1.1.1 Social Impact Theory
This was proposed by Bibb Latane, who said we are greatly influenced by the actions of others, and how
other people impact us.
Target = person being impacted on
Source = person/people doing the influencing
Social influence is greatly influenced by the strength, immediacy and number of sources compared to the
targets.
Strength – determined by the status, authority or age of the source
Immediacy – determined by the proximity between the source and the target, and the presence of
buffers that could be barriers to the distance
Number – the ratio of sources to targets
The greater these factors are, then the greater influence they will have on the target. The effect does
however level off after a while.
Bickman and Milgram 1969
Obtained 1-15 confederated to congregate on a street and look up at the 6 th floor of the New York
University Building. Milgram was in the 6th floor window, video recording the confederates and passers by
who stopped and copied confederates. He analysed and counted the number of people who stopped.
Increasing the number of confederates did increase the number of passers by who stopped, but the
numbers of passers by grew smaller relative to the size of the confederate group – the effect levelled off.
The Divisional Effect – Latane and Darley, 1970
Demonstrated the divisional effect in studies on bystander behaviour. A lone person is more likely to help
someone in need compared to a group of people - there is a diffusion of responsibility, similar to a
divisional effect. In terms of obedience this suggests that an authority figure would have a diminished
capacity to influence someone if that individual had an ally or group of friends.
The number of targets to be influenced affects the impact of the source.
Strengths Weaknesses
Principles of behaviour have high Oversimplifies the nature of human
ecological validity and can be observed in interaction
every day behaviour Doesn’t account for differences – some
Explains real life situations people are more resistant to social impact,
Backed up by Latane and Darley, and but others are more passive
Bickman and Milgram A static theory rather than dynamic,
because it doesn’t take into account how
the target and source interact
Limited because it cannot predict what
would happen if both groups were equal
1.1.1 Agency Theory
This theory explains why people obey an authority figure, even if it is in doing something wrong. We live in
an autonomous state, this is where we do what we want to do. In this state, you feel responsible for your
own actions, and you will feel guilt if you do something wrong.
When an authority figure instructs you to do something that causes moral conflict within you (because you
know it is wrong and would not normally do it), you undergo an agentic shift. Milgram called this feeling
moral strain – this is when we consider behaving in a way that contradicts the moral values we have been
socialised to show. It creates feelings of anxiety and distress.
, An agentic shift causes a person to enter the agentic state. This is where you do the will of others, and
you do not feel responsible for all of your actions. In this state, any guilt for your actions is passed along to
the authority figure. This relieves feelings of moral strain.
Milgram states that an agentic shift is a result of evolution – this is because it would have been essential
for survival in times such as the cavemen e.g. in hunting, or running away from predators. The agentic
shift however can be misused, and people can be told what to do in a negative way, as seen in Nazi
Germany.
Milgram also said that human society is hierarchal, and it evolved to be this way, we are taught obedience
through socialisation from our parents. This teaches us to obey those further up in the hierarchy than
ourselves.
Strengths Weaknesses
Milgram’s ppts showed moral strain, and Doesn’t explain individual differences, or
also blamed the experimenter for their why some people do not obey – free will
behaviour, which backs up the theory It is hard to pin point an agentic shift
Explains people that claim to just be Milgram’s ppts should have been fully
“following orders” relaxed when they were fully agentic, but
Other studies, such as Hofling’s nurses, they were not
back this up There is no explanation of disobedience
Explains real life situations, such as the
Holocaust, or My Lai Massacre
1.1.2 Research into Obedience – Milgram
Milgram was the teaching assistant of Asch. He wanted to replicate Asch’s conformity study, but using
shocks. The aim of his research was to discover to what extent will people obey a figure of authority. He
also aimed to create baseline data, which would allow for comparisons with variation studies.
PROCEDURE – offered $4 (+$0.50 carfare) in a newspaper ad for men aged between 20-50 to
participate in a study of “memory” at Yale University for 1 hour. This obtained a sample of 40 men.
Milgram “randomly” assigned ppts to being a teacher and a learner – this was fixed to the
volunteer was always the teacher, and a stooge called Mr Wallace would always be the learner.
The learner was strapped into a chair connected to a shock generator.
Teacher asks learner a series of questions, each incorrect answer led to a shock – increasing by
15V each time (these were fake, but this was unknown to the volunteer)
The generator had labels from “slight shock” to “danger shock”
At 150V the learner demands to be let out from the experiment
At 270V the learner screams
At 300V there are no more answers or noises from the learner
Milgram documented the ppts behaviour. If they wanted to stop, an experimenter called Mr Williams
challenged them with 4 prods:
1. Please continue
2. The experiment requires that you continue
3. It is absolutely essential that you continue
4. You have no other choice, you must go on
When all 4 of these prods had been used, then the teacher was allowed to leave.
Previously, predictions form Psychiatrists, college sophomores, middle class adults, graduate students
etc. were taken. They predicted almost everyone would disobey, and only 4% would reach 300V. Only 1
in 1000 would administer the highest shock.
RESULTS
Everyone obeyed until 300V
14 dropped out between 300-375V
65% carried on until 450V
This was proposed by Bibb Latane, who said we are greatly influenced by the actions of others, and how
other people impact us.
Target = person being impacted on
Source = person/people doing the influencing
Social influence is greatly influenced by the strength, immediacy and number of sources compared to the
targets.
Strength – determined by the status, authority or age of the source
Immediacy – determined by the proximity between the source and the target, and the presence of
buffers that could be barriers to the distance
Number – the ratio of sources to targets
The greater these factors are, then the greater influence they will have on the target. The effect does
however level off after a while.
Bickman and Milgram 1969
Obtained 1-15 confederated to congregate on a street and look up at the 6 th floor of the New York
University Building. Milgram was in the 6th floor window, video recording the confederates and passers by
who stopped and copied confederates. He analysed and counted the number of people who stopped.
Increasing the number of confederates did increase the number of passers by who stopped, but the
numbers of passers by grew smaller relative to the size of the confederate group – the effect levelled off.
The Divisional Effect – Latane and Darley, 1970
Demonstrated the divisional effect in studies on bystander behaviour. A lone person is more likely to help
someone in need compared to a group of people - there is a diffusion of responsibility, similar to a
divisional effect. In terms of obedience this suggests that an authority figure would have a diminished
capacity to influence someone if that individual had an ally or group of friends.
The number of targets to be influenced affects the impact of the source.
Strengths Weaknesses
Principles of behaviour have high Oversimplifies the nature of human
ecological validity and can be observed in interaction
every day behaviour Doesn’t account for differences – some
Explains real life situations people are more resistant to social impact,
Backed up by Latane and Darley, and but others are more passive
Bickman and Milgram A static theory rather than dynamic,
because it doesn’t take into account how
the target and source interact
Limited because it cannot predict what
would happen if both groups were equal
1.1.1 Agency Theory
This theory explains why people obey an authority figure, even if it is in doing something wrong. We live in
an autonomous state, this is where we do what we want to do. In this state, you feel responsible for your
own actions, and you will feel guilt if you do something wrong.
When an authority figure instructs you to do something that causes moral conflict within you (because you
know it is wrong and would not normally do it), you undergo an agentic shift. Milgram called this feeling
moral strain – this is when we consider behaving in a way that contradicts the moral values we have been
socialised to show. It creates feelings of anxiety and distress.
, An agentic shift causes a person to enter the agentic state. This is where you do the will of others, and
you do not feel responsible for all of your actions. In this state, any guilt for your actions is passed along to
the authority figure. This relieves feelings of moral strain.
Milgram states that an agentic shift is a result of evolution – this is because it would have been essential
for survival in times such as the cavemen e.g. in hunting, or running away from predators. The agentic
shift however can be misused, and people can be told what to do in a negative way, as seen in Nazi
Germany.
Milgram also said that human society is hierarchal, and it evolved to be this way, we are taught obedience
through socialisation from our parents. This teaches us to obey those further up in the hierarchy than
ourselves.
Strengths Weaknesses
Milgram’s ppts showed moral strain, and Doesn’t explain individual differences, or
also blamed the experimenter for their why some people do not obey – free will
behaviour, which backs up the theory It is hard to pin point an agentic shift
Explains people that claim to just be Milgram’s ppts should have been fully
“following orders” relaxed when they were fully agentic, but
Other studies, such as Hofling’s nurses, they were not
back this up There is no explanation of disobedience
Explains real life situations, such as the
Holocaust, or My Lai Massacre
1.1.2 Research into Obedience – Milgram
Milgram was the teaching assistant of Asch. He wanted to replicate Asch’s conformity study, but using
shocks. The aim of his research was to discover to what extent will people obey a figure of authority. He
also aimed to create baseline data, which would allow for comparisons with variation studies.
PROCEDURE – offered $4 (+$0.50 carfare) in a newspaper ad for men aged between 20-50 to
participate in a study of “memory” at Yale University for 1 hour. This obtained a sample of 40 men.
Milgram “randomly” assigned ppts to being a teacher and a learner – this was fixed to the
volunteer was always the teacher, and a stooge called Mr Wallace would always be the learner.
The learner was strapped into a chair connected to a shock generator.
Teacher asks learner a series of questions, each incorrect answer led to a shock – increasing by
15V each time (these were fake, but this was unknown to the volunteer)
The generator had labels from “slight shock” to “danger shock”
At 150V the learner demands to be let out from the experiment
At 270V the learner screams
At 300V there are no more answers or noises from the learner
Milgram documented the ppts behaviour. If they wanted to stop, an experimenter called Mr Williams
challenged them with 4 prods:
1. Please continue
2. The experiment requires that you continue
3. It is absolutely essential that you continue
4. You have no other choice, you must go on
When all 4 of these prods had been used, then the teacher was allowed to leave.
Previously, predictions form Psychiatrists, college sophomores, middle class adults, graduate students
etc. were taken. They predicted almost everyone would disobey, and only 4% would reach 300V. Only 1
in 1000 would administer the highest shock.
RESULTS
Everyone obeyed until 300V
14 dropped out between 300-375V
65% carried on until 450V
