Social influence - conformity and obedience

what is conformity?

when a person changes their behaviour or opinions as a result of real or imagined pressure

three types of conformity

compliance, identification, internalisation

what is compliance?

conforming publicly but continuing privately to disagree - shallowest form of conformity

what is identification?

moderate form of conformity where we act the same as the group because we want to be accepted, change of belief often temporary

what is internalisation?

deep form on conformity where a person conforms publicly and privately as they have accepted the views of the group - permanent

two process theory

Deutsch and Gerad 1955 - two reasons people conform, to be liked and to be right, NSI and ISI work together

Normative social influence

the need to be liked, go along with the norms of the majority

Informational social influence

the need to be right, go along with the group as you believe they have more information

Asch’s procedure and findings

male Americans, shown a series of lines asked what lines were the same length, confederates told to give incorrect answer on 12/18 trials, on 12 critical trials 36.8% of responses where incorrect - support for NSI

variations to Asch’s study

Group size - little conformity when 1 confed, 13% when 2 confeds, when majority of 3 confederates jumped to 31.8% when majority increased further little change in conformity

Unanimity - when one confed that gave correct answer conformity dropped to 5%

Difficulty of the task - when line lengths were more similar, conformity increased - ISI

evaluation of Asch

Artificial situation, beta bias and cultural bias, research support Lucas et al

Lucas et al

asked ppt to answer easy and hard maths questions, ppts given answers from 3 confeds, conformed more when questions harder - ISI, but those more confident less likely to conform

social roles

the parts people play as members of social groups, gives us expectations of behaviour, identification

procedure of SPE

meant to be 2 weeks only lasted 6 days, ppts screened to be mentally stabke, randomly assigned roles, guards given sunglasses and military uniforms, prisoners in uniforms and referred to as numbers, Z. told guards they had complete control

findings of SPE

prisoners rebelled on 2 day

guards punished rebels harshly

one ppt showed extreme signs of distress so had to leave after telling over ppts they were not allowed to leave

guards extremely aggressive one made a decision to be as intimidating as possible

strengths of Asch’s study

Lab - controlled environment, internal validity

Real life applications - people to write answers down instead of saying them out loud

Conclusions of SPE

good person in evil situation can become evil

power corrupts

evil is caused by situational factors not dispositional

strengths of SPE

Same conformity present in Abu Ghraib military prison notorious for abuse - external validity so the findings can be used to prevent abuses in the future

Good control of variables - emotionally stable and randomly assigned so rules out

Internal validity - ppts felt like it was a real prison

weaknesses of SPE

when a sample who have not heard of the study where shown its method, majority guessed the aim

PPts acted how they thought Z. wanted them to - some guards admitted to acting like stereotypes from films

Only minority of guards acted in brutal manner

Ethical concerns

Milgram’s procedure

40 males, thought randomly assigned but always ‘teacher’

punishments were electric shocks, 15V - 450V

ppts heard pre-recorded answers from learner including sounds of pain and screaming as the voltage got higher

what were the prompts Milgram used?

Please continue

please go on

the experiment requires that you continue

it is absolutely essential that you continue

you have no other choice you must go on

Milgram’s findings

100% went to 300V, 65% went to 450V

dissented verbally but continued to obey

signs of distress

three people had seizures

Key variations of Milgram

experimenter absent - 22%

run down office - 45%

disobedient confeds - 10%

confed gave shocks - 95%

Ethical issues in Milgram’s experiment

Deception, lack of protection from harm, right to withdraw not clear BUT debrief and counselling offered

Obedience alibi

Mandel 1998 - blaming situational factors give people an alibi for bad behaviour

Internal validity in Milgram’s experiment

Milgram said 70% ppt thought shocks real

Perry 2013 - listened to tapes of Milgram’s ppts and reported many expressed doubts about the shocks

social identity theory

obedience lies in group identification

obedience fell as ppts identified less with science more with the learner

When prompts appealed to science obedience was higher

cross cultural replications of Milgram

Miranda et al - replicated findings - 90% obedience rates in Spanish students

BUT - also a western culture

Research support for Milgram

Hofling et al - nurses told by unknown doctor to deliver unknown drug on phone - 21/22 obeyed BUT unrealistic

Rank and Jacobson - told to give lethal dose of valium over phone by known doctor allowed to discuss with others - 2/18 obeyed - mundane realism

Bickman et al - field experiment - more obeyed when asked to perform an action by someone in a security guards uniform

2 situational explanations for why people obey

agentic state and legitimate authority

what is the agentic state?

when we perceive someone as above us in the social hierarchy we are likely to act as an agent for them, following orders

what is agentic shift?

when you ordered by an authority figure you go from an autonomous state to agentic state

what is a binding factor?

mindset that reduces moral strain e.g blaming the victim or authority figure, minimising impact on victim

neurological evidence for agentic state

Research on brain activity while ppts inflict pain, found that obeying orders reduces empathy and guilt related brain activity for the inflicted pain, may explain why people are able to commit immoral acts under coercion

observational evidence to support the agentic state

Blass and Schmitt - lab based observation and survey method

Showed ppts clips of Milgram’s experiment, asked to assign responsibilities, majority attributed responsibilities to researcher not ppt

strengths of brain imaging evidence

quantifiable data, direct evidence for how obedience affects us biologically, objective

legitimacy of authority

authority is legitimate when it is agreed by society in a hierarchy

destructive authority

powerful leaders can use legitimate powers for destructive purposes

challenge for situational factors of obedience

WWI German reserve battalion obeyed orders to shoot civilians despite being told they could be reassigned, can’t have shifted to agentic state

Evaluation of situational explanations for obedience

real world application - military ranking system, Lai massacre

external validity - countries with different hierarchy systems and would then have lower obedience levels e.g. Australia

Hoffling et al - nurses did not show anxiety suggesting they were acting on their own accord

what is a dispositional explanation?

behavioural explanations

features of the authoritarian personality

from strict parenting, conformist, dogmatic, especially obedient to authority

Adorno’s F-scale

2000 middle class white Americans, those with high score identified with strong people, strong positive correlation between authoritarianism and prejudice

explanations for authoritarian personality

strict discipline parenting style - high standards, severe criticism

creates resentment in the child, child cant show feelings so displaces on who appears to be weaker

problems with f-scale

• leading question

• social desirability bias

• closed questions

• acquiescence bias - tendency to agree

• clear what they are trying to figure out

• Christie and Jahoda 1954 - political biased interpretation of a right wing authoritarianism personality, left and right wing can both have the personality

positive of authoritarian personality

no obedience alibi - individual held accountable

Milgram and Elms 1966 method

follow up study with ppts who took part in Milgram’s shock experiment, 20 obedient and 20 defiant ppts, completed MMPI scale and F-scale, asked about their relationships with their parents

Milgram and Elms 1966 findings

higher levels of authoritarianism among those classed as obedience, obedient ppts reported being less close to fathers in childhood, saw authority figure as more admirable than learner

BUT - fully obedient ppts reported having a very good relationship with their parents