Social Influence

what are the 3 types of conformity?

- Compliance
- Identification
- Internalisation

what is compliance?

When an individual agrees with the group publicly but their internal private beliefs and views remain in disagreement.

The individual changes their behaviour and opinions to be accepted by the group or to avoid disapproval.

As a result it is a fairly weak and temporary form of conformity as opinions and behaviour will change when not with the group.

what is identification?

When individuals adjust their behaviour and opinions to those of a group, because membership of that group is desirable.

This is a stronger type of conformity, involving private as well as public acceptance, but is generally temporary and is not maintained when individuals leave the group.

what is internalisation?

The deepest type of conformity where an individual permanently changes his/her beliefs.

The individual has considered the views and beliefs of others and accepted them as her/his own, agreeing both publicly and privately.

This type of conformity is the most permanent form and lasts whether the individual is with the group or not.

describe asch's research into conformity.

- laboratory experiment.
- 123 male participants, who believed they were involved in a visual perception task.
- Participants were asked to judge which of the three comparison lines was equal in length to the standard line.
- There was only one real naive participant, the rest were confederates of Asch and had agreed to give the wrong answer on 12 out of the 18 trials which are called ‘critical trials’.
- first used a control group (no confederates) and asked them to choose which of the comparison lines matched the standard line. As he expected, virtually everybody got the answer right.
- the participant was placed in a group of 6 – 8.
- The lines were presented and each person was asked to give their answer aloud. The participant was seated near the end and was usually the last but one to answer.

what did asch find?

- the average conformity rate was 36.8%

- However, there were large individual differences:
75% of participants conformed at least once but 25% did not conform at all.

what did asch find when he interviewed the participants following the study?

reasons for conformity included wishing to avoid ridicule, having doubts about their own judgement or in some cases, actually believing that the others were right.

give a strength of asch's research into conformity (reliability).

A strength of Asch’s research is how easy to replicate it is. Asch conducted his research in highly controlled settings where most aspects of the procedure could be highly standardised, e.g. the lines used in the trials, the fact that the real participant was always seated second to last. Asch’s method for studying conformity is so easy to replicate it has become a paradigm; the accepted way of conducting conformity research used in many countries (in a meta-analysis investigating conformity by Bond and Smith, at least 17 nations were included that had all used the Asch paradigm). This is a strength because it means that Asch’s research is very easy to repeat to assess the reliability of the findings and conclusions he made about conformity.

give a limitation of asch's research into conformity (environment).

A key problem with Asch’s study is that it was an artificial task in an artificial environment. Judging lines is a trivial task and resisting conformity can be stressful. It could be argued that participants didn’t feel strongly enough about lines to risk the ridicule of others. If the task involved a moral/ ethical judgement that the participant was more passionate about, the majority may have had less of an effect. This reduces the ecological validity of Asch’s findings as the results may not reflect how real world conformity operates, making us question the extent to which his conclusions apply in everyday life.

give a limitation of asch's research into conformity (demand characteristics).

Others argue that the nature of the task also encouraged demand characteristics. The answer to the task was so clear (unambiguous) that the naïve participant had worked out the aim - that others were deliberately saying the wrong answer to see if the participant would conform - and was just going along with the majority to fulfil the experimental requirements. This is an issue because if this is the case, then Asch was not measuring conformity at all, and therefore his conclusions about conformity are invalid. However, Asch argued that the signs of stress demonstrated by the naïve participants showed they believed the situation was true.

give a limitation of asch's research into conformity (temporal validity).

Another key issue with Asch’s research is the time period in which it took place. Asch’s study was conducted during the McCarthyist era where during the 1950’s, thousands of Americans were accused of being communists and became the subject of aggressive investigation if they appeared to not conform to American ideals and values. Therefore, at this time the participants in the study may have been more willing to conform (36.8% mean conformity rate is quite high on an unambiguous task). The same may not be true of participants today, therefore the study’s findings may lack temporal validity – accuracy over time. This matters because it means Asch’s research may just be a “child of its time” and therefore conclusions made about conformity are no longer relevant. This argument is highlighted by a replication of Asch’s study in the late 1970s in England. Perrin & Spencer used a group of science and engineering students. In their initial study they obtained only one conforming result out of 396 trials. This confirms that Asch’s original findings may have been caused by when the study was carried out.

give a limitation of asch's research into conformity (population validity).

Another issue with Asch’s research is the sample that he used. All Asch’s participants were American and this is a problem because it may mean his findings do not generalise to conformity in other people. Perrin and Spencer’s replication involving English Engineering students found very different results (1 conforming result out of 396 trials), supporting this low population validity argument.

give a limitation of asch's research into conformity (culture).

Asch’s participants were all from an individualistic culture. Bond & Smith carried out a meta-analysis of conformity studies using the Asch paradigm, involving 134 published conformity studies across 17 different nations. They found that individualist cultures show lower conformity rates than collectivist cultures. This may be because collectivist cultures value group harmony and would prefer to agree with an incorrect majority to maintain this. This matters because it means that the conformity rates shown in Asch’s original participants don’t reflect the behaviour of those from other cultures, and therefore conclusions drawn about conformity may not extrapolate well to other areas.

what are the 2 explanations for why people conform?

Deutsch and Gerard (1955) argued that there was a two process model of conformity; 2 explanations for why people conform: normative and informational social influence.

what is normative social influence?

- Based on the desire to be liked - an individual conforms as they have the need to be accepted and to belong to a group; the best way of gaining the acceptance of others is to agree with them – however, this does not necessarily mean that we truly agree with them.
- Human beings are a social species and have a strong need for acceptance by the majority and a fear of rejection.
- Normative social influence involves compliance as the individual goes along with the group publicly but privately disagrees.
- Normative social influence is an emotional rather than a cognitive process.

give a strength of normative social influence as an explanation (support)

There is supporting evidence for NSI as an explanation for conformity from Asch’s research. Following his study, Asch asked his participants why they gave an obviously wrong answer. Many said they knew the correct answer but felt self-conscious saying it as they feared disapproval. Asch replicated his study and asked participants to write their answers down instead of speaking out loud, and in this variation conformity rates dropped from 36.8% to 12.5%. This would support NSI because it demonstrates that they were conforming to win social approval, and so when they did not need to tell the group their answers (so it couldn’t affect social approval) they were able to put their true, privately held answer. This makes us more confident that NSI is a valid reason for why people conform to the majority.

give a limitation of normative social influence as an explanation (differences).

there appear to be individual differences in the effects of NSI. Not everyone responds in the same way to NSI, for example, those who are less concerned about being liked are less likely to be affected by it. McGhee & Teevan (1967) found that students high in need of affiliation (need to be in a relationship with others) were more likely to conform. They are known as nAffiliators. This means we can’t generalise this theory to explain conformity in all people, only those who are susceptible to the effects of NSI. This makes NSI limited as an explanation.

what is informational social influence?

- Based on the desire to be right and a need for certainty.
- This often occurs when an individual is unsure of how to behave in a social situation or is unsure about a particular issue and they look to others for guidance and may copy their actions.
- In these situations, the individual will usually believe that the opinions of others are correct and become converted to their view point (internalisation).
- Informational social influence is a cognitive process because it is to do with what you think.
- Informational social influence is more likely when the situation is: ambiguous or when we believe others to be experts

give a strength of informational social influence as an explanation (asch).

There is evidence to support that people conform due to ISI. For example, one of Asch’s variations involved increasing the task difficulty by making the comparison lines a similar length to the standard line, and in this variation conformity significantly increased. This supports informational social influence as it shows that when tasks become more ambiguous (there is no clear answer) people are more likely to look to the group for guidance on the correct answer, and therefore conform to their opinions. This makes us more confident that informational social influence is a valid reason for why we conform.

give a strength of informational social influence as an explanation (support).

Lucas et al (2006) found that participants conformed more often to incorrect answers they were given when the maths problems were difficult. This is because when the maths problems were easy they knew what the correct answer was, but when they were difficult this is became an ambiguous situation; they weren’t sure what the correct answer was so looked to the majority for guidance. This shows us that ISI is a valid explanation of conformity.

give a strength of informational social influence as an explanation (perrin and spencer).

Perrin and spencer can also be used as supporting evidence to highlight that conformity is dependent on how knowledgeable we feel about an issue. In their study using maths and engineering students, only 1 person conformed in 396 trials. We could argue that this is because maths and engineering students would perceive themselves to be more knowledgeable than others in judging lengths of lines an therefore confident in their own knowledge, and this may have made them less susceptible to the effects of ISI - consequently reducing the conformity rate found in perrin and spencers replication. From this, we can assume that bein unsure and looking to the group for guidance is what makes people conform.

give a limitation for normative and informational social infuence (dual process model).

one issue with Deutsch and Gerard’s dual process model is that it is not always possible to identify just one explanation for conformity as more than one may be involved. Their theory suggests that we conform either because of the desire to be liked or the desire to be right. However often both can co-occur and it is difficult to separate out which one has been involved. For example, when Asch introduced a dissenter, the reduction in conformity may have been due to NSI (as the dissenter provides social support) or ISI (as there is an alternative source of information). This casts doubt over the view of NSI and ISI as two separately operating processes in conformity. It also makes them difficult to fully research independently. Therefore, criticising the explanations of why people conform, as incidents are not straight forward and involve just one explanation.

what are the variables affecting conformity?

Conformity is not always straight forward; there are several situational variables (qualities of an environment) that can influence levels of conformity; these include the size of the group, unanimity and task difficulty. These were directly investigated by Asch, in variations of his original study.

how does the size of the group/majority affect conformity?

Asch conducted several variations of his original investigation where he varied the number of confederates (majority). Asch found:
- When there was 1 real participant and one confederate, only 3% changed their view to that of the confederate.
- When the number of confederates increased to 3, conformity rose to 32%.
- A greater majority of 15 led to lower levels of conformity, because participants became increasingly suspicious.

When the group size increases, the greater majority results in a greater risk of ridicule if the individual goes against the majority. This means that people are more likely to want to conform, due to normative social influence.

how does unanimity affect conformity?

-Conformity rates have been found to decline when this majority influence is not in agreement.
- In a variation of his original study, Asch disrupted the unanimity by including a dissenter in the group (one confederate who went against the majority view) and found that conformity dropped from 36.8% to 5.5%.
- If this ‘rebel’ went against both the other confederates and also the real participant, conformity still dropped to 9%. (Shows that the dissenter doesn’t necessarily have to be correct, simply going against the majority is enough to reduce conformity)
- When there is a dissenter, this provides the individual with social support; there are less consequences in terms of ridicule as the individual is no longer alone in going against the majority but has an ally, this gives them greater confidence to be independent.

how does task difficulty affect conformity?

- In another variation, Asch increased task difficulty by making the comparison lines similar to each other, finding that when he did so participants were more likely to conform to wrong answers, thus demonstrating the effect of task difficulty on conformity.
- It seems that when the correct answer is less obvious, participants will look to the majority for guidance (so increases the likelihood of conformity due to Informational Social Influence).

describe zimbardo's (1973) research into conformity to social roles.

- created a mock prison set up in the basement of Stanford University.
- volunteer sample of students, and tested them to ensure they were deemed ‘psychologically stable’. - - The students were randomly assigned the role of guard or prisoner.
- Prisoners were arrested at home by the local police to make it realistic, then blindfolded, strip searched, deloused and given smock with a number on it to wear. Guards wore a khaki uniform with handcuffs, wooden club, keys and mirror shades.
- Their social roles were strictly divided. For example prisoners were given 16 rules to follow, which the guards enforced.
- Prisoners were referred to only by number, not name.
- Guards had complete power over the prisoners, including deciding when they could go to the toilet (but could not be physically aggressive).

what did zimbardo (1973) find?

- Guards, prisoners and researchers all conformed to their roles within the prison.
- The guards created plenty of opportunities to enforce the rules and punish misdemeanours.
- they played the prisoners off against each other, and conducted headcounts randomly, sometimes in the middle of the night.
- Within 2 days the prisoners were rebelling against the harsh treatment by the guards
- Following the prisoners’ rebellion, the prisoners became subdued, depressed and anxious and more accepting of their role as “prisoners”.
- The guards became increasingly brutal and aggressive, identifying more and more with their role and some of them appearing to enjoy the power they had (when interviewed, one of the most aggressive guards said he modelled his guard role on a sadistic prison warden from the film Cool Hand Luke).

- One prisoner was released on day 1 as he showed evidence of psychological disturbance.
- Two more were released on day 4. Another went on a hunger strike, and the guards attempted to force-feed him and then punish him.
- The study was stopped after 6 days instead of the intended 14 as the guards behaviour became a threat to their psychological and physical health.

give a strength of zimbardos research into conformity to social roles (education).

A strength of Zimbardo’s research is that it can still be used to explain real life events occurring more recently. Zimbardo argues that conformity to social roles can explain the abuse of Iraqi prisoners by US military personnel at Abu Ghraib. Much of the same behaviours exhibited in his study were also seen at Abu Ghraib from guards towards prisoners. Zimbardo believes that the guards at Abu Ghraib who committed these abuses were victims of same situational factors that were present in his study. This is a strength because if we can understand events such as these, then we can take steps to educate people against the dangers of blind conformity to their roles. For example, a video documentary of the study, "Quiet Rage: the Stanford Prison Experiment," has been used extensively by many agencies within the civilian and military criminal justice system, and it is also used to educate military interrogators in the Navy SERE program on the potential dangers of abusing their power. This shows lessons can be learned from Zimbardo’s research to hopefully ensure atrocities such as the events at Abu Ghraib are not repeated.

give a limitation of zimbardos research into conformity to social roles (replication).

One weakness of Zimbardo’s study is that it lacks reliability. A modern replication by Reicher and Haslam (2006) of the study did not find the same results. The ‘guards’ did not become aggressive and instead there was a prisoner ‘break-out’ on day 6 followed by an attempt by a group of ‘prisoners’ and ‘guards’ to establish a new regime. This means that Zimbardo’s findings were not consistent and what he found may have been specific to that time and place, and those participants, making us question Zimbardo’s conclusions about social roles.

how did reicher and haslam (2006) explain their findings and how does this relate to zimbardos research?

Reicher & Haslam explained their findings instead using Social Identity Theory rather than conformity to social roles. They argued that the guards failed to develop a shared identity as a group, but the prisoners identified themselves as members of a social group that refused to accept the limits of their assigned roles as prisoners.
- Social identity theory can also explain the difference in the behaviour of the participants in the original study. Reicher argues that if the participants identified with Zimbardo and the study then they are likely to engage in the brutal behaviour that was seen in some of the guards, however if they identified with the plight of the prisoners they will engage in behaviours that will allow them avoid behaving brutally such as agreeing to go and buy lunch for the guards.

give a limitation of zimbardos research into conformity to social roles (dual role).

Another issue with Zimbardo’s research is that he took on a dual role in the study, as both superintendent of the ‘prison’ and researcher, however this created significant ethical issues. On one occasion a student spoke to Zimbardo as superintendent and requested to leave the study. Zimbardo responded to him as a superintendent worried about the running of his prison rather than as a researcher with responsibilities towards his participants and therefore initially denied his “parole”; ignoring his right to withdraw. This is problematic as it could be argued that the ethical issues with this study could have been avoided had Zimbardo not become immersed in his role as prison superintendent. This matters because unethical studies can damage the reputation of Psychology and the trust that participants place in psychological research when they volunteer for these investigations.

give a limitation of zimbardos research into conformity to social roles (ethics).

Zimbardo did terminate the experiment early when he saw the abuse occurring (debriefing sessions over several years found no lasting negative effects). Furthermore, Zimbardo said he believed the experiment was ethical before it began but unethical in hindsight because he and the others involved had no idea the experiment would escalate to the point of abuse that it did. Therefore, there is a question over whether the harm that occurred could have been anticipated or not.

give a limitation of zimbardos research into conformity to social roles (method).

the choice to become the prison superintendent also created a methodological issue because it highlights that Zimbardo had ceased to be objective in his role as researcher, which means he may have started to interpret the behaviour of the guards and prisoners using this bias. This means we need to be careful when drawing conclusions about conformity to social roles from this research, as it may just reflect researcher bias.

Further to this, Fromm (1973) has argued that Zimbardo overstated his conclusions about the power of the situation. Only a minority of the guards (about a third) behaved in a brutal manner. Another third were keen on applying the rules fairly, and another third sympathised with the prisoners and offered them cigarettes and reinstated privileges. This further suggests that Zimbardo could have been biased in his interpretation of the student’s behaviour being down to the situation because of how involved he was (and maybe how he felt the situation affected his behaviour), when in fact individual differences played more of a role in the guards exercising right and wrong choices than Zimbardo suggests.

what is obedience?

Obedience is a type of social influence where someone acts in response to a direct order from another person. The person who gives the order is perceived to have legitimate authority, and so the order is complied with.

describe milgram's (1963) research into obedience.

Aim: to investigate to what extent ordinary people would obey extreme orders or whether “Germans are different” in the level of obedience they displayed.
- 40 American male volunteers aged 20-50 years were recruited through a newspaper advertisement to take part in a study into teaching and learning at Yale University (lab experiment).
- They worked in pairs, one allocated to the role of teacher (participant) and one as the learner (a confederate of Milgram).
- The participants witnessed Mr Wallace (confederate) being strapped into a chair and attached to electrodes linked to a shock generator with a 30 point scale of increasing levels of shock from 15 – 450 volts.
- The teacher read out a list of paired words which the learner must repeat correctly. If he made a mistake the teacher administered a shock and continued to shock each time a mistake was made, moving up the scale.
- The teacher had no doubt that the shocks were real (he had earlier been given a sample ‘shock’ by Milgram of 45v) but after this NO shocks were actually given to Mr Wallace.
- Standardised verbal prods (e.g. ‘the experiment requires that you continue’) were given by the experimenter if the teacher (participant) hesitated. If the teacher refused after 4 verbal prods were given, the experiment was stopped.

what did milgram (1963) find and conclude?

Findings:

All participants gave shocks up to at least 300 volts and 65% continued to give shocks up to the maximum of 450 volts, even though many experienced a great deal of stress and anxiety whilst continuing. This was unexpected, as before conducting the research, people had estimated that most would stop at 100V.


Conclusion:

Milgram concluded that Germans are not different and in fact we are all capable of blind obedience to unjust orders. Ordinary people are likely to follow orders given by an authority figure, even to the extent of killing an innocent human being.

give a strength of milgram's (1963) research into obedience (standardised).

One strength of Milgram’s research is that it was heavily standardised. For example, the prompts that were used by the experimenter were kept the same for every participant. Also Milgram used tape recorded cries for Mr Wallace, each response carefully matched with different voltages on the shock generator, to ensure that each participant heard the same responses when they administered shocks. A strength of this standardisation is that the study can be replicated by other researchers, allowing for the reliability of Milgram’s findings and conclusions to be assessed.

give a limitation of milgram's (1963) research into obedience (environment).

one issue with Milgram’s research is that the artificial setting of the laboratory may have encouraged demand characteristics. Participants may have realised the experimental set-up was fake (e.g. the shocks weren't real) and were just behaving as they thought they were expected to. Certain aspects of the experimental situation may have made this more likely; the tape recorded cries of Mr Wallace may not have been convincing enough and the fact that participants could not see Mr Wallace may have caused them to question whether shocks were actually being administered.

give a limitation of milgram's (1963) research into obedience (validity).

Further evidence for this argument comes from Gina Perry (2013) who listened to tapes of Milgram’s participants and reported that many of them expressed doubts about the shocks. This is a problem because it means the findings may lack internal validity; 65% went up to 450v but this may have been due to participants realising no shocks were being given and continuing to shock more just to please Milgram, rather than this truly demonstrating obedience. This makes us question the conclusions Milgram drew about blind obedience to authority.

However, the participants showed signs of distress as if they truly believed the shocks they were administering were real: sweating, shaking, nervous laughter. This supports that they did believe the experimental set up.

give a limitation of milgram's (1963) research into obedience (lab experiment).

Although Milgram’s research may appear to lack ecological validity as it was conducted in laboratory environment, the central feature is the hierarchical relationship between the experimenter (authority figure) and the participant, which Milgram argues does accurately reflect wider authority relationships in real life (the location in this situation therefore does not affect the realism of the experiment). As a result, we can argue Milgram’s research does have ecological validity and findings can be applied accurately outside of the experimental situation.

give a limitation of milgram's (1963) research into obedience (hofling et al).

HOFLING et al. (1966) who studied the obedient relationship of nurses to doctors in a hospital setting. It was found that 21/22 nurses would break several hospital rules when told to by an unknown doctor over the phone (e.g. giving medication that was not signed by the doctor and giving an excessive dosage). This shows that the blind obedience shown in Milgram’s study is not confined to the laboratory setting and does generalise to real life obedience.

give a limitation of milgram's (1963) research into obedience (ethics).

The main criticism centres on ethical aspects of whether or not it is acceptable or justifiable to treat participants in such a way. Although Milgram initially gave his participants the right to withdraw he made it very difficult for them to do so throughout the study. Many participants were seen to “sweat, stutter, tremble, groan, bite their lips and dig their fingernails into their flesh”. 3 participants experienced “full blown uncontrollable seizures”. As a result, Milgram has been criticised for putting his participants through so much stress which some consider to be unacceptable, regardless of the aims and outcome of the research.

give a limitation of milgram's (1963) research into obedience (public image).

Baumrind (1964) heavily criticises Milgram for the effect this work will have on the public image of psychology, and suggested that it would be damaged because the general public would judge that the participants were not protected or respected.

what are the 3 situational factors affecting obedience?

- Location
- Proximity
- Uniform

how does location affect obedience?

When Milgram changed the location of the study from a prestigious University (Yale) to a run-down office building, obedience rates dropped from 65% to 47.5%. It is suggested that the location acted as valuable indicator of status and power for the authority figure. When it appeared poorly kept, this impacted on our perceived legitimacy of the authority figure, participants began to question his authority and obedience dropped.

how does proximity affect obedience?

When the teacher could not see the learner, obedience rates were 65%, this dropped to 40% when they were in the same room and dropped again to 30% when the teacher was made to force the learners hand down onto the shock plate. This suggests that the further away the teacher is from the suffering they are causing, the more able they are to continue. This may be because they are more able to defer responsibility for the act onto the experimenter when in a different room, but this becomes more difficult when physically forcing the learners hand down onto a shock plate.

This was supported by a further variation where the experimenter left the room and only communicated with the teacher over the phone. This time the proximity change was between experimenter and teacher, but it resulted in a drop in obedience to the extent that the participants would often give much weaker shocks than they were supposed to. On this occasion, the change in proximity resulted in a diluting of the strength of the experimenter’s power over the participant.

how does uniform affect obedience?

When Milgram substituted the experimenter and his lab coat for a member of the public in their normal clothes this caused obedience rates to drop substantially from 65% to just 20%. This lab coat is an important visual cue that we need to perceive the wearer as a legitimate authority figure, especially if they are asking us to do something we don’t agree with. When it is absent, we perceive the wearer, not as a person of higher social status than ourselves (and deserving of a level of obedience) but more as a peer who we can disobey. Therefore, we cease to see them as a legitimate authority figure.

give a strength of the role of uniform as a situational variable affecting obedience (Bickman).

The role of uniform as a situational variable affecting obedience has supporting evidence from Bickman (1974). They carried out a field study in New York. Confederates asked people to carry out requests e.g. pick up litter, stand on the other side of a bus stop, lend money for a parking meter. There were three conditions: the confederate was dressed in a security guard’s uniform, jacket and tie, and a milkman’s outfit. People were twice as likely to obey the confederate dressed as a security guard than one dressed in jacket and tie. This shows that the uniform is an important visual cue that we recognise as a sign of legitimate authority.

give a strength/limitation of the role of situational variables affecting obedience (replication).

A strength of Milgram’s original research and variations is that they have been replicated in different cultures. Miranda et al. (1981) found an obedience rate of over 90% amongst Spanish students. Suggesting that Milgram’s conclusions about obedience (and therefore his variations too) are valid cross-culturally.
However, Smith & Bond (1998) argued that most replications have taken place in Western, developed societies, which are not that culturally different from America. Therefore, it would be premature to conclude that Milgram’s conclusions about proximity, location and uniform apply to people everywhere.

give a limitation of the role of situational variables affecting obedience (variations).

Orne’s criticism of Milgram’s original study - lack of internal validity as participants may have worked out the procedure was fake - is arguably even more relevant and likely with the variations, because of the additional manipulation. For example, one variation involved Mr. Wallace in the same room, where he would have to be very convincing at acting to suggest to the participant that the shocks being given were real. In another condition, the experimenter is called away and replaced by a ‘member of the public’. Even Milgram recognised that this particular situation was so contrived participants may have worked out the truth. This is an issue because it suggests that Milgram’s research may not be accurate in telling us about the effect of these situational variables on obedience, as instead Milgram may have been simply measuring demand characteristics, making us question the conclusions he made about the effects of uniform, location and proximity.

give a limitation of the role of situational variables affecting obedience (socially sensistive).

Another issue with Milgram’s findings is that the focus on a situational explanation can be classed as very socially sensitive. Milgram argues that proximity, location and uniform are all factors within the situation that can influence levels of obedience. This has been criticised by Mandel (1998) who argues that it offers an excuse for evil behaviour. He argues for example, that is it offensive to survivors of the holocaust that the Nazis were simply obeying orders and were victims themselves of situational factors beyond their control, as it removes individual accountability for the consequences of their actions.

what are the explanations for obedience?

- A Situational Explanation
- Agency theory
- Legitimacy of Authority
- The Dispositional explanation – the Authoritarian Personality.

what is the situational explanation for obedience?

The situational variables affecting obedience together make up this explanation for obedience.

what is agency theory?

When people perceive themselves to be acting on the behalf of an authority figure, i.e. not a free individual, they are more likely to obey unjust orders. Milgram named this psychological state of mind the agentic state. Milgram proposes that people are capable of shifting between two different psychological states.

what are the 2 psychological states of agency theory?

- The Autonomous State
- The Agentic State

what is the autonomous state?

The Autonomous State in which people see their actions as voluntary and self-directed, and in which conscience is fully operational (they feel guilt). People feel responsible for the consequences of their actions in this mental state. This is the state we are in the majority of the time when we are not being given an order from legitimate authority.

what is the agentic state?

he Agentic State in which people see themselves as acting on behalf of (an ‘agent’ of) an authority figure and in which individual conscience does not operate (no guilt). People do not feel responsible for the consequences of their actions in this state, as the authority figure in this situation is the one perceived as responsible. Because we hold back the control we have over our own actions, control from authority figures can operate more effectively.

what is the agentic shift?

Moving from the autonomous to the agentic state is known as the agentic shift, and with it there is a shift in perception of responsibility. Milgram argued it is entering into an agentic state that explains obedience.

what is moral strain?

Milgram states that when we are given an order from authority, but the order goes against our moral conscience (e.g. an order to harm another person), we experience moral strain – this is anxiety that comes as a result of conflict between knowing we should obey authority as the “right” thing to do (which we have been taught from a young age) but also wanting to be true to our own conscience that the order is morally wrong.

what are binding factors?

Binding factors are what Milgram defined as aspects of the situation that allow the person to ignore or minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour and thus helps to reduce this ‘moral strain’ they are feeling. Viewing the authority figure as responsible is one such binding factor, but Milgram gave other strategies as examples, such as suggesting the victim was to blame “he was foolish to volunteer” or denying the damage they were doing to the victims. Milgram argues it is binding factors that keep people in an agentic state following orders, even though they know what they are doing is wrong.

give a strength of agency theory (milgram).

Evidence to support the agentic state can be seen in Milgram’s research. When the real participant / teacher was choosing to give the electric shocks, this was the autonomous state. However, when the teacher started to refuse and one of the verbal prods were given, this then became the agentic state if the teacher carried on with the experiment. Furthermore, participants who were initially reluctant often then continued once they had been given reassurance and confirmation that the experimenter was the one held responsible for any harm. This demonstrates that people shift into an agentic state when they view the authority figure as responsible and this increases the likelihood of them obeying, therefore supporting that agency theory is a valid explanation for why we obey.

give a strength of the agentic state as an explanation (blass and schmitt).

Further support for the agentic state as an explanation for obedience comes from Blass and Schmitt (2001), who showed a film of Milgram’s study to students, and asked them to identify who they felt was responsible for the harm to the learner – whether it was the teacher (participant) or the experimenter. Most identified that the experimenter was responsible, due to his legitimate authority over the participant. In other words, the students were recognising the agentic state; that when an authority figure gives an order, they are then the one responsible and the cause of obedience, supporting the validity of this explanation.

give a limitation of the agentic state as an explanation (findings).

However, a criticism of the agentic state as an explanation for obedience is that the theory does not explain many of the research findings. For example, it does not explain why some of the participants in Milgram’s original study did not obey to 450v (35%). Using agency theory, this means that some participants after 300v stayed autonomous and refused enough times for the experiment to be terminated, whilst others at that point shifted into the agentic state to continue to 450v. This is a weakness because the theory doesn’t take into account other factors, e.g. disposition, which may determine whether people are likely to enter an agentic state or stay autonomous and resist obedience. This matters because if agency theory cannot account for individual differences found in Milgram’s study, it limits the extent to which this theory can fully explain why we obey.

what is legitimacy of authority?

Most societies have a hierarchical structure and we are socialised – taught during childhood by parents, teachers, other adults - to recognise those who have a higher position or status on the hierarchy and obey them. For example, the police, judges, teachers etc. The authority they hold is said to have “legitimacy” in that it is generally agreed upon by society - most of us accept that authority figures need to be allowed the right to exert social power over us for society to function in a smooth and orderly fashion. Furthmore, when given an order by authority we usually look for symbols of their legitimacy – uniform, badges or ID cards, or the location in which they are giving the order

why do we obey legitimate authority?

According to this explanation, the reason why we obey legitimate authority is because we see them as trustworthy and/or they have the power to punish us. For example, we trust the police to protect us but equally they can arrest us, we could be jailed or fined etc.

what is the problem with legitimacy of authority?

The problem is when legitimacy of authority becomes destructive; when those given the power to tell us what to do then use this power to cause blind obedience to cruel and callous orders. History has repeatedly shown that charismatic and powerful leaders e.g. Hitler and Stalin, have used the legitimacy they hold for destructive purposes, and people blindly obeyed because they were socialised from childhood to respect the authority figure’s legitimacy, with horrifying consequences.

give a strength of legitimacy of authority (milgram).

Evidence to support legitimacy of authority comes from Milgram’s variations. The authority figure originally wore a lab coat, which symbolised his authority. Obedience fell to just 20% in a variation where the experimenter was not wearing his lab coat (an indication of his status and authority). Similarly, location is another indication of status; a prestigious location like Yale University helps to convey that the experimenter is a legitimate authority figure. However obedience fell to 47.5% when this symbol was removed and the experiment was placed in a run down office block. These findings support legitimacy of authority as they demonstrate that when participants do not view the authority figure to have real legitimacy, they begin to challenge the right the experimenter has to give orders, and therefore obedience reduces. This supporting evidence gives legitimacy of authority more validity as an explanation for obedience.

give a strength of legitimacy of authority (cultural differences).

the legitimacy of authority explanation can account for cultural differences in obedience. Many studies show that countries differ in the degree to which people are traditionally obedient to authority. For example, Kilham and Mann (1974) replicated Milgram’s procedure in Australia and found that only 16% of their participants went up to 450v (compared to 65% in Milgram’s original study), whereas with German participants, this was 85% (Mantell, 1971). Legitimacy of authority can easily explain these cultural differences; in some cultures authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimate and entitled to demand obedience from individuals. Furthermore, as legitimacy of authority is learned through socialisation, the individuals in these cultures may be taught more strongly to respect authority. This increases the validity of Legitimacy of authority as an explanation for obedience as it can also give a reason for these cultural differences in obedience rates.

give a strength of legitimacy of authority (war crime).

A further strength of the explanation is that it can explain how obedience can lead to real-life war crimes. Kelman and Hamilton (1989) argue that the My Lai massacre, in which as many as 504 unarmed civilians were killed by American Soldiers during the Vietnam war, can be explained in terms of the power hierarchy of the US army at the time. The American soldiers could have obeyed because they are taught in the army to be aware of commanding officer’s legitimacy and unquestioningly follow orders. This matters because it means the explanation has practical applications. If legitimacy of authority is a useful explanation of real-life war crimes, then there is the possibility that it could help us to understand how to prevent such crimes in the future. This could be done by helping people, perhaps through education, to challenge legitimate authority rather than obeying it mindlessly.

what is the authoritarian personality?

The dispositional explanation for obedience is an internal explanation, which suggests that certain personality characteristics are associated with higher levels of obedience. This was developed by Adorno et al (1950) into an explanation for obedience. It is a collection of traits that include a belief in absolute obedience, submission to authority and domination of minorities. These characteristics make them highly obedient to authority compared to other people who do not possess this personality type. The authoritarian personality is measured by the ‘F-scale questionnaire’, which has 30 questions assessing nine personality dimensions.

what did adorno suggest about those with the personality type?

Adorno suggested that people with the authoritarian personality have particular characteristics. He said that they have a tendency to be especially obedient to authority, and show contempt (hatred) for people they perceive as having inferior social status. They also have highly conventional attitudes towards sex, race and gender. They view society as ‘going to the dogs’ and therefore believe we need strong and powerful leaders to enforce traditional values such as love of country, religion and family. People with an authoritarian personality also have a cognitive style where they are inflexible in their outlook – for them there are no ‘grey’ areas. Everything is either right or wrong and they are very uncomfortable with uncertainty. Therefore they hold very fixed stereotypes about other people.

when is the authoritarian personality shaped?

It is also thought that this personality type is shaped in early childhood by harsh, strict parenting where unquestioning respect for hierarchy and authority was instilled. The parenting style features extremely strict discipline, an expectation of absolute loyalty, the setting of impossibly high standards and severe criticism of perceived failings. It is also characterised by conditional love; parents affection is dependent on the child meeting certain criteria in behaviour. As adults, they have built up resentment towards their parents, but because of their submissiveness to authority and also fear of punishment, this anger cannot be expressed against their parents so is displaced onto others perceived as weaker; a process called scapegoating. This explains a central trait of the authoritarian personality; a blind obedience to authority whilst showing dislike of people considered to “inferior” in social status.

give a strength of the authoritarian personality (elms and milgram).

Elms and Milgram (1966), who investigated the personalities of 40 obedient participants from Milgram’s original study (those who went up to 450v) compared to those participants who refused to continue. It was reported that participants who were highly obedient scored significantly higher on the F-scale than disobedient participants, and also reported less close relationships in childhood with their fathers. They also tended to show admiration of the experimenter in the study. This supports the link between authoritarian personality type and obedience as it shows those who were highly obedient had authoritarian personality traits (shown through their higher F scale score and admiration of the experimenter) and this is what may have originally caused them to go up to 450v. Furthermore, the lack of close relationships with their father could be a sign of the strict harsh parenting that caused them to develop this personality, which is also in line with the theory. This makes us more confident that the authoritarian personality accurately explains why we obey.

give a strength of the authoritarian personality (altemeyer).

Further evidence for the authoritarian personality contributing towards obedience comes from Altemeyer (1998) who reported that when participants were ordered to administer electric shocks to themselves by an authority figure, participants with an authoritarian personality type gave more powerful shocks than those without the personality type. This is a strength because it further suggests that those with the authoritarian personality are more likely to be obedient and submissive to authority, even to the extent of harming themselves just to please an authority figure.

give a limitation of the authoritarian personality (limited explanation).

A criticism of the authoritarian personality to explain obedience is that it is a limited explanation; it would be difficult to explain obedient behaviour in the majority of a country’s population. For example, in pre-war Germany, millions of individuals all displayed obedient, racist and anti-Semitic behaviour. This was despite the fact that they must have differed in their personalities in all sorts of ways. It seems extremely unlikely that they could all possess an authoritarian personality. This is a limitation of Adorno’s theory because it is clear that an alternative explanation is much more realistic – in this case that social identity explains obedience. The majority of the German people identified with the anti-Semitic Nazi state, and scapegoated the ‘outgroup’ of Jews.

give a limitation of the authoritarian personality (education leve,).

A further problem for the explanation is that having the authoritarian personality is very closely linked to our education level. Middendorp and Meleon found that those with a lower level of education are also much more likely to display authoritarian personality characteristics. This is an issue because it may not be the authoritarian personality that causes obedience at all; if everybody who possesses traits of an Authoritarian Personality also has a lower level of education, it is impossible to separate which one is actually causing their higher obedience. It could be that a lower level of education possibly results in a lack of critical thinking skills and therefore passive obedience, but incidentally those with lower educational attainment may separately hold attitudes of the authoritarian personality e.g. incorrect stereotypes about minorities, black and white thinking. This matters because if this is the case, then unlike what the explanation suggests, there is no direct cause and effect relationship between Authoritarian Personality and obedience at all.

what did carnevale (2020) point out about authoritarian personality traits?

Interestingly, Carnevale et al, 2020 point out that authoritarian traits and beliefs are less likely in those holding an honours degree because it exposes individuals to diverse people, cultures, and ideas and encourages empathy and tolerance. They therefore believe that education has an important role to play in reducing authoritarian attitudes.

what is resistance to social influence?

Resistance to social influence (also known as independent behaviour) involves the true rejection of social influence to behave in accord with one’s own internal attitudes, and to withstand pressures to conform/obey. Those who act independently will do so, regardless of whether other people behave the same or differently.

what are the 2 explanations for resistance to social influence?

- Social Support (Situational explanation)
- Locus of control (Dispositional explanation)

what is social support?

Social support is a situational explanation for resisting social influence, as it is based on features of the situation which may influence why people choose to resist conformity and obedience. The presence of another person who does not conform or obey acts as an ally and provides social support, allowing the individual to also resist conformity or obedience. They act like a role model to the individual; giving them an exemplar for how to resist social influence successfully. The model demonstrates to the participant that they do not need to conform or obey; they have a choice. This gives the individual more confidence in his/her own behaviour, helping them to reject social pressure to conform/obey.

give an example of social support in he case of conformity.

the dissenter who is going against the majority gives the individual the confidence to also speak their own privately held opinions, safe in the knowledge that they are now not the only one rejecting the views of the majority and so the individual will not be alone in receiving any public disapproval.

give an example of social support in he case of conformity.

the dissenter who is standing up against the authority figure also gives the individual greater confidence and a role model to follow, but also the dissenter can make the authority figures demands seem unreasonable, or if resistance is successful it can dilute the authority figure’s power, making resistance more likely.

give a strength of social support (asch).

Evidence to support that social support enables resistance to social influence comes from Asch. In one of his variations he found that the presence of an ally leads to resisting pressures to conform. He instructed one confederate to give the correct answer. When this happened the naive participant had social support and as a result, conformity levels dropped significantly from 36.8% to just 5.5%. It dropped to 9% still even when the dissenter gave another incorrect answer. This gives evidence to the idea that the presence of an ally, even an incorrect one, will encourage independent behaviour, making us more confident that social support is an explanation for resistance to social influence.

give a strength of social support (allen and levine).

A further strength of social support as an explanation for resistance to conformity comes from Allen & Levine (1971). They found that conformity decreased when there was one dissenter in an Asch-type study. More importantly, this occurred even if the dissenter wore thick glasses and said that he had difficulty with his vision and was in no position to accurately judge the line length. This shows that having social support in the form of another dissenter who is prepared to resist the pressure from the majority can help to reduce conformity, even when that dissenter is incorrect. Therefore supporting the validity of social support as an explanation for resistance to social influence.

give a strength of social support (milgram).

The role of a disobedient role model in facilitating independent behaviour is supported by one of Milgram’s variations. When the real participant was teamed with two other confederate participants, one of whom announced after 150 volts that he was not going on, the other who refused after 210 volts, the obedience rate dropped from 65% to 10%. Therefore further supporting that presence of an ally can lead to resisting social influence, this time in the form of obedience.

give a strength of social support (gamson).

A further strength of social support as an explanation for resistance to obedience comes from Gamson (1982). In this study, participants were instructed in groups by an authority figure to help an oil company to run a smear campaign, and found that 29 out of 33 groups (88%) disagreed when there was a dissenter in the group. This demonstrates that social support in the form of a dissenter can help others to disobey authority.

what is locus of control?

Locus of control is a dispositional explanation for resisting social influence, as it focuses on aspects of an individual’s personality that may affect whether they choose to resist conformity or obedience. otter (1966) developed the concept of locus of control. Locus of control is how much a person believes they have control over the events in their lives, and is measured on a scale with a strong internal locus of control on one end and a strong external locus of control on the other.

who is thought to be more resistant to social influence?

Those with a strong internal locus of control believe they have complete control over the events that happen in their lives and take responsibility for their actions. At the other end of the spectrum, those with an external locus of control believe that events in their life are caused by other forces such as luck or fate. Those with a strong internal locus of control are thought to be more resistant to social influence.

why are those with a strong internal locus of control more likely to resist social influence?

High internals seek out information that is useful and so rely less on other people’s opinions. This makes them less susceptible to the effects of informational social influence as they do not look to others for guidance.
High internals have more confidence in speaking about their own opinions and therefore don’t seek social approval as much, making them less susceptible to normative social influence.
High internals tend to be more achievement-oriented – because they believe that they can make things happen for themselves - and are therefore more likely to become leaders or entrepreneurs. This would make them less likely to obey as they are more likely to become authority figures giving out orders rather than following them.
Furthermore internals believe they have personal control over what happens to them, so if given an order by higher authority, they believe they have the power to decide whether to obey or not, and it is within their control to change the situation if they are not happy with what they are being asked to do.

why are those with high external locus of control more likely to conform to social influence?

However because externals believe they have no control over what happens in their lives, the opposite is true; they are more likely to rely on other people to inform them of what to do because they don’t take control of situations and seek out relevant info (increasing likelihood of ISI), they are more likely to rely on others and seek their approval (increasing NSI), and are more likely to follow authority as they feel powerless to change the situation by disobeying.

give a strength of locus of control (blass).

here is research evidence supporting the link between having a high internal locus of control and being able to resist obedience. For example, Blass (1991) found that those with an internal locus of control were more able to resist obedience than those with an external locus of control, and were especially resistant if they thought the researcher was trying to force or manipulate them to obey. This is important because it suggests that personal control in a situation is important for those with an internal locus of control – they like to feel they have a choice over their behaviour – and this is what causes them to be more resistant to attempts to take that away.

give a strength of locus of control (holland).

Furthermore, Holland (1967) repeated Milgram’s baseline study and measured whether participants were high internal or high external. He found that 37% of internals did not continue to the highest shock level (i.e. showed some resistance) whereas only 23% of externals did not continue. Both of these studies show that internals are more likely to resist authority, increasing the validity of Locus of Control as an explanation for why people resist social influence.

give a limitation of locus of control (twenge et al).

there is criticising evidence by Twenge et al (2004), who carried out a meta-analysis, comparing young people between 1960 and 2002. They found that in this time span, people have become more resistant to obedience, however also more external. This goes against locus of control as an explanation as you would expect the opposite; if resistance is linked to an internal locus of control, then as levels of resistance increased, we would expect people to have become more internal instead if the explanation was correct. This challenges the link between an internal locus of control and independent behaviour. However, Twenge et al suggest that this increase in external locus of control may be due to changing social factors. For example, increases in divorce, unemployment, violent crime, mental health problems, may have led young people to experience events over which they have no control.

give a limitation of locus of control (rotter).

Another weakness of locus of control is that it seems to have a limited impact on resistance compared to other factors. Rotter (1982) points out that Locus of Control only comes into play in novel (new) situations, but is less likely to influence our behaviour in familiar situations, where previous experiences will always be an overriding factor. This is important because this is often overlooked in discussions regarding the link between locus of control and resistance; Rotter’s point means that people who have conformed or obeyed in a specific situation in the past, or have tried to resist and it has led to negative consequences (e.g. strict punishment) will avoid resisting again, regardless of their locus of control, internal or external. This matters because it suggests that locus of control can only explain a limited range of situations in which people might resist social influence (i.e. when a situation of conformity or obedience is completely new to them) and that it is not as important a factor in resistance as some have suggested.

what is minority influence?

Minority influence refers to situations where one person or a very small group of people influences the beliefs and behaviour of a majority.

how do minorities influence?

Minorities rarely influence through normative social influence, as people will normally go with a majority view if they desire to be accepted. Minorities instead influence through informational social influence, as the minority makes the majority question their views, creating uncertainty. Once in this position, they will look to the minority for guidance due to a desire to be correct. Therefore, minority influence is most likely to lead to internalisation – both public behaviour and private beliefs are changed by the process. Thus, minority influence is said to create deeper processing of the issue at hand compared to a majority.

what are the 3 factors that minorities need to be influential?

Research has shown that a minority can be more persuasive in influencing the majority if they have a certain behavioural style and characteristics. These are consistency, commitment and flexibility.

what is consistency (minority influence?)

A minority is more influential if they keep the same beliefs, both over time (diachronic consistency) and between all the individuals that form the minority (synchronic consistency). Over time, the consistency in the minority’s views increases the amount of interest from other people and makes others start to rethink their own views (‘maybe they have a point if they all think this way’).

give a strength of consistency (minority influence) (moscovici).

There is research evidence to support the role that consistency has to play in minority influence. Moscovici conducted a classic study that involved placing female undergraduate students into groups of 6 (2 out of each group were actually confederates acting as a minority) with the task of judging the colour of 36 BLUE slides. It was found that when the confederates were consistent in repeatedly saying the slides were green, the female participants switched to the minority position and called the slides green in 8.4% of the trials (32% of participants calling a slide green at least once). Agreement with the minority dropped to 1.25% when the minority was inconsistent. This evidence clearly demonstrates that when a minority is consistent both with each other (synchronically) and over time in the message itself (diachronically – called slides green in each trial), they are more influential. This gives greater validity to the idea that consistency is a factor that makes minorities more influential.