Social Influence

⚫️ Types of conformity and explanations

- individual conforms if they choose course of action favoured by majority of other group members
- conform for many reasons
\= 2 commons : normative social influence, informational social influence
- key words: compliance, conformity, identification, informational social influence, internalisation, normative social influence

Key Word: Compliance

going along with the majority view

* views change publicly but not privately

Key word: Conformity

* a change in a persons behaviour or opinion as a result of pressure from a person or a group

Key word: Identification

where individual adopts an attitude or behaviour because they want to be associated with a particular person/group

* don’t necessarily agree with everything they say

Key word: Informational social influence

explanation of conformity

* form of social influence which is result of desire to be right - look at others as a way of gaining evidence about reality

Key word: Internalisation

* when individual accepts influence because content of the attitude or behaviour proposed is consistent with their own value system
* accept it as correct

Key word: Normative social influence

explanation for comformity

* whereby individual conforms with expectations of majority to gain approval or avoid social disapproval

What are Kerman's 3 types of conformity?

- proposed 3 types:
\> compliance
\> internalisation
\> Identification

In detail, what is compliance?

- individuals may go along with group to gain approval or avoid disapproval
- when exposed to views/actions of majority - engage in social comparison - concentrate on their actions to adjust their own ones to theirs
- fitting in to be desirable
- doenst result in change in their underlying attitudes, just their views and behaviours expressed publicly

In detail, what is internalisation

- going along with group because of acceptance of their views
- exposed to their views, encouraged to engage in a validation process, examine own beliefs to see if they or the others are right
- close examination \= may be convinced the group is right and they are wrong, especially if the group is trustworthy in views and they've gone along with their views in the past
\= acceptance of the group's POV PUBLICLY AND PRIVATELY

In detail, what is identification?

- may accept influence because they want to be associated with another person or group
- adopting groups attitudes and behaviours means they feel more part of it
- elements of compliance AND internalisation as individual accepts attuned and behaviour they are adopting as true (internalisation) BUT it is to be accepted as a member of the group (compliance)
e.g. may start smoking bc thats what 'cool kids' do and they want to be cool

Whats the difference between the 3 different types of conformity?

- each has diff motivating conditions that lead to conforming response
- e.g. if their prime motivation is to fit in \= compliance not internalisation
- if primary motivation is to find the rightest way to respond in a situation \= internalisation

What are the two explanations for conformity?

- Normative social influence
- Informational social influence

In detail, what is normative social influence

- going along with the majority without really accepting their POV - compliance
- humans are social species - fundamental need for social companionship, fear rejection
- this forms basis for normative asocial influence - gain approval and acceptance to avoid rejection/ to achieve specific goal
- individuals must believe they're under surveillance by the group for normative social influence to occur
\> conform to majority position in public but don't internalise their view this way - PUBLIC not private, doesn't endure over time

In detail, what is informational social influence?

- when individual accepts information from others as evidence about reality
- want to be accepted as humans but also need to feel confident that their perception/beliefs are correct
- objective tests agains relative, but if not possible then rely on opinions of others
- more likely if situation is ambiguous or where there are experts
- doesn't just comply in behaviour but change behaviour in line w groups - PUBLIC AND PRIVATE \= internalisation

Evaluation: Difficult to distinguish between compliance and internalisation (-)

- relationship is complicated bc of difficulties in knowing when each is actually occuring
- e.g. assumed that those who publicly agree w majority yet disagree in private \= compliance not internalisation
BUT -\> also possible that acceptance of groups views OCCURED in public BUT DISSIPATES in private

- may have forgotten info given by group or received new info \= change of mind
\> so itshard to determine what is/isnt simple compliance rather than internalisation

Evaluation: Research support for normative influence (+)

- US research supported role of ppls normative beliefs in shaping behaviours like smoking and energy conservation
- Linkenback and Perkins found adolescents exposed to simple message that majority of age peers didnt smoke \= less likely to smoke
- Schultz et al found hotel guests exposed to message that 75% of guests reused their towels each day (energy conservation) \= reduced own towel use by 25%

- this supports claim that ppl shape behaviour out of desire to fit in w their ref group \= shows power of normative influence

Evaluation: Research support for informational influence (+)

- studies have demod - exposure to others beliefs and opinions can shape many aspects of social behaviours and beliefs
- Witternbrink and Henley - found ppts exposed to NEGATIVE info abt African Americans reported more negative attitudes towards black black ppl layer
- research shows informational social influence can shape political opinion
\> Fein et AL study - ppts saw reaction of fellow ppts on screen during presidential debate
\> \= large shifts in judgements of candidates performance
\> shows importance of informational influence in shaping social behaviour

Evaluation: Normative influence may not be detected (-)

- normative influence has powerful effects on behaviour BUT its possible they dont actually recognise behaviour of others as casual factor in their own behaviour
- Nolan et al - investigated whether people detected influence of social norms on their energy conservation behaviour - asked what factors influenced their own energy conservation - ppl said behaviour of neighbours had LEAST impact BUT showed it had strongest impact
\> suggests ppl rely on beliefs abt WHAT should motivate their behaviour so UNETECT impact of normative social ifnleucne

Evaluation: Informational influence is moderated by type of task

- problem: features of the task moderate impact of majority influence
- for some judgements - clear phsycail criteria for validation, but for others - may be no way of validation
- e.g. deciding whether Bristol is most populated city - can find through OBECTIVE ways e.g. statistics, census records etc
- BUT other judgements -\> cant be made w objective criteria (e.g how fun it is there) bc the criteria doenst exist
- so these judgements must be made on social consensus basis (e.g. other ppl, experts)

SO majority should exert greater influence on issue of SOCIAL rather than PHYSICAL reality

⚫️Variables affecting conformity

- Asch 1950s
- series of studies demoing effect of social influence on conformity
- showed that ppl appeared willing to go against evidence of their senses to conform to group consensus
'ASCH EFFECT'

What was Asch's study?

- asked student volunteers to take part in visual discrimination task
- all but one of ppts were really confederated of the investigator
- real purpose was to see how lone 'real' ppts would react to behaviour of confederates

What was the procedure of Asch's study?

- 123 male US Undergraduates were tested
- Ppts seated around table, asked to look at 3 lines of diff lengths
- took turns calling out which of 3 lines they thought were same length as standard line
- real ppts always answered second to last
- fairly obvious solution to this task
\> BUT 12/18 trials - confederates instructed to give same incorrect answer to see if real ppts would stick to what they thought was right or give in to pressure of majority

What were the findings of Asch's study

- on 12 critical trials - avg conformity rate \= 33%
- \> on 1/3rd of trails
- also found individual differences in conformity rates
- 1/4 of ppts never conformed on any of critical trials
- 1/2 of ppts conformed on 6/more critical trials
- 1 in 20 ppts conformed on all 12 critical trials

- to conform stimulus lines were unambiguous - control condition conducted without confederates giving incorrect answer
\> found ppts made mistakes ~1% of the time but this count explain relatvely HIGH lvls of conformity in main study

- When interviews the ppts later, found majority who conformed had continued privately to trust themselves but changed public behaviour to avoid disapproval (compliance)

What are the variables which affect conformity?

Asch carried out many variations of his original study to find out which variables had biggest effect on conformity lvls
\> GROUP SIZE
\> UNANIMITY OF THE MAJORITY
\> DIFFICULTY OF THE TASK

How does group size affect conformity

- found very little conformity when majority consistented of 1/2 confederates
- under pressure of majority of 3 confederates - conforming responses INC to 30%
- more increase in majority size didnt increase level of confomirty a lot SO showed size is important, only up to a point

- Campbell and Fairey -\>' group size may have diff effect depending on type of judgement being made and motivation of individual'
\> when there's NO objectively correct answer (e.g. musical pref) and the person is concerned abt 'fitting in' -\> large majority \= more likely they're swayed
\> when there IS a correct answer -\> individual us concerned abt just being correct, views of 1/2 others won't have an effect

How does unanimity of the majority affect conformity

- confederates unanimously gave same wrong answer in original study
- when real ppts given support of another real ppt/confederate who was instructed to give RIGHT answers throughout -\> conformity levels DROPPED significantly -\> percentage of wrong answers went from 33% to 5.5%

- if lone 'dissenter' gave an answer both diff from majority AND diff from true answer -\> conformity rates DROPPED to 9%
\> nearly as great fall. as when dissenter provided support for real ppts by giving same answer

SO : Asch concluded : breaking groups unanimous position \= major factor in conformity reduction

How does the difficulty of the task affect conformity?

- in variation: Asch made differences between line lengths much smaller SO correct answer is less obvious \= harder task
- level of conformity increased
- Lucas et al investigated -\> found influence of task difficulty is MODERATED by SELF EFFICACY of individual
\> exposed to maths problem -\> high self efficacy ppts remained more independent than low self efficacy ppts
\> even under high task difficulty condition

SHOWS: situational differences and individual differences \= BOTH important for determining conformity

Evaluation: Asch's research may be a 'child of its time' (+)

- possible his findings are unique bc research took place in certain period of US history when conformity was imp
- 1956 -US in strong anti communist period -(McCarthy era)- ppl scared to go against majority \= more likely to conform

- years later Perrin and Spencer - tried repeating Asch's study in UK
\> initial study: only 1 conforming response out of total 396 trials where majority unanimously gave same wrong answer
\> later study: used youths on probation as ppts and probation officers as confederates: similar level of conformity as Asch's study found

SO: confirmed conformity is more likely if costs of not conforming are high (the case during McCarthy era in US)

Evaluation: Problems with determine effect of group size

- Bond suggests limitation of research is studies have used only limited range of majority sizes
- Asch concluded : MAJORITY SIZE of 3 was enough for maximal influence so most later studies used 3 too
- Bond pointed out no study after Asch's used majority size \>9
- other studies the range of sizes used is narrow -\> between 2 & 4

SO: Bond suggested this means we know v little abt effect of larger majority sizes on conformity levels

Evaluation: Independent behaviour rather than conformity (-)

- must remember in Asch's study only 1/3rd of trials where majority unanimously gave same wrong answer produced conforming response

- 2/3rds of trials - ppts stuck to own judgment although had majority giving a diff view

- Asch: believed rather than showing humans as overly conformist his study showed a tendency for ppts to stick to what they believed to be correct - show independent behaviour

Evaluation: Unconvincing confederates (-)(+)

- difficult for them to act convincingly when giving wrong answer \= problem - validity of study
- More and Arai - overcame confederate problem
\> technique used where 3 ppts in each group wore identical glasses, a 4th wore different set w different filter
\> so each ppt viewed same stimuli but one ppt saw them differently SO judged a different comparison line to standard line
\> female ppts - results closely matched those of Original study (not males)

SO: suggests confederates in original study had ACTED convincingly \= reinforced validity of Asch's findings

Evaluation: Cultural differences in conformity

- Research suggests : important cultural differences in conformity exist, so may expect diff results depending on culture the study occurs in

Smith et al - analysed results of Asch- type studies - across many diff cultures
- avg conformity rate for individualistic cultures ~25%
- for collectivist cultures in Africa, Asia and South America -much higher - 37%

Markus and Kitayama - suggest there's reasons for higher level of conformity in collectivist culture - bc its viewed more favourably - form of 'social glue' - binds communities together

⚫️ Conformity to social roles

- ZImbardo, Haney et al- Stanford prison experiment - (1973) \> to observe the interaction between 2 groups in absence of an obvious authority figure
- BBC prison study Reicher and Haslam (2006)

Key definition: Social roles

- behaviours expected of an individual who occupies given social position or status

What was the procedure of The Stanford prison experiment

- Mock prison set up in basement of psychology department - Stanford Uni in USA
- Male student volunteers psychologically and physically screened
- 24 most stable randomly assigned to be 'prisoner' or 'guard'
- prisoners unexpectedly arrested at home, entered prison
- put through delousing procedure, prison uniform, ID number assigned
- guards referred to them by numbers
- given rights like 3 meals, 3 supervised toilet trips a day, 2 visits per week
- ppts with role of guard - given uniform, clubs, whistles, reflective glasses (to prevent eye contact)
- Zimbardo \= prison superintendent
- planned to last 2 weeks

What were the findings of the Stanford prison experiment 1973

- first few days - guards became increasingly tyrannical and abusive
- woke up prisoners in night, forced to learn toilets w bare hands, and more degrading actives
- some guards so enthusiastic in role they volunteered to do extra hours without pay
- ppts appeared to forget it was just a study and they were acting, even when unaware they were being watched they still conformed to their role
- one prisoner asked for 'parole' as he had had enough
\> 5 prisoners released early bc of extreme reactions (e.g. rage, crying etc) after only 2 days
- study terminated after 6 days after postgrad student intervened who reminded researchers it was just a study so didnt justify abuse
- this study showed how both conformed to their roles
- guards \= increasingly cruel and saddistic, prisoners increasingly passive and accepting

What was the procedure of the BBC prison study

- Reicher and Haslam 2006
- randomly assigned men to role of guard or priosner
- examined behaviour within the created
'prison'
- 15 male ppts -\> into 5 groups of 3 ppl
- closely matched on key personality variables
- from each group of 3, one was randomly chosen to be guard and other 2 prisoners
- ran for 8 days

What were the findings of the BBC priosn study

- ppts didnt conform automatically to assigned roles as in SPE
- over the course of study, prisoners identified as group , worked together to challenge authority of guards, established more egalitarian set of social relations in the prison
- guards didnt identify w their role \= reluctant to impose authority on prisoners \= shift of power, collapse of prisoner guard system

Evaluation: Conformity to roles is not automatic (-)

- Haslam and Reicher (2012) - challenged Zimbardos belief that guards drift into sadistic behaviour automatically bc they're embracing their roles
- pointed out that in SPE guard behaviour varied from FULLY saddistic to a few being 'good guards' - didnt degrade or harass prisoners, even did small favours for them

- They argued this shows guards CHOSE how to behave not blindly conform to roles as Zimb suggests

Evaluation: Problem of demand characteristics

- Banuazizi and Movahedi (1975) - argued behaviour of ppts in specific WAS consequence of DEMAN CHARACTERISTICS (guessed how experimenter wants them to behave) than conformity to social roles

- showed some of details of SPE procedure to large sample of students who had never heard of the study
\> most correctly guessed purpose of study and prediced guards would act in hostile domineering way and prisoner would be passive

SO : behaviour of Zimbardos guards and prisoners weren't due to their repsonses to 'compelling prison enviro' but more the powerful DEMANd characteristics in the experiment

Evaluation: Were these studies ethical

- Zimbardo's study is often criticised for being unethical although it followed guidelines of Stanford Uni ethics committee an approved
- He acknowledged that study should have stopped earlier - many experienced emotional distress
- tried making amends - debriefing sessions for many years after
- concluded no lasting negative effects
- Reicher and Haslam used same basic set up as Zimbardo but recognised harms - took more steps to minimise harm - harsh and testing but not harmful enviro created

Evaluation: SPE and its relevance to Abu Ghraib

- Zimbardo argues conformity to social role effect -\> use to explain Abu Ghraib events - prison in Iraq - torture and abuse of prisoners by US soldiers 2003/4
- He believed guards who committed abuse were victims of situational factors \= abuse more likely
- lack of training, unrelenting boredom, no accountability to higher authority - all present in SPE and AG

SO: He concluded these factors plus opportunity to misuse power associated with guard role \= prisoners abuse in both SPE and AG

Evaluation: What did we learn from these studies

- Zimbardos conclusion from SPE was : ppl quick descend into tyrannical behaviour - conform unthinkingly to prescribed role without needing specific orders
- brutality of guards in SPE \= natural consequence of allocation of the role and power associated w the role

BUT: Reicher and Haslam reject this: results of BBC prison study suggests that way members of strong groups behave DEPENDS on norms and values associated w their specific social identity

⚫️ Situational variables affecting obedience

- Milgrams study of obedience to authority

Outline the procedure of Milgrams study (1963)

- 40 ppts, series of conditions each varying in a way to calculate its effect on obedience
- ppts told it was study of how punishment affects learning
\> 2 expm confederates, experiment and 47 y old man - introduced as another volunteer ppt
\> both drew lots to see who would be 'teacher' and who would be 'learner' - rigged so that real ppt was always teacher and 'fake' ppt always learner
- Voice feedback study - learner sitting in another room gave mainly wrong answers and received shocks in silence till reached 300V, pounded on wall, gave no response to next question
\> repeated at 3015 V and said nothing after
\> if teacher asked to stop at any point, experimenter had a series of 'prods' to repeat e.g. 'it is absolutely essential you continue' or 'you have no choice, must go on'

Outline the findings from Milgrams study (1963)

- before the study he asked psychiatrists, college students and colleagues to predict how long ppts would go before stopping
\> predicted very few would go past 150V and only 1 in 1000 would give full 450V
- BUT in the voice feedback study, 26 out of 40 ppts (65%) continued to max shock level
\> although the generator was labelled 'Danger: sever shock at 420V)
\> all ppts went to 300V
\> only 5 stopped at 300V

What are the three situational factors in obedience?

- proximity
- location
- power of uniform

How were studies conduction to test for proximity as a situational factor in obedience

- BOTH teacher and learner seated in same room
\> obedience levels fell to 40% as reacher could now expeierence pain of leaner more directly
- Extreme variation - \> teacher required to force learners hand onto shock plate \= TOUCH PRXOMITIY CONDITION
\> obedience levels fell to 30%
- Experimenter absent study -\> after giving instructions, experimenter left the room and gave more orders over phone
\> most ppts now defied experimenter, only 21% continued to Max shock level
\> some even gave the lower shock levels although they told experimenter they were following the correct procedure

How were studies conduction to test for location as a situational factor in obedience

- in psychology lab of Yale Uni
- many ppts said location gave them confidence in integrity of ppl involved and many said they wouldn't have given shocks if study was done anywhere else
- when moved to less prestigious location, e.g. Milgram moved his study to run down office in Bridgeport, Connecticut
\> obedience rates dropped slightly not significantly, 48% of ppts delivered 450V max shock

How were studies conduction to test for power of uniform as a situational factor in obedience

- uniform \= easily recognisable, conveys power and authority
- Bushman - study - female researcher dressed in 'police style' uniform, 'business executive', or a beggar
\> stopped ppl in street and told to give change to male researched for expired parking meter
\> in uniform, 72% obeyed
\> business executive - 48% obeyed
\> beggar - 52%

- when interviewed after ppl claimed they obeyed woman in uniform bc she seemed to have authority

Evaluation: Internal validity: lack of realism

P -\> Orne and Holland claimed ppts in studies learned to distrust experimenters bc they know true purpose of study is disguised
E -\> Perry found many of milligrams patients were skeptical on how real the shocks were
\> one of his research assistants, Murata, divided ppts into 'doubters' and 'believers'
\> doubters group were more likely to disobey and give only low intensity shocks
E -\> this challenges milligrams study, suggests when faced w reality of destructive obedience, ppl are more likely to disobey authority figure

Evaluation: Historical validity, would the same thing happen today?

P -\> may be tempted to dismiss relevance of milgrams study bc it was carried out over 50 yrs ago
E -\> Blass carried out statistical analysis of studies between 1961 and 1985
Correlational analysis carried out - each study year of publication and amount of obedience found, \= no relationship
- more recent study found levels of obedience almost identical to those by Milgram 46 yrs earlier
E -\> This suggests Milgrams study still appear to apply as much today as back then in early 196-s \= historical validity

Evaluation: Proximity: Reserve police battalion 101

P -\> Mandel challenges relevance of obedience research as explanation of real life atrocities, claimed Migrams conclusions abt situational determinants of obedience aren't from real life events

E -\> 1942 - Men of reserve police battalion 101 got orders to mass kill jews in Poland, commanding officer made offer to anyone who didnt feel like doing this to do another task
\> although there were factors to increase defiance, only small minority took up the offer, most carried out order w no protest

E-\> Mandel concluded that obedience as explanation for these actions \= only an alibi, masks the real reason behind these behaviours (e.g. antisemitism)

Evaluation: Location- High levels of obedience weren't surprising

P -\> Fromm claims bc Milgrams subjects know they're part of experiment, more likely to obey than in real life
E -\> in lab setting - experimenter acts as representative of science, prestigious institution
\> so high degree of obedience - 65%
\> real life obedience to authority is harder and more time consuming to achieve
\> e.g. Genocides like in Rwanda 1994 need many yrs of manipulation of masses and systematic dehumanisation of target group

E-\> SO must be careful abt drawing broad generation from milgrams study, believing majority of ppl would commit crimes of obedience in real life

Evaluation: Power of Uniform, research support

P- \> Durkin and Jeffrey, demonstrated young children understanding of police authority was dominated by visual cues, specifically presence of police uniform
E -\> asked children 5-9 yrs to identify who could make an arrest from a policeman who changes his uniform to civilian clothes, man w diff occupation who had police uniform on and man with uniform of other occuptation
\> most selected man currently wearing police uniform
\> younger selected non policeman in police uniform than selecting policeman out of uniform

E -\> suggests children's initial perceptions of authority are dominated by superficial aspects of appearance, more easily accessible than socially conferred status

⚫️ Agentic state and legitimacy of authority

Key words: Agentic state, legitimate authority

Key words: Agentic state

- person sees himself or herself as an agent for carrying out another persons wishes

Key word: Legitimate authority

- person who is perceived to be in a position of social control within a situation

What is the agentic shift

- moving from an autonomous state where a person 'sees himself or herself as responsible for their own actions' and into an agentic state

What is a agentic state

- person sees himself or herself as an agent for carrying out another persons wishes
- Milgram

What did participants say that provided evidence for the agentich shift/state

- at end when obedient ppts were asked why they continued administering electric shocks
\> most said 'I wouldn't have done it by myself, just doing what I was told'
\> individual feels responsible to authority directing him/her but feels NO responsibility for actions that authority dictates

What is one example for why people adopt agentic state

- the need to maintain a positive self image
- ppt may assess consequences of this action for his/her self image and refrain BUT once moved into agentic state the evaluative concern isn't relevant anymore
\> action is not their responsibility anymore so doesn't reflect their self image
\> action performed under the agentic state are from ppts perspective GUILT free

What keeps a person in the agentic state

- Binding factors
- social etiquette that plays part in regulating our behaviour
- to break off expeiemtn, ppt must breach commitment made to experimenter SO they fear that if they break off, will seem rude and arrogant and it wouldn't be taken lightly
\> although these behaviours seem small alongside violence done to learner, it still helps bind them to obedience

What is legitimate authority

- person who is perceived to be in a position of social control within a situation

What is the first condition needed for a person to shift to agentic state

- perception of legitimate authority

What does the power of legitimate authority stem from?

- not from personal characteristics but from his/her perceived position in social situation
- milgrams study - ppts enter lab w expectation that someone will be in charge
- experimenter fills the role of legitimate authority when introducing himself
\> through introductory remarks, plus an 'air of authority' - fits ppts expectation of encountering someone in charge which isn't challenged

What us meant by the definition of a situation

- tendency for ppl to accept definitions of situations provided by legitimate authority
- ppt himself who performs action, but still allows authority to define its meaning
- suffering of learner convinces him he should quit but experimenter (legitimate authority) the subject feels commitment towards SO when ordered to continue he is reassured that learner is fine and not in danger

Why do legitimate authorities require an institution

- if commands are potentially harmful or destriuctive then for them to be seen as legitimate it must occur in some kind of legitimate structure
- from Milgrams study we know it doesn't have to be reputable or distinguished institution
\> variation of th study moved from Yale to a run down building to be conducted by 'Research associates of Bridgeport' - unimpressive firm BUT still got high levels of obedience
\> could be the category of institution rather than its relative status within that category that caused obedience
\> ppts may consider a lab to be as competent as another as long as its a scientific one

Evaluation : The agentic state explanation and real life obedience

P -\> Milgrams claim that ppl shift between autonomous state and agentic state didnt explain gradual and irreversible transition Lifton found in study of German doctors in Auschwitz
E -\> Lifton found the doctors had changed slowly and irreversibly from normal medical professionals to carrying out lethal experiments on prisoners
E -\> Staub suggests its experience of carrying acts of evil out over long time that changes how they behave and think not the agent shift

Evaluation: Agentic state or just plain cruel?

P -\> Milgram did concede other personalities
E -\> Common belief is he had detected signs of cruelty among ppts, they used the situation to express sadistic impulses
Stanford prison experiment supported this - guards inflicting pain quickly although no orders to do that
E -\> Suggests for some, obedience may be explained by agentic shift and others it may be the desire to inflict harm

Evaluation: Legitimate authority explanation and real life obedience

P -\> legitimacy can serve as basis for justifying harming others
E -\> if authorise someone to make judgements of what is appropriate, no longer feel own moral values are relevant SO engage in immoral actions, - ppl v willing to do this
E -\> ppl may readily engage in unquestioning obedience to authority even if its destructive and immoral

Evaluation: Agentic state as loss of personal control

P -\> Fennis and Aarts claim agentic shift is more likely in situation where you feels less personal control
E -\> increased acceptance of external sources of control to compensate
They demonstrated that reduction in personal control \= greater obedience to authority AND bystander apathy AND greater compliance w behavioural requests
E -\> Concluded that agentic shift doesn't just \= obedience to authority but also extends to other forms of social influence where they feel 'less in control of' actions

Evaluation: Obedience in the cockpit - test of legitimate authority

P -\> Tarnow provided support for power of legitimate authority by studying aviation accidents
E -\> studied data from US NTSB review of all serious aircraft accidents between 1978-1990 , flight voice recorder available, flight crew actions were contribution factor of crash
\> ppts accept experimenters definition of situation
\> He found excessive dependence on captains authority and expertise
E -\> NTSB report found 'lack of monitoring' errors in 19/37 accidents \= real life demo of power of legtm authority to enforce obedience in those around them

⚫️ The Authoritarian personality

- Key words : Authoritarian personality, Dispositional, F scale, Right wing authoritarianism

Key word: Authoritarian personality

- distinct personality pattern characterised by strict adherence to conventional values and belief in absolute obedience or submission to authority
- possible explanation for why some require little pressure to obey

Key word: Dispositional

- explanations of behaviours such as obedience emphasise them being caused bu individual own personal characteristics rather than situational influences in environment

Key word: F Scale

- developed in California in 1947, measures authoritarian traits or tendencies

Key word: Right wing authoritarianism

- clutter of personality variables (conventionalism, authority submission and authoritarian aggression) associated w right wing attitude to life

In detail what is the F scale

- used by Adorno et al to measure diff components making up Authoritarian personality
- had statements like:
\> 'Obedience and respect for authority are most important virtues children should learn'
\> ' Rules are there for ppl to follow, not change'
- Agreeing w them \= indicates Authoritarian personality

What are characteristics of those with authoritarian personality

- rigid thinkers
- obey authority
- see world as back and white
- enforce strict adherence to social rules and hierarchies
- tend to be raised by parents who used authoritarian parenting style (inc physical punishment)
\> assume this is expected norm so acquire some of the attitudes through learning and imitation

What is right wing authoritarianism

- Robert Altemeyer refined authoritarian personalty - identified cluster of 3 original personality variables \= RWA

What are the 3 important personality characertsics that high RWA people possess which predisposes them to obedience

1. Conventionalism - adherence to conventional norms and values
2. Authoritarian aggression - aggressive feelings toward people who violate these norms
3. Authoritarian submission - uncritical submission to legitimate authorities

How did Altemeyer test the relationship between RWA and obedience

- experiment - ppts ordered to give themselves increasing levels of shock when made mistakes on a learning task
- significant correlation between RWA Scores and levels of shocks willing to give themseles
- large red button - had warning 'dont push unless instructed to '
\> when expm over, ordered ppts to push button 'to administer extra strong shock as punishment for not trying'
\> ppts levels of RWA was irrelevant for this instructuon as most did as they were told without question

What does research on obedience measure

- question of whether in milgrams study ppts behaviour emerged only w certain conditions or whether it was dispositional
- measures ACTUAL submission to authority not just what person says he/she is likely to do

Describe the procedure of Elms and Milgrams study (1966)

- follow up study using ppts who previously took part in one of Milgrams expms 2 months before
- selected 20 'obedient' ppts and 20 'defiant' pts
- each completed MMPI scale (measured range of personality variables) and F scale
\> specifically measures level of authoritarianism
\> ppts asked open ended questions, inc abt relationships w parents as a child, attitude to experimenter and learner during participation In milgrams study

What were the findings of Elms and Milgrams study (1966)

- found little difference between obedient and defiant ppts on MMPI variables
- higher levels of authoritarianism among those classified obedient
- significant differences between obedient and defiant ppts consistency w Authoritarian personality
e.g. obedient ppts \= less close to fathers during childhood, more negatively described too
- obedient ppts saw authority figure in milgrams study as more admirable and learners less so
- so obedient group was higher on trait of 'authoritarianism'

Evaluation: Research evidence for authoriatiansm/obedience link

P -\> suspicious on whether the ppts really believed they were giving electric shocks
E -\> Dambrun and Vatiné overcame this by using 'immersive virtual environment' - actor taking role of learner filmed, recorded and displayed on computer screen
\> ppts informed expm was simulation and shocks and victim reactions not real BUT simulated
\> ppts still tended to respond as if it was real \= clear correlation between RWA scores and max voltage shock given
E -\> PPts w higher levels RWA \= obeyed most \= link confirmed between authoritarianism and obedience

Evaluation: Social context is more important

P -\> Although Milgram accreted there may be disproportional bias to obedience and disobedience, didnt believe evidence was v strong
E -\> Showed variations in the social context of study \= primary cause of diffs in obedience levels , not variations in personality
\> believed specific social situations ppts found themselves in caused them to obey or resist REGARDLESS of personality
E -\> relying on explanation just based on authoritarianism lacks flexibility to account for such variations

Evaluation: Differences between authoritarian and obedient ppts

P -\> Elms and Milgrams research presented some imp differences in characteristics of Authoritarian personality and characteristics of obedience ppts
E -\> e.g. Elms and Milgram asked ppts abt upbringing - many obedient ppts said good relationship w parents unlike those in strict authoritarian personality upbringing
E -\> also seems iMPLAUSIBLE given large number of ppts who were fully obedient in Milgrams study, that vast majority would have grown up in harsh enviro w punitive fathers

Evaluation : Education may determine authoritarianism and obedience

P -\> Research generally found less educated ppl consistently are more authoritarian than well educated
E -\> Milgram found those w lower levels education \= more obedient than those w higher levels
E -\> Suggests that lack of education may be responsible for BOTH authoritarianism and obedience than well educated
So apparent Casal relationship between the two may be more illusory than red

Evaluation: Left wing are associated with lower levels of obedience

P -\> Altemeyers reformulation of Authoritarian personality in terms of 'right wing authoritarianism' suggests ppt who define as on right \= more likely to obey authority
\> so expect ppl who are 'left wing' \= lower level obedience
E -\> Some support for this
\> Begue et al - replication of Milgrams study, fake game show, contestants delivered fake electric shocks to other contestants
\> later interviews used World value survey questionnaire - revealed MORE ppts defined as left wing \= lower intensity shocks they agreed to give

E -\> Suggests situational context doesn't exclude possibility of individual differences as determining influence in obedience

⚫️ Resistance to social influence

Key words: Externality, Internality, Locus of control, Social support

Key word: Externality

individuals who tend to believe that experience is caused by events outside their control

Key word: Internality

individuals who tend to believe that the are responsible for their behaviour and experience rather than external forces

Key word: locus of control

- people differ in beliefs about whether outcomes of their actions are dependent on what they do (internal locus of control) or on events outside their personal control (external locus of control)

key word: social support

- perception that an individual has assistance available from other people and theyre part of supportive network

What is social support in detail

- Asch's research found presence of social support -enables individual to resist conformity pressure from majority
\> variation of study : introduced ally who gave right answer (resisting majority) \= conformity levels dropped
\> offered social support - conformity dropped from 33% to 5.5%
- breaks unanimous position of majority, raises possibility that there's other ways to think/respond
\> ally \= provides independent assessment of reality, makes them feel more confident in decision, can Stand up more to majority

How does an ally make a harmful action appear more acceptable

- disobedience of ally can change perception
- research shows those who are more confident in resisting obeying if find an ally who also wiling to join them in opposing authority
- disobedient peers act as role modules, individuals model own behaviour on
- use defiance of peers to extricate themselves from having to cause further harm to victim
e.g. Milgram vacation - ppt was one of a team of 3 testing the learner
\> other 2 \= confederates, refused to continue shocking and withdrew -\> this defiance had influence on real ppts
\> only 10% continued to max 450 volts

What is the nature of locus of control

- refers to persons perception of personal control over their own behaviour
- high internal to high external , most are between 2 extremes