Studied by 2 people
Conformity
Yielding to group pressures: (for example bullying, persuasion, teasing, criticism)
Conformity is also known as...
Majority Influence
When does Conformity occur?
When an individuals behaviour/beliefs are influenced by a larger group of people.
Types of Conformity-Kelman (1958)
(In order of strength of the belief)
1) Compliance
2) Identification
3) Internalisation
Compliance
• The weakest form of Conformity.
• Conforming to the majority (publicly), in spite of not really agreeing with them (privately).(e.g. saying you like a genre of music in public)
• Stops when there are no group pressures to conform - a temporary behavior change.
• Usually a form of NSI
Identification
• The middle level of Conformity.
• Changes their public behaviour and their private beliefs, but only while they are in the presence of the group. (e.g. being vegetarian when surrounded by vegetarians.)
• Not a permanent change in belief.
• Short term and usually a form of NSI.
Internalisation
• The deepest level of Conformity-known as true conformity.
• Changes their public behaviour and their private beliefs. (e.g. joining a religion.)
• Long-term change and often the result of ISI
Explanations of Conformity
• Normative Social Influence
• Informational Social Influence
Normative Social Influence
• Yielding to group pressure because they want to fit in with the group (Asch Line Study)
• Scared of rejection from group.
Informational Social Influence
• A person lacks knowledge and subsequently looks to the group for answers.
• Also when in an ambiguous/unfamiliar situation.
Lucas et al (2006)
Lucas gave participants a maths problems or varying difficulty, in the same style as Asch's experiment.
they found that conformity was higher to the wrong answers when the the maths questions were harder.
however Lucas also found that conformity is linked to self - efficacy (self evaluation/confidence).
those with high self- efficacy in their Maths ability were less likely to conform compared to those with low.
Smith and Bond
conducted meta-analysis on conformity studies looking at 133 studies in 17 different countries.
they found that levels of conformity were much higher in collectivist cultures such as China than they were in individualist cultures such as America. This may be because they are more group orientated.
Normative Social Influence - Line Study - Asch 1951:
• Participants and Procedure
123 male American undergraduates in groups of 6; consisting of 1 true participant and 5 confederates (actors/people in on the experiment)
Procedure
• Participants and confederates were presented with 4 lines; 3 comparison lines and 1 standard line
• They asked to state which of three lines was the same length as a stimulus line
• The real participant always answered last or second to last
• Confederates would give the same incorrect answer for 12/18 trials
• Asch observed how often the participant would give the same incorrect answer as the confederates versus the correct answer
Normative Social Influence - Line Study - Asch 1951:
• Findings and Conclusion
36.8% conformed
25% never conformed
75% conformed at least once In a control trial
only 1% of responses given by participants were incorrect (which eliminates eyesight/perception as an extraneous variable, thus increasing the validity of the conclusions drawn)
Normative Social Influence - Line Study - Asch 1951:
• Findings of Group Size
Asch found that as he increased the size of the majority, conformity levels increased.
• 1 Confederate answering incorrectly had 3% conformity.
• 2 Confederates answering incorrectly had 12.8% conformity.
• 3 Confederates answering incorrectly had 32% conformity.
• However, increasing the group size larger than 4 made no sig difference to conformity rate
Normative Social Influence - Line Study - Asch 1951:
• Findings of Unanimity
This is the extent that members of a majority agree with one another.
• When one of the confederates would go against the incorrect answer and agree with the participant conformity levels dropped from 32% to 5%.
In another variation, one of the confederates gave a different incorrect answer to the majority.
• In this variation conformity dropped from 32% to 9%
the more unanimous the group is, the more confidence the participant will have that they are all correct, and therefore the participant’s answer is more likely to be incorrect
Normative Social Influence - Line Study - Asch 1951:
• Findings of Task Difficulty
In Asch's original experiment, the correct answer was always obvious.
In one of his variations he made the task more difficult, by making the answer far more ambiguous.
• Conformity levels increased as they wanted to be right instead of fitting in.
• This was a shift from NSI to ISI.
Normative Social Influence - Line Study - Asch 1951:
• Strengths
+ Lab experiment so the variables were controlled very well; no extraneous variables to interfere with the study; high internal validity
+ Support from Lucas study
+ Supports NSI
Normative Social Influence - Line Study - Asch 1951:
- Culturally biased
Culturally biased.
Conducted in 1950s America, an individualistic culture where independence is valued, yet the era was also influenced by McCarthyism, which may have heightened conformity.
Evidence from Bond & Smith (1996) shows that conformity rates are significantly higher in collectivist cultures (e.g., Japan, China)
Therefore, Asch’s findings cannot be universally applied, as cultural differences influence levels of conformity, making the study ethnocentric and limited in generalisability.
Normative Social Influence - Line Study - Asch 1951:
+ Support from Lucas (2006) study
- support for task difficulty affecting conformity has come from Lucas et al (2006) research.
- Lucas gave participants a maths problems or varying difficulty, in the same style as Asch's experiment.
- they found that conformity was higher to the wrong answers when the the maths questions were harder.
- however Lucas also found that conformity is linked to self- efficacy (self evaluation/confidence).
- those with high self-efficacy in their Maths ability were less likely to conform compared to those with low.
- this shows that Asch's situational variables alone maybe a too simplistic explanation, and in fact individual factors can influence our response to situational factors.
Normative Social Influence - Line Study - Asch 1951:
+ Lab experiment so the variables were controlled very well
- Conducted in a lab, so there was a high level of control.
- Reduce extraneous variables, and easily replicate the experiment, being able to identify the impact of situational variables.
- however, Asch's study and his variations have been criticised for lacking realism, matching lines is a unimportant physical task with no moral dilemma or real consequences for conforming.
- this is unrealistic to real life experiences where not conforming could lead to rejection or conforming could have consequences (drug taking). Consequently participants may be more willing to conform in Asch's variations research.
- findings lack generalisability, and exaggerate the impact of unanimity, group size and task difficulty in conforming, consequently findings have limited applications to applied to everyday circumstances.
Normative Social Influence - Line Study - Asch 1951:
- gender bias
- Criticised for being gender biased and androcentric:
sample solely comprised of white men, so different levels of conformity in females may make them seem different to the 'norm'.
- other research suggests that women may be more conformist because they are concerned about social relationships and being accepted (Neto 1955)
- consequently female behaviour, and people from others cultures, becomes inferior or misunderstood
- therefore Asch's findings have got limited application and tell us little about conformity in other populations.
Perrin and Spencer
also found low conformity rates on their replication of Asch's research when they used engineering students, which may be due to higher levels of self efficacy.
Information Social Influence
+ SUPPORTIVE EVIDENCE FOR ISI FROM ASCH
- Asch’s research provides support for informational social increasing levels of conformity.
- Asch found that levels of conformity increased when the task was made harder by making lines more similar.
- conformity levels increased as they wanted to be right instead of fitting in
- this was a shift from NSI to ISI.
Information Social Influence
SUPPORTIVE EVIDENCE FOR ISI FROM LUCAS ET AL
- another strength is a that there is research to support ISI from the study by Lucas et al.
- they found that participants conformed more often to incorrect answers they were given when maths questions were more difficult. This is because when the problems were easy the participants’ knew their own minds’ but when the problems were hard the situation became ambiguous.
- the participants didn’t want to be wrong so they relied on the answers they were given.
- this shows that ISI is a valid explanation of conformity because the results are what ISI would predict.
Information Social Influence
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN ISI
- a limitation of ISI as explanation for conformity is that it cannot be applied to everyone equally.
- in Lucas’ study they also found people with high self efficacy were less likely to conform, even on the more difficult maths questions. This was because they had confidence in their own abilities, high self-efficacy.
- Perrin and Spencer also found low conformity rates on their replication of Asch’s research when they used engineering students, which may be due to higher levels of self efficacy. This shows that ISI does not affect everyone, some are more resistant.
- this suggests that the nomothetic approach of ISI struggles to explain variations in conformity, and ISI impacts individuals differently due to dispositional facts.
SUPPORT FOR NSI
- one strength of NSI is that evidence supports it as an explanation of conformity.
- for example, when Asch interviewed his participants, some said they conformed because they felt self conscious giving the correct answer and they were afraid of disapproval.
- when participants wrote their answers down conformity fell to 12.5%. This is because giving answers privately meant that there was no normative group pressure.
- this shows that at least some conformity is due to a desire not to be rejected by the group for disagreeing with them.
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN NSI
- some research criticises that NSI doesn’t affect everyone’s behaviour in the same way.
- this is demonstrated in a study by McGhee and Teevan where they found that students that had a high need for affiliation were more likely to conform (Affiliators).
- this is because people have a high need for being liked feel the pressure of normative social influence more than others. - Whilst others may have an Internal Locus of Control and don’t seek approval from others.
- this means that there are individual differences in the way people respond to normative social influence.
REAL WORLD APPLICATION FOR NSI
- support for NSI is that it has a lot of real world applications.
for example the Nudge Unit used principles of NSI to increase income tax payments for HMRC. They found that by saying in a letter that 'most people living in the recipient's town or postcode had already paid.'
- rates of repayment in the test groups rose by around 15%.
according to estimates from the HMRC, if this was repeated on a national scale, it would generate approximately £30m.
therefore this suggests that understanding NSI has been useful.
Neto (1955)
women may be more conformist because they are concerned about social relationships and being accepted
Normative Social Influence - Line Study - Asch 1951:
- Weaknesses
- Age and Ethnocentric; 50/M/USA - lacks population validity/has a gender bias/can't be generalised to older generations.
- The experiment used an artificial task to measure conformity; as a result the study has low ecological validity and cannot be generalised to real world conformity - not the same situation as something like
- used strangers as confederates
- gender biased
Informative Social Influence - Autokinetic Effect - Sherif 1935:
• Procedure
• The autokinetic effect - this is where a small spot of light (projected onto a screen) in a dark room will appear to move, even though it is still.
• When participants were individually tested their estimates on how far the light moved varied considerably (20-80cm).
• The participants were then tested in groups of three. Sherif manipulated the group so 2 members would estimate a similar distance and one that is greatly different.
• Each member in the group had to state out loud the distance they believed that the spot moved.
Informative Social Influence - Autokinetic Effect - Sherif 1935:
• Findings and Conclusion
Findings:
•Sherif found that over numerous estimates (trials) of the movement of light, the group converged to a common estimate.
• The person whose estimate of movement was greatly different to the other two in the group conformed to the view of the other two.
• This shows both NSI and ISI.
•Rather than make individual judgments they tend to come to a group agreement.
Conclusion:
• The results show that when in an ambiguous situation (e.g. autokinetic effect), a person will look to others (who know more / better) for guidance.
• They want to do the right thing, but may lack the appropriate information and as a result observe others for info.
Informative Social Influence - Autokinetic Effect - Sherif 1935:
• Strengths
+ Lab experiment; all external varibales are controlled; high internal validity
+ Use of ambiguous topic replicates other topics that would be confusing.
Informative Social Influence - Autokinetic Effect - Sherif 1935:
• Weaknesses
- May lack cultural validity as it took place in the USA, an individualistic culture, therefore the data cannot be generalised to all other cultures such as collectivist cultures (China/Japan/Korea). This results in less external validity.
- How the light "moved" when tested independently may have actually looked different in the group study. Due to it being an illusion it depends on the participants perception of the event.
Social Roles
• The part people play as members of a social group.
• With each social role you adopt, your behaviour changes to fit the expectations both you and others have of that role.
The Stanford Prison Experiment - Zimbardo (1973):
• Aim
• Zimbardo investigated how readily people would conform to social roles of guard/prisoner in a study simulating prison life by turning the basement into a mock prison.
• He also investigated whether the brutality reported among guards in American prisons was due to the sadistic personalities of the guards (dispositional) or was due to the prison environment (situational).
The Stanford Prison Experiment - Zimbardo (1973):
• Procedure
• Volunteer Sampling/21 Males/US/Random Assignment/Paid$15 a day to work
• set up mock prison in the basement of Stanford University
• observational study - controlled, participant, overt
• emotionally stable volunteers were assigned to roles of either prisoner or guard
• prisoners 'arrested', blindfolded, strip searched, etc
• guards given a night stick, dark glasses, uniform etc and told to maintain order
• prisoners' daily routines were heavily regulated by guards working in shifts
• dehumanisation of prisoners, eg wearing nylon stocking caps and numbered
The Stanford Prison Experiment - Zimbardo (1973):
• Findings and Conclusion
Findings:
• Both Ps and Gs quickly identified with their social roles.
• Ps rebelled within days; Gs quickly crushed this by becoming abusive towards the Ps - Gs dehumanised them (woken @ night; scrubbing toilets via hands)
• Prisoners became submissive, identifying to their inferior role.
• 5 Ps were released early due to severe reactions to the toment (crying, anxiety attacks)
• Study only lasted 6 days and was cancelled due to the inhumane conditions.
Conclusion:
• Zimbardo found that ppl quickly conformed to social roles even when they go against their moral principles.
• Situational factors were largely responsible for behaviours as none of the Pts had ever displayed any of these personalities prior (incl. Zimbardo as prison manager).
The Stanford Prison Experiment - Zimbardo (1973):
• Strengths
+ Realistic experience for Gs and Ps; 90% of Ps converstaions were regarding prison life. Ps referred to themselves by prison number.
+ Due to the inhumane conditions and treatment of Ps ethical guidelines were put in place to stop further atrocities in Psychology.
+ Controlled prison environment (High Internal Validity)
The Stanford Prison Experiment - Zimbardo (1973):
• Weaknesses
- Volunteer sampling; applied bc they may have wanted the chance to be sadistic
- Demand characteristics may have occurred due to being paid-need to please the experimenter.
- Ethnocentric/Androcentric; can only be generalised to US prisons; no female participants so shouldn't be generalised
- Various ethical issues:
• No protection from harm
• When withdrawal was asked for Zimbardo tried to change their mind
• No consent to being arrested - Deception
The Stanford Prison Experiment - Zimbardo (1973):
• Unethical
- one weakness of Zimbardo’s study is that it can be heavily criticised for its ethical issues
- Zimbardo’s dual role comprismised the ethics of the study, this was partly the result of him lacking objectivity in his research and taking the role of the superintendent.
- for example, he stopped a prisoner from leaving, removing his right to withdraw and protection from harm.
- he was unable to see the harm until an independent psychologist intervened. However he didn’t predict how devastating the study could be.
COUNTER: However can we justify the research (cost benefit analysis). The value and usefulness of the findings might justify the harm. Furthermore Zimbardo research, along side Milgram's, helped develop the code of conduct and guidelines on how to conduct research.
- furthermore, Zimbardo ensured a full debrief and counselling afterwards and believes there was no long term damage.
- however, Zimbardo admits that the study should’ve been stopped earlier due to the emotional distress.
The Stanford Prison Experiment - Zimbardo (1973):
• high internal validity
- one strength on its highly controlled experimental design, enhancing the methodological rigour of the research.
- for example, the use of personality and stability tests and random allocation to social roles helped to control variables
- these precautions were implemented to rule out personality differences among participants, thereby increasing internal validity.
- additionally, the random allocation of individuals to different roles contributes to the objectivity of the study.
consequently, the observed conformity to roles and exhibited behaviours can be attributed more convincingly to the experimental situation and social roles rather than individual personality traits
- as a result, this strengthens the explanatory power of Zimbardo's prison study
The Stanford Prison Experiment - Zimbardo (1973):
• methodological criticisms
- a further limitation of Zimbardo's research was that his sample wasn't representative. - using a volunteer sample means that a certain type of person might apply, such as extroverts.
- furthermore his use of only males means his findings lack population validity and can't be generalised to females.
- as Zimbardo attempted to generalise his findings from an all male sample to everyone his research can be criticised for being androcentric.
- therefore any varying levels of conformity in females maybe seen as deviating from the 'norm'.
The Stanford Prison Experiment - Zimbardo (1973):
• ignores dispositional factors
• overplays situational factors
- Zimbardo claimed it was due to the environment and role participants were given that caused the brutal behaviours and conformity to roles.
- however Fromm criticises this and states there are dispositional factors that influencing conformity to social roles.
- for example only a minority acted brutally (a third). Another third just played by the rules. And the last third actually tried to help and support the prisoners (for example offering cigarettes and giving back privileges)
- therefore most are able to resist the pressures to conform to a brutal role.
- Zimbardo exaggerated the impacts of environmental factors and an interactionist approach that considers dispositional and environmental may be better explaining the findings of conformity to roles.
The Stanford Prison Experiment - Zimbardo (1973):
• lack of realism
- Zimbardo's study has been criticised for lacking validity.
- it has been argued that most participants were play acting and acting up for the experiment. Some even stated that their performance in the study was actually based on stereotypes and brutal movies they had seen 'Cool hands Luke'.
- play acting and stereotypes can also explain why prisoners rioted early in the study.
- this suggests that Zimbardo's conclusions about conformity to social roles may be less robust and may not entirely reflect intrinsic human behaviour in a simulated environment. Instead, the observed behaviors may be more a product of the participants' desire to conform to perceived expectations or stereotypes associated with their assigned roles.
HOWEVER
- Zimbardo followed up his research using interviews. He found that 90% of participants conversations were about prison life - suggesting they believed it was real
The Stanford Prison Experiment - Zimbardo (1973):
• Applied to explain aggression in the real world
- Zimbardo's research is useful in that it can explain the conformity to social roles and group behaviour. It can also be applied to situations such as in the Abu Ghraib military prison.
- this prison was notorius for the torture of Iraqi prisoners in 2003 and Zimbardo believes this was due to situational factors such as lack of training, unaccountability and boredom.
- these situational factors were also present in Zimbardo's prison experiment along with the opportunity to misuse power associated with the role of the guard.
- therefore Zimbardo's research is useful as it demonstrates that people are not evil themselves it is the situation or role they find themselves in. Also we can use Zimbardo's research to change institutions to ensure these situational factors are removed.
Obedience
Complying with the demands of an authority figure (Teacher, Parent, Law etc.)
Obedience - Milgram's Shock Experiment (1963):
• Aim
• Investigating the extent to which individual will obey, even if it goes against their morals.
• Inspired by WWII criminals who justified their actions as "following orders" - Nazi Officials at the Nuremberg Trials
• Milgram devised the experiment to answer the question:
"Could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders? Could we call them all accomplices?"
Obedience - Milgram's Shock Experiment (1963):
• Procedure
• Volunteer Sampling/40M/20-40yo/unskilled to professional
• Learner(Confed) was questioned, if incorrect answer Teacher (real Pt) would have to shock.
• Each shock would increase in voltage. Goes up by 15v each shock, varied from 15 all the way up to 450 (fatal).
• When the Pt refused to shock the student the researcher would say a prompt to try & persuade them to shock; prompts increased in intensity over time - "Please continue > It is absolutely essential you must continue."
Obedience - Milgram's Shock Experiment (1963):
• Findings and Conclusion of Baseline Study
Findings:
• All of the participants went to at least 300 volts.
• 65% continued until 450 volts.
Conclusion:
• Milgram shows that inhumane, immoral acts can be committed by ordinary moral people. It is the situational factors
Obedience - Milgram's Shock Experiment (1963):
• Findings of Proximity
Findings:
• A variation where the teacher and learner were seated in the same room.
• % of Pts who administered the full 450 volts dropped from 65% to 40%.
• Milgram believed that obedience levels dropped as they were able to experience the "Learner's" pain more directly
• Proximity of the Authority Figure also affected levels of obedience as well.
• The experimenter left the room and gave all instructions over the phone - this resulted in the Pts more likely to defy experimenter with only 21% of Pts going to 450V.
Obedience - Milgram's Shock Experiment (1963):
• Findings of Location
Findings:
• Baseline study took place in Yale University (Critically Acclaimed) so Milgram changed the location to a derelict building in Conneticut and was disassociated from Yale.
• % of Pts who administered the full 450 volts dropped from 65% to 47.5%.
• highlights the impact of location on obedience (less credible location = reduced level of obedience).
Obedience - Milgram's Shock Experiment (1963):
• Findings of Uniform
Findings:
• Milgram examined the power of uniform in a variation where the experimenter was called away and replaced by a Confederate.
• The "ordinary man" came up with the idea of upping the volts each time the learner made a mistake.
• % of participants who administered the full 450V w/ the ordinary man, dropped from 65% to 20%.
• Exemplifies the dramatic power of Uniform (and what it represents about Legitimate Authority).
Obedience - Milgram's Shock Experiment (1963):
• Findings of Agentic State and Shift
Findings:
• Milgram looked at the experiment as if the Pt were the experimenter with someone else shocking the Learner.
• % of shocking rose drastically from 65% to 92.5% for the 450V.
• Demonstrates the power of shifting responsibility, and they were able to shock more due to feeling even less responsible for their actions. Therefore, their ability enter the agentic state increased their levels of obedience of shocking.
Obedience - Milgram's Shock Experiment (1963):
• Strengths
+ Participants were from a range of social backgrounds showing that class was not an issue.
+ He carried out 18 variations observing how different variables affected the data each time-increases the validity of the study as each study was v controlled and in a lab.
+ Similar study had been replicated in multiple cultures w/ the same conclusions and sometimes greater obedience rates.
Obedience - Milgram's Shock Experiment (1963):
- gender bias
- a criticism of Milgram's research is that it is gender bias. - he only used 40 males and attempted to generalise these findings to the wider population.
- therefore his study can criticised for being androcentric, as female obedience rates may be different and males, and may consequently deemed abnormal in comparison to Milgram's baseline findings. Therefore his findings lack population validity
Obedience - Milgram's Shock Experiment (1963):
- conclusions about blind obedience may not be justified.
- another limitation is that Milgram's conclusions about blind obedience may not be justified.
- Alex Haslam et al. (2014) showed that Milgram's participants obeyed when the Experimenter delivered the first three verbal prods (see facing page). However, every participant who was given the fourth prod ('You have no other choice, you must go on) without exception disobeyed. - according to social identity theory (SIT), participants in Milgram's study only obeyed when they identified with the scientific aims of the research ('The experiment requires that you continue').
when they were ordered to blindly obey an authority figure, they refused.
- this shows that SIT may provide a more valid interpretation of Milgram's findings, especially as Milgram himself suggested that 'identifying with the science is a reason for obedience.
Alex Haslam et al. (2014)
showed that Milgram's participants obeyed when the Experimenter delivered the first three verbal prods (see facing page). However, every participant who was given the fourth prod ('You have no other choice, you must go on) without exception disobeyed.
Obedience - Milgram's Shock Experiment (1963):
- ethical issues
- a weakness of Milgram's research is that is has numerous ethical issues. For example the right to withdraw was comprised by the prods used to encourage the participant to continue with the shocks. - furthermore the participants were deceived not only in the aim but also in that the role of teacher was randomly assigned to them.
- however Milgram did consult other professionals about the level of obedience they should expect, and they only predicted 3%, therefore he didn't realise the full extent of harm the study may cause. Furthermore his research helped developed the BPS guidelines to ensure protection from harm for participants.
- 84% of participants were glad they partook in the experiment
Obedience - Milgram's Shock Experiment (1963):
- lab experiment
- a strength of Milgram's laboratory research is that it was highly controlled and therefore easy to replicate.
- for example he used a tape for voice recordings and procedures were kept the same. This allowed him to also look at variations in factors that influence obedience and understand what can influence different levels of obedience; consequently increasing it's usefulness to society.
Obedience - Milgram's Shock Experiment (1963):
- reliability
- one limitation is that Milgram's procedure may not have been testing what he intended to test.
- Milgram reported that 75% of his participants said they believed the shocks were genuine.
- however Gina Perry's (2013) listened to tapes of Milgram's participants and reported that only about half of them believed the shocks were real. Two-thirds of these participants were disobedient.
- this suggests that participants may have been responding to demand characteristics, trying to fulfil the aims of the study.
Counterpoint
Hofling wanted to test if the obedience levels Milgram found were different to a real life setting. Hofling conducted a study in hospital (field experiment).
Nurses were phoned by a Dr. Smith who asked them to give a 20mg of a drug called Astroten to a patient. This order broke many hospital regulations: nurses are not meant to take instructions over the phone from an unknown doctor and the dosage was twice as much as advised on the bottle.
They found that 21 out of 22 nurses did as requested (obeyed).
This suggests that obedience does occur in the real world and the relationship in Milgram's experiment between the participant and authority figure is evident in everyday situations.
Gina Perry (2003)
listened to tapes of Milgram's participants and reported that only about half of them believed the shocks were real. Two-thirds of these participants were disobedient.
Hoffling
Hofling conducted a study in hospital (field experiment).
Nurses were phoned by a Dr. Smith who asked them to give a 20mg of a drug called Astroten to a patient. This order broke many hospital regulations: nurses are not meant to take instructions over the phone from an unknown doctor and the dosage was twice as much as advised on the bottle.
They found that 21 out of 22 nurses did as requested (obeyed).
Obedience - Milgram's Shock variations (1963):
+ supporting research
- one strength of Milgram's situational variations is that it has supporting research
- for example, Bickman's research findings demonstrated a notable contrast in obedience rates, with individuals being twice as likely to comply with the instructions of a security guard as opposed to a man dressed in a jacket and tie.
this evidence underscores the significant impact of attire in conveying authority and influencing obedience. The study aligns with Milgram's conclusions, highlighting the importance of situational factors in shaping human behavior.
- thus, Bickman's findings not only support but also extend Milgram's research, emphasizing the role of uniforms as a situational variable in determining levels of obedience
Obedience - Milgram's Shock variations (1963):
- lacks internal validity
- research into obedience still lacks internal validity.
- participants are more likely to question the study and electric shocks with Milgram's variations of the experiment (even on the original is was said 50% were sceptical)
- for example replacing the experimenter with a'member of the public' meant participants would not believe shocks were real.
- even Milgram agreed some situations were so contrived participants may have seen through them. Therefore the studies did not measure what they aimed to measure, so lower levels of obedience might not be due to the situational factor, rather them not believing the shocks were real
Obedience - Milgram's Shock variations (1963):
+ supporting evidence across cultures
- Milgram's variation research is strong because his findings can be repeated across different cultures.
- research by Meeus et al using a Milgram like study where confederates had to give an insult to a confederate, 90% obeyed.
- furthermore when proximity to authority was reduced so did obedience levels, again like Milgram. This suggests that Milgram's findings on variations are representative of other cultures and high levels of obedience can be found across cultures.
- however Smith and Bond suggested that most replications of Milgram's study were replicated in western, developed societies, so it would be premature to suggest findings about the situational factors apply everywhere.
also we cannot generalise findings as there maybe variations within a culture.
Obedience - Milgram's Shock variations (1963):
+ high levels of control
- A strength of Milgram's laboratory research is that it was highly controlled and therefore easy to replicate.
- For example he repeated his study over 1000 times and was able to look at variations in factors that influence obedience.
- This has allowed us to find patterns and trends in what can influence different levels of obedience. For example knowing about he power of uniform maybe important to institutions such as police or military.
- Consequently increasing it's usefulness to society.
Obedience - Milgram's Shock variations (1963):
- Mandel criticism
- Mandel criticises Milgram's situational factors that influences obedience and his attempts to use these variations to explain the behaviour of Nazi soldiers.
- when he studied battalion 101, he found that when the proximity to the authority figure was low, soldiers still chose to carry out mass shootings (point blank range, close proximity to victim). This suggests that situational factors cannot explain obedience.
- Mandel also stated that by using situational explanations, you are giving the soldiers victims status and an alibi, suggesting they had no free will and questions whether they should be held accountable.
- therefore Mandel would suggest dispositional explanations where people can be held accountable for their actions.
Smith and Bond (2)
suggested that most replications of Milgram's study were replicated in western, developed societies, so it would be premature to suggest findings about the situational factors apply everywhere
Mandel
when studying battalion 101, found that when the proximity to the authority figure was low, soldiers still chose to carry out mass shootings (point blank range, close proximity to victim)
Meeus et al
using a Milgram like study where confederates had to give an insult to a confederate, 90% obeyed, furthermore when proximity to authority was reduced so did obedience levels, again like Milgram
Bickman
field experiment in New York, people were twice as more likely to obey the security guard than the man dressed in a jacket and tie.
Obedience - Milgram's Shock Experiment (1963):
• Weaknesses
- Deception took place (they thought it was a study in learning).
- Androcentric study-data cannot be generalised to females.
- Sampling was only from the New Haven area-may be a cultural bias to only that area and the US
- Orne & Holland stated it lacked "experimental realism" and knew that the receiver wasn't being shocked (therefore weren't worried about the consequences of their actions)
- Replications have only been taken in Western cultures so can't conclude that obedience will always occur.
Agentic State
A mental state where we feel no personal responsibility for our behaviour because we believe acting for an authority figure (e.g. Nazis under the rule of Hitler/Officials)
Autonomous State
• Opposite of agentic state.
• People in this state are free to behave according to their own principles and subsequently feels responsible for their actions.
Agentic Shift
• The shift from autonomy to agentic.
• This occurs when people perceive someone else as a figure of authority.
Legitimacy of Authority and Destructive Authority
Legitimacy of Authority:
• Suggests we are more likely to obey people who we perceive to have authority over us.
• This authority is justified by the individual's position of power within a social hierarchy.
Destructive Authority:
• When people in positions of power manipulate their authority for dangerous, destructive and sometimes devastating purposes (Hitler, Stalin, Kim Jong-Un etc.)
Authoritarian Personality
• A type of personality that was v susceptible to obeying people in authority.
• Thought to be submissive to those of higher status and dismissive of inferiors.
Authoritarian Personality - Adorno et al. (1950):
• Aim
• Trying to understand the Anti-Semitism of the Holocaust.
• Looking at the causes of the obedient personality in everyday Americans.
Authoritarian Personality - Adorno et al. (1950):
• Procedure
• 2000 Middle Class White Americans
• Tested peoples unconscious attitudes towards other racial groups.
• Developed the F-Scale to test those with Authoritarian Personalities.
Authoritarian Personality - Adorno et al. (1950):
• Findings and Conclusion
Findings
• Found that those who scored high on the F-Scale (authoritarian attitudes) identified more with "strong" people and were contemptuous of the "weak".
• They were very conscious of status showing excessive respect and servility to those of a higher status.
• Very strong positive correlation between authoritarian personality and prejudice.
Authoritarian Personality - Adorno et al. (1950):
• Strengths
+ Milgram used the F-scale on small group of v obedient Pts and found just like the Adorno test they scored very highly on the scale.
Authoritarian Personality - Adorno et al. (1950):
• Weaknesses
- Correlational between obedience and authoritarian personality so cannot be certain that there aren't other factors affecting the AP.
- Can't explain the majority of of a country's population such as that seen in pre-war Germany.
- Political bias - F-Scale measures the tendency of extreme right wing ideologies, despite there being similarities regarding obedience in both extreme right and left wing ideologies.
Social Support: Resistance to Social Influence
• Support from an ally can help someone build their confidence and resist conformity in a peer pressure situation.
• When there is support there is no longer fear of ridicule and are more likely to disobey orders as they don't feel independent in their actions.
• Helps challenge the Normative Social Influence.
Locus of Control: Resistance to Social Influence
• Internal Locus of Control: belief that what happens in their life is largely due to their own behaviour (they have control over their life).
• External Locus of Control:belief that what happens to them is due to external factors (fate, luck, religion). They do not have complete control over their life.
• Individuals with a high ILoC are more likely to resist pressures to conform and obey.
• Individuals with a high ELoC are more likely to succumb to pressure of conforming and being obedient.
Factors Affecting Resistance to Social Influence
• Systematic Processing: Analysis based on critical thinking. Given time to consider the consequences.
• Morality: Internal belief of what is right and wrong may overpower the idea of an authority
• Personality: Combination of past experiences and characteristics forming the individuals nature.
Minority Influence
When a small group changes the attitudes, beliefs or the behaviours of a majority group. This often leads to internalisation.
Examples of Minority Influence
• Suffragette Movement
• Mandela and Resistance to Apartheid in RSA
• MLK jr. and the Civil Rights Movement in the US
Factors Affecting the Success of Minority Influence
• Consistency
• Commitment
• Flexibility
• Style of Thinking
Consistency: Diachronic and Synchronic
• The Minority being constant in their beliefs.
• Diachronic Consistency: Maintaining the same beliefs over a long period of time.
• Synchronic Consistency: When all members of the same Minority are sharing the same belief.
Consistency: Effect on Minority Influence
• Forces the opposition to sit up and take notice of the Minority.
• May force the opposition to rethink their position.
• Consistency implies that they are certain they are correct and unwavering in their opinion.
• Disrupts established norms and creates conflict and doubt within the Majority. Can lead to questioning whether the Majority is correct.
Consistency on Minority - Moscovici's Colour Perception (1969):
• Procedure
• 172 Females/USA
• Pts were placed in sixes.
• Shown 36 slides (all varying shades of blue).
• Pts had to state out loud the colour of each slide.
• 2/6 Pts were Confed.
• Consistent Condition: Confeds stated that all 36 slides were green.
• Inconsistent Condition: Confeds stated that 24 slides were green and 12 slides were blue.
Consistency on Minority - Moscovici's Colour Perception (1969):
• Findings and Conclusion
Findings:
• Consistent Group: Pts agreed with Confeds on 8.2% of trials
• Inconsistent Group: Pts agreed with Confeds on 1.25% of trials
• The Consistent group was 6.95% more influential than the Inconsistent group.
Conclusion:
• Minorities are more likely to influence a majority when they are consistent in their actions.
Consistency on Minority - Moscovici's Colour Perception (1969):
• Strengths
+ Lab Experiment - reduced the effect of extraneous variables; greater internal validity
+ Due to controlled conditions the data is repeatable and similar testing would result in similar figures.
+ Explicitly states a cause (Consistency) and effect (Influence) relationship
+ Although Moscovici did deceive his Pts about the "Colour Perception" it nullified any demand characteristics that may have occurred
Consistency on Minority - Moscovici's Colour Perception (1969):
• Weaknesses
- Gynocentric study; data can't be generalised to Males; other research states that women are more likely to conform so men may be completely different
- Not ecologically valid as it was an Articficial Task, with "false minorities"; doesn't replicate the passion and commitment from Minorities such as advocates of Civil Rights and Gay Rights movements
- Ethnocentric within the US
Commitment
• When a minority influence is willing to demonstrate their dedication to their belief.
• This is often shown by making personal sacrifices and it is effective as it shows that the minority aren't acting out of self-interest and are instead risking lots.
• This forces people to pay attention as they think that the minority must really believe in what they are fighting for.
Flexibility
• If the minority are not flexible they can often be seen as very unreasonable and as a result the majority won't take their beliefs into consideration as dogmatic approaches from minorities are extremely ineffective.
• Therefore, the idea of accepting compromise to the majority is more effective at persuading the majority.
Flexibility on Minority - Nemeth Ski Lift (1986):
• Procedure
• Participants, in groups of four, had to agree on the amount of compensation they would give to a victim of a ski-lift accident.
• One of the participants in each group was a confederate.
• Two conditions: 1) Minority argued for a low rate of compensation and refused to compromise (inflexible); 2) Minority argued for a low rate of compensation but compromised by offering a slightly higher rate of compensation (flexible)
Flexibility on Minority - Nemeth Ski Lift (1986):
• Findings
• Nemeth found that in the inflexible condition, the minority had little or no effect on the majority, however in the flexible condition, the majority was much more likely to compromise and change their view.
