Understanding Social Influence: Conformity and Obedience

Types of conformity

Internalisation, identification and compliance

Compliance

Public change in behaviour/attitude to match the group but no private change

Identification

Public and private change in behaviour/attitude to match the group, but only while belonging to that group

Internalisation

Public and private change in behaviour/attitude to match the group that is permanent and continues even when no longer a part of that group

Explanations for conformity

Normative social influence and informational social influence

Normative social influence (NSI)

An explanation for why we conform. We want to fit in with and belong to the group, to be accepted and liked by them.

Evidence for NSI

Asch found an overall rate of conformity to give an obviously wrong answer when judging line lengths of 32% on the critical trials. He also found that 75% of ppts conformed at least once.

Informational social influence (ISI)

An explanation for why we conform. We want to be right and we assume that the majority have more information than we do and so what they are doing must be right.

Evidence for ISI

In a variation by Asch, the line matching task was made more difficult as the lines were more similar in length. Asch found that conformity rate increased significantly.

Limitation of NSI and ISI

While there is evidence for each of these explanations, in reality it is very difficult to separate out their effects.

Variables affecting conformity

Group size, unanimity, task difficulty

Effect of group size on conformity

The larger the size of the majority the greater the rate of conformity, although only up to 3 confederates.

Conformity rate with 2 confederates

Conformity rate was 13%.

Conformity rate with 3 or more confederates

Conformity rate was 32%.

Effect of unanimity on conformity

If unanimity of the confederates was broken, the conformity rate dropped to 5%.

Effect of task difficulty on conformity

When the task was made more difficult by making the 3 lines more similar, the conformity rate increased significantly.

Conformity to social roles

This is when our behaviour changes to meet the expectations of a particular role that we find ourselves in within a social situation.

Procedure of Zimbardo's study

Mock prison at Stanford University with 24 physically and mentally stable ppts randomly allocated to 'prisoner' or 'guard'.

Arrest of prisoners in Zimbardo's study

'Prisoners' were arrested by real police officers, outside their homes.

Prisoner treatment in Zimbardo's study

'Prisoners' were stripped and given smocks, caps, and wore a number on their chest.

Identification of prisoners in Zimbardo's study

They were referred to only by their number, and never their name.

Guards

Wore a uniform with sunglasses, and carried keys, a wooden club and handcuffs.

Guards' shifts

Worked shifts in groups of 3.

Guards' instructions

Instructed to do whatever they thought was necessary to maintain law and order in the prison and to command the respect of the prisoners.

Physical violence

No physical violence was permitted.

Participants payment

Ppts were paid for taking part.

Guards' behavior

Quickly conformed to their roles and most acted brutally towards the prisoners, using physical punishments such as push-ups, sleep deprivation, cleaning toilets with their bare hands.

Prisoners' rebellion

After two days, some prisoners rebelled, ripping their uniforms and verbally harassing the guards.

Guards' response to rebellion

Responded with greater brutality.

Prisoners' conformity

Many prisoners came to conform to their roles after a few days - they became submissive.

Study duration

The study was stopped after 6 days (it was supposed to run for 14 days) due to the intensity of the psychological harm endured by the prisoners and the excessive aggression of the guards.

Strength of Zimbardo's study

Had a high degree of realism in the way the prison was set up and the prisoners were arrested.

Limitation of Zimbardo's study

Ppts did know that it was a study and may have shown demand characteristics.

Example of demand characteristics

One of the guards, who had a lot of influence, said afterwards that he guessed what the study was about and was determined to behave in a brutal way as he thought was expected.

Ethical criticism of Zimbardo's study

Highly criticised for being unethical; prisoners suffered psychological harm as they were humiliated and traumatised by the treatment from the guards.

Zimbardo's role

In his role as prison superintendent, Zimbardo failed to allow them to leave when they asked.

Population validity limitation

The ppt sample consisted of entirely male, American young adults, and is therefore not a representative sample.

Generalisation limitation

Makes generalisation of findings difficult; may not tell us anything about conformity to social roles amongst other groups of people.

Variation in guards' behavior

Not all of the guards conformed to behave brutally towards the prisoners; some were uncomfortable with the behaviour of the other guards and some even behaved kindly.

Milgram's study sample

Studied obedience using a volunteer sample of 40 males, aged between 20 and 50.

Milgram's procedure

Each ppt took part individually and was introduced to another ppt, who was actually a confederate.

Role assignment

They drew straws for their roles but it was fixed so that the ppt was given the role of 'teacher' and the confederate got the role of 'learner'.

Teacher's visibility

The teacher could hear but not see the learner.

Learner's task

The learner had to learn a list of word pairs and then the teachers tested them.

Electric shock procedure

For every wrong answer the teacher had to give the learner an electric shock by flicking a switch on a machine.

Shock voltage

The shocks started at 15v and increased by 15v with each wrong answer up to a maximum of 450v.

Experimenter's role

If the teacher hesitated or refused to give the shock, the experimenter would give a verbal prod encouraging them to continue.

Milgram's findings

Milgram found that all 40 participants gave shocks when the learner gave a wrong answer, continuing up to 300v and 65% of them continued to the maximum 450v.

Participants' discomfort

Many of the ppts seemed uncomfortable or asked to stop earlier, but continued following the encouragement of the researcher.

Internal Validity

A review of the taped interviews with Milgram's participants (by Orne and Holland) showed that many of the ppts said that they did not believe that the electric shocks were real, and that they knew learner must be acting.

Demand Characteristics

Milgram may have simply been measuring people's willingness to go along with what they knew to be a fake event (as opposed to people's willingness to obey an authority figure).

Sheridan and King Study

In a study (by Sheridan and King) participants administered real electric shocks to puppies when instructed by a researcher. There were no confederates, and no acting involved in this experiment.

Obedience Rates in Puppies Study

54% of males, and 100% of females delivered what they believed to be a fatal shock (the electric shock was real, but not actually fatal).

Ecological Validity

Some psychologists argue that Milgram's findings cannot be generalised to real world environments, as the study took place in a lab.

Hofling Study

A study (by Hofling) showed that obedience to a destructive authority can occur within the real world environment of a hospital.

Hofling Study Details

A researcher posed as a doctor and phoned real nurses at a hospital, instructing them to administer an unsafe dosage of a drug to patients.

Nurses Obeying Instructions

21/22 nurses obeyed and administered the drug.

Psychological Harm

Milgram is criticised for exposing his participants to extreme stress, which is supported by the extreme physical reactions many participants exhibited (three had seizures).

Participant Regrets

Only 2 per cent of Milgram's participants had any regrets about being involved.

Learning from Experience

74 per cent said that they had learnt something useful about themselves.

Debriefing

Milgram claimed a thorough debriefing was carried out where ppts met the unharmed learner and were reassured.

Long-term Damage Assessment

A year later all 40 ppts were assessed and none showed any signs of long—term damage.

Short-term Harm vs Results

It could be argued that the short-term harm to ppts was outweighed by the valuable results obtained.

Deception in Study

Milgram deceived his participants by telling them that the study was about memory and learning.

Purpose of Deception

The study could not have been carried out without deception as the participants would not have behaved naturally had they known the aim of the study.

Right to Withdraw

No explicit right to withdraw was given to the participants before they study started and attempts to withdraw were met with verbal prods that encouraged them to continue.

Agentic state

A psychological state where individuals see themselves as agents of an authority figure, allowing them to obey orders even if they conflict with their personal morals.

Legitimacy of authority

The perception that an authority figure has the right to give orders, which can influence obedience.

Proximity

The physical closeness to either the authority figure or the consequences of one's actions, which can affect obedience rates.

Uniform

The clothing worn by authority figures that can enhance their perceived legitimacy and influence obedience.

Location

The setting in which an authority figure is situated, which can affect their perceived legitimacy and thus obedience rates.

Authoritarian personality

A personality type characterized by a high degree of conformity to authority and a tendency to obey orders.

Situational explanations for obedience

Factors in the environment that can influence an individual's likelihood to obey authority, such as proximity, location, and uniform.

Dispositional explanation for obedience

An explanation that attributes obedience to individual personality traits, such as the authoritarian personality.

Proximity to consequences

The awareness of the negative outcomes of one's actions, which can decrease the likelihood of obedience.

Proximity to authority figure

The physical distance from an authority figure, where greater distance can lead to lower obedience rates.

Milgram's variations

Experiments conducted by Milgram that demonstrated how variations in proximity, location, and uniform influenced obedience rates.

Obedience rates when teacher could see learner

Dropped to 40% when the teacher could see the learner.

Obedience rates when teacher held learner's hands on shock plates

Dropped to 30% when the teacher physically held the learner's hands on the shock plates.

Obedience rates when researcher was not in the room

Dropped to 20.5% when the researcher gave instructions over the phone.

Real-life evidence of proximity

Nazi soldiers found it easier to obey orders to kill when using gas chambers rather than shooting, due to the lack of direct visual consequences.

Legitimacy of authority in location

Authority figures are perceived as more legitimate in certain locations, such as schools or hospitals.

Obedience rates in rundown offices

Dropped to 47.5% when the study took place in rundown offices rather than Yale.

Uniform as a symbol of authority

Uniforms can symbolize power, intelligence, or skill, influencing obedience.

Bickman's study on uniform

Demonstrated obedience rates of 30% in normal clothes, 47% as a milkman, and 76% as a security guard.

Limitation of situational variables

Not all individuals behave the same way in similar situations, suggesting internal dispositional factors also play a role in obedience.

Moral strain

The discomfort experienced when ordered to perform actions that conflict with personal morals.

Agentic State

A state where individuals see themselves as agents of others and do not feel responsible for their actions, allowing them to obey without feeling guilt.

Autonomous State

A state where individuals believe they are responsible for their actions and have free will.

Milgram's Study

A study that supports the theory of the agentic state, where participants denied personal responsibility for their actions and felt reassured when the experimenter took responsibility for the learner's health.

Blass and Schmitt Study

A study showing that psychology students blamed the experimenter rather than the participant for the harm endured by the learner, indicating a belief in the agentic state.

Mandel's Criticism

A criticism of the agentic state theory, suggesting it has dangerous implications by implying that individuals shouldn't be held responsible for actions taken under authority.

Nazi Doctors

An example that challenges the agentic state theory, as many Nazi doctors believed their actions were justified and morally correct, contradicting the idea of feeling guilt while in an agentic state.

Legitimacy of Authority

The concept that individuals are more likely to obey those higher in the social hierarchy, influenced by factors such as title, job role, uniforms, gender, and age.

Milgram's Variations

Experiments showing that obedience rates dropped significantly when the legitimacy of authority figures was in doubt, such as in rundown offices (drop to 47.5%) and when participants saw others disobeying (drop to 10%).

Tarnow Study

A study analyzing black box recordings from 37 plane crashes, where 19 crashes occurred due to co-pilots accepting pilots' errors instead of questioning them, illustrating the influence of legitimate authority.

Cultural Differences in Authority

The observation that obedience rates are lower in countries like Australia, where authority is less valued, compared to countries like Germany, where legitimate authority figures are more respected.

Legitimacy of Authority

The concept that the perceived legitimacy of an authority figure influences obedience.

Limitation of Legitimacy of Authority

The theory assumes that everyone will respond in the same way, which is not supported by evidence from Milgram's study.

Individual Differences in Obedience

Factors that create variations in obedience among individuals, suggesting that legitimacy of authority is not the sole explanation.