, the study is on obedience not memory
• Informed consent- they did not know the study was testing obedience and the distressing situation
• Right to withdraw- despite having a right to withdraw the verbal prods made it difficult for them to withdraw
• Distress- extremely distressing situation for the participants who were said to be crying and feeling faint
• Milgram's Telephonic Instructions (Experiment 7)


  1. Exactly the same procedure as the original experiment but the only difference is the absence of experimenter

  2. The experimenter was first in the room giving instructions that the participants needed to start but then left the room leaving the participant Teacher alone in the room with the shock generator and a telephone

  3. The experimenter then gave instructions over the telephone and if the Teachers have questions or doubts, they must phone the Experimenter

  4. The "prods" were also delivered over the telephone
• Milgram's Telephonic Instructions (Experiment 7)


  • Milgram used the same procedure but only manipulating one variable, this helps with comparisons
  • This is not natural situation, perhaps behavior was not natural; lack of ecological validity
  • When Milgram varied the physical presence of the experimenter in other variations, he found that physical presence of the person giving orders did affect obedience, which backs up his claim in Experiment 7
  • Also, the experiment took place in a prestigious building, participants trusted the institution not to harm the learner, so therefore may not believe the shocks as real
• Subsequent research has replicated this finding, demonstrating high external validity. Sedikides and Jackson (1990) conducted this study at a New York zoo. This study also demonstrated when the authority figure isn't present obedience drops
• Milgram's Rundown Office Block (Experiment 10)


  1. The experiment moved to run-down office in the busy town of Bridgeport, all links to Yale university were removed

  2. The lab was opposite shops and the place had 3 rooms and was a clean lab

  3. The same procedure was used including asking for volunteers and paying them $4.50. The experimenter said that they were a private firm
• Milgram's Rundown Office Block (Experiment 10)


  • Using an office block added to the validity of the study as it is based in the real world. Natural setting may gain a more natural response
  • This is still a lab experiment therefore it is not full natural and in effect responses may not be natural. The task at hand including the generator and verbal prods are artificial thus lacking in ecological validity
  • Also, the controls used in the study is identical to the one that took place in Yale; cause and effect conclusions could be drawn
  • Despite Milgram claiming there is no significant difference, there is still a small difference. He does not provide an explanation for this
  • Milgram not only collected quantitative data but he also collected qualitative data in the form of audio recordings of the dialogue between researcher and participants- allows for other researchers to interpret so reliability is established
• Milgram's Ordinary Man Gives Orders (Experiment 13/13A)


  1. The experimenter gave instructions to the point about administrating shocks, but he then got 'called away'

  2. There is an accomplice in the room dressed ordinarily (participants think he is another participant) who starts suggesting a new way of doing the study (increasing shocks for every mistake the learner has)
• Milgram's Ordinary Man Gives Orders (Experiment 13A)


  When participants refused, the accomplices suggested that they swap roles; so now the accomplice is administrating the shocks and participants are bystanders
• Milgram's Ordinary Man Gives Orders (Experiment 13/13A)


  • Keeping the procedure the same for this variation meant that comparisons could be made directly. The controls and the setup of the apparatus were the same. As in the main study, Yale university was used. There is reliability in the procedure because it showed obedience, even though there was different variations and still mainly showed obedience
  • Milgram (1974) admitted that there was still a lot of authority in the situation, such as the scientific-looking apparatus and the Yale university. So perhaps lack of validity as it wasn't measuring the authority of the 'ordinary man'
  • The participants saw the accomplice draw lots, just as the accomplice did, so the participants saw him as another participant. This helped reduce authority in the situation
  • Lacks in ecological validity because of the artificial surroundings. Validity issue in the sense that the study was approved by Yale university so they may of trusted the experiment which then means this is not a study of obedience but a study of trust
• Milgram conducted a number of laboratory experiment studies into obedience
• Milgram carried out some valuable research into obedience, including a number of variation studies
• Milgram was heavily criticised for the ethical issues in his original study
• Authoritarian Personality


  Those who are likely to admire rules, be distant from their fathers and more likely to be in a military role
• Internal Locus of Control

  When someone believes that they are in control of their actions and believes what happens is something they caused
• External Locus of Control

  What happens to them comes from outside their control and so if they were in stressful situation, they would feel helpless
• People with authoritarian personality and external locus of control are more obedient
• People with internal locus of control are less obedient
• Proximity is a situational factor. When the distance between authority figure and participant increases, obedience decreases
• Immediacy


  Closeness of the target