1. Lesson 8 – Factors affecting obedience
Individual differences (personality and Gender)
Situation and Cultural

2. Instructions

3. Use slides and book (pg. 30-32)
You must make your own slides which you will share with the other group when you present
Use slides and book (pg )
Group 1 - Individual Differences
Group 2 – Situational factors
How personality can affect obedience
What are individual differences?
Describe LOC and explain how this affects obedience
Describe authoritarian personality and how this affects obedience
Milgram and Elms? How does this support authoritarian personality as a factor that affects obedience?
How gender can affect obedience
Milgram, Kilham and Mann and Blass
Overall conclusion (Blass) Can gender affect obedience?
How can situational factors affect obedience
Describe: gradual commitment, proximity, status of authority and personal responsibility. Explain how these affect obedience
Use Milgram’s variations to support your points
How can culture affect obedience?
Describe: Collectivist and Individualistic cultures (provide examples and names of countries) and explain how this may affect obedience
Ancona and Pareyson and Shanhab and Yahya
Overall Conclusion (Blass) Does culture affect obedience?

4. Individual differences

5. 1. Personality
What are individual differences?

6. Locus of control Personality Theory Rotter (1966)
Locus of control: sense of control people have over successes or failures and events in their life
Take the LOC test here:
High internal locus of control: feel that their actions are their own choice and responsibility
Low: actions results of factors outside of their control (i.e. luck or fate)

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

8. 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 mixed 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.

9. 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
Fascism scale to measure authoritarian personality

10. 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 stronger shocks and held the shock buttons down longer than those who were low scorers.

11. 2. 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

12. Gender Milgram variation– 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

13. Gender A study where females were less obedient:
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

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

15. Situational Factors

16. 1. Situational Factors Gradual commitment Proximity
Status of authority

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

18. Distance – buffer to obedience (telephonic condition)
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

19. Relate to Agency theory
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

20. 2. Cultural differences
Could different cultures have different levels of obedience?
Two main types of cultures
Individualistic
Collectivist

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

22. Culture – Blass (1999) review of obedience research
Researcher
Country
% of obedience
Milgram (1962) US
65%
Edwards et al. (1969)
South Africa
87.5%
Bock (1972)
40%
Kilham and Mann (1974)
Australia
28%
Shanab and Yahya (1977)
Jordan
73%
Miranda et al. (1981)
Spain
50%
Schurz (1985)
Austria
80%
Ancona and Pareyson (1968)
Italy
85%
Burley and McGuiness (1977) UK
Jordan – collectivist culture

23. Culture 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
Is this cultural variation or could the difference be explained by something else?
Think about replication…..are the studies the same as Milgram’s original study? If they are different can we be sure that it is just culture that has influenced the results or are there are other factors to consider? E.g. using students and children.
Procedure
Situation
Age

24. Culture Conclusion
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 regardless of culture
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.

25. Evaluation

26. 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?

27. Evaluation points Strengths Limitations Supporting evidence
Real life support (e.g. Mai Lai)
Results are not always consistent
Ethnocentric results (more research needed for valid cross cultural results)
The differences in methodologies – the studies are not always true replications.
Personality only focusses on nature and situational only focusses on nurture – this is oversimplified.
Reductionist – Obedience is a complex behaviour that should be explained using as many factors as possible.
Conclusion – more useful to use an interactionist approach (more holistic)

28. APRC on your contemporary study Burger (2009)
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)