Compliance + obedience to authority

Compliance def

Responding favourably to explicit requests made by others

3 principles governing compliance

• Consistency

• Norms

• Mood

Strategies for increasing compliance (6) + which principle underscores each

• Foot-in-the-door technique (consistency + commitment)

• Align descriptive norms with prescriptive norms (norms)

• Norm of reciprocity (norms)

• Reciprocal concession technique / door-in-the-face technique

• Seizing or creating positive mood (mood)

• Negative state relief hypothesis (mood)

Foot-in-the-door technique description, why it works, which phenomenon it highlights

• Start with a small request to which nearly everyone complies, then follow it with large request involving real behaviour of interest

• First agreement alters persons self-image and makes them more likely to agree to second request to maintain consistency

• Slipper slope phenomenon: starting with something small makes it easier to do bigger things down the line (e.g. euthanasia legislation)

What norm based compliance capitalises on

The tendency to look towards others for guidance

Descriptive vs prescriptive (injunctive) norms

• What people typically do in a given context

VS

• What one is supposed to do in a given context

Why norms should be aligned for compliance (2)

• Descriptive norms are powerful in increasing compliance

• Highlighting how infrequently prescriptive norm is followed (e.g. so few people recycle properly) can decrease compliance by emphasising the descriptive norm of non-action

Pluralistic ignorance (norm based) description, consequence, example

• Individuals often act in ways which conflict with their true attitudes/beliefs because they believe they are alone in holding them

• Often leads to erroneous group norm being reinforced

• E.g. youth overestimating peers’ comfort with heavy drinking

Norm of reciprocity description + example

• People are expected to provide benefits to those who have provided benefits to them by creating uninvited debt

• Businesses often precede request with small gift

Reciprocal concessions / door-in-the-face technique description, why it works, important condition

• Start by asking for very large favour that will most certainly be refused, then follow it up with a more modest favour to increase compliance to this second favour

• Smaller request is seen as concession → target feels more compelled to agree

• Requests must be from same person

Why seizing/creating positive mood works (1→2)

• Positive mood makes people more charitable → more likely to agree to reasonable requests

  • Mood colours how we interpret events → positive mood leads to requests seeming less intrusive

  • Mood maintenance → doing something for someone sustains positive feeling we are already in

Note on hunger + compliance

• More likely to comply if not hungry

Negative state relief hypothesis description, why it works, example

• Certain negative moods (such as guilt) can increase compliance

• People are more likely to agree to request if it will relieve negative feelings + make them feel better about themselves

• E.g. more likely to do Mum favour by hanging out her washing after inconveniencing her with longer shopping trip than promised

Obedience def

Submitting to demands of a more powerful person/authority figure

Likelihood of obeying + note

• More authority a figure has → more likely to obey

• Obedience is relatively uncommon scenario in everyday life

Milgram experiment description (2), result + implication

• ‘Teacher’ administers shocks to ‘learner’ (confederate)

• Experimenter gives prompts to continue

• ~65% delivered maximum 450-volt shock

• Challenged ‘exceptionalist’ view of evil, supported ‘normalist view’

Successive prompts used in Milgram experiment

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”

Forces compelling obedience (4)

• Sense of fair play/commitment (already been paid to participate)

• Advancing science

• Normative social influence (avoiding experimenter disapproval)

• Desire to avoid making a scene

Forces compelling disobedience in Milgram experiment

• Moral imperative to stop suffering

• Concern about harm/retaliation

Factors influencing obedience (Milgram variations): closeness of victim, closeness of experimenter, reputation of institution/director, presence of defectors

• Victim closer = more disobedience

• Experimenter further away = more disobedience (to greater extent)

  • Making it easier to disobey seems more effective than increasing desire to disobey

• Reduced reputation = more disobedience

• Presence of defectors = more disobedience

Traditional interpretations of why participants kept administering shocks w/ explanation (4)

• Ineffective disobedience: participants may have had good intentions and tried to disobey but their attempts were often weak and lacked assertiveness, likely because they were in an unusual situation where norms were unclear

• Release from responsibility: experimenter explicitly took responsibility for learner’s wellbeing, works because of perceived legitimacy of authority

• Compelling forces: want to advance science, avoid experimenter disapproval (normative social influence)

• Step-by-step involvement (slippery slope): shock increments increased by a small 15 volts each time, creating momentum + making it hard to stop

Alternative interpretation of Milgram’s experiment (1) w/ supporting evidence (2)

• Not ‘blindly complying’, but actively identifying with experimenter + scientific enterprise (engaged followership)

  • Supported by fact that prod #2 (“the experiment requires that you continue”) appeared to be hardest to resist, whilst prod #4 (“you have no other choice” [most order-like]) was most disobeyed

  • Also supported by fact that disrupting identification with experimenter reduced ‘obedience’

Implication of alternative interpretation (1)

• Rather than being concerned about inherent evil within people, we should be wary of those who try to manipulate us by convincing us that evil actions are actually “good” or necessary for a greater cause

Important takeaway from Milgram experiment

• Without reliable social norms for appropriate behaviour, people may carry out “evil” behaviours without too much resistance

What does resisting social influence refer to?

• People don’t always conform, comply or obey

5 factors which can strengthen resistance to social influence

• Reactance theory

• Practice

• Having an ally

• Avoiding slippery slopes

• Delaying response to emotion-based appeals

Reactance theory description + example

• Theory that unpleasant state of arousal is triggered when people believe their free will is threatened → often leading them to treasure more what might be taken away + to take action to reassert their prerogatives → reduce this discomfort

• E.g. increased desire to drink alcohol when underage if it’s forbidden

Practice explained

• Individuals who have history of helping others tend to be more effective at resisting

Having an ally explained

• Just one dissenter reduces conformity drastically (Asch’s experiment)

Slippery slope explained

• It’s easier to resist influence from the beginning rather than hoping to stop partway through

Delaying response to emotion-based appeals explained + example

• Putting off decisions until after emotional responses subside can allow decision to be made based on merit of the idea, and not based on a temporary mood/emotion

• E.g. delaying impulse buying