SOCIAL INFLUENCE-
OBEDIENCE : SITUATIONAL VARIABLES
AGENTIC STATE -
Stanley milgrim’s initial interest in obedience was sparked by the trial of Adolf Eichmann in 1961 for war crimes
Eichmann had been in charge of the Nazi death camps and his defence was that he was only obeying orders
this lead Milgram to propose that obedience to destructive authority occurs because a person does not take responsibility
instead they believe they are acting for someone’s else IE- they are an agent for someone else
an agent is not unfeeling, they experience high anxiety (moral strain)
when they realise that what they are doing in wrong, but feel powerless to disobey
AUTONOMOUS STATE -
the opposite of being in an agentic state is being an autonomous state
autonomy means to be independent and free, so a person in an autonomous state is free to behave according to their own principles and feels responsibility for their own actions
the shift from autonomy to agency is called an agentic shift, milgrim (1974) suggested that this occurs when a person perceives someone else as an authority figure
the authority figure has greater power because they have a higher position in the social hierarchy, in most social groups, when one person is in charge others defer to the legitimate authority of this person and shift from autonomy to agency
BINDING FACTORS -
Milgram observed that many of his participants said they wanted to stop but seemed powerless to do so, he wondered why they remained in an agentic state
the answer is binding factors - aspects of the situation that allow the person to ignore or minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour and thus reduce the ‘moral strain’ they are feeling
milgrim proposed a number of strategies that the individual uses, such as shifting the responsibility to the victim or denying the damage they were doing to the victims
LEGITIMACY OF AUTHORITY -
most societies are structured in a hierarchical way, this means that people in certain positions hold authority over the rest of us EG- parents, teacher, police, bouncers
the authority they wield is legitimate in the sense that is agreed by society, most of us accept that authority figures have to be allowed to exercise power over others as this allows society to function smoothly
one of the consequences of this legitimacy of authority is that some people are granted the power to punish others, we generally agree that the police and courts have the power to punish wrongdoers
so we are willing to give up some of our independence and to hand control of our behaviour over to people we trust to exercise their authority appropriately
we learn acceptance of legitimate authority from childhood, from parents initially, and then teachers and adults generally
DESTRUCTIVE AUTHORITY -
problems arise when legitimate authority becomes destructive, history has often shows charismatic and powerful leaders ( Hitler, Stalin and poll pot )can use their legitimate powers for destructive purposes, ordering people to behave in ways that are cruel and dangerous
destructive authority was obvious in milgrims study, when the experimenter used prods to order participants to behave in ways that went against their consciences
EVALUATION AO3 POINTS -
AGENTIC / AUTONOMOUS STATE -
RESEARCH SUPPORT -
one strength is that milgrims own studies support the role of the agentic state in obedience
most of milgrims participants resisted giving the shocks at some point, and often asked the experimenter questions about the procedure, for example who is responsible if the learner is harmed
when they found out the experimenter was responsible the participants often went through with the procedure quickly without further questions
this shows that once participants perceived they were no longer responsible for their won behaviour, they acted more easily as the experimenters agent, as milgrim suggested
A LIMITED EXPLANATION -
one limitation is that the agentic shift doesn’t explain many research findings about obedience
for example it does not explain the findings of Rank’s and Jacobson’s study, they found that 16 out of 18 hospital nurses disobeyed orders from a doctor to administer an excessive drug dose to a patient
the doctor was an obvious authority figure, but almost all nurses remained autonomous, as did many of milgrims participants
this suggests that, at best the agentic shift can only account for some situations of obedience
LEGITIMACY OF AUTHORITY -
one strength of the legitimacy explanation is that it is a useful account of cultural differences in obedience
many studies show that countries differ in the degree to which people are obedient to authority, for example Kilham and Mann (1974) found that only 16 % of Australian women went all the way up to 450 volts in a milgrim-style study
however Mantell (1971) found a very different figure for German people (85%)
this shows that in some cultures, authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimate and entitled to demand obedience from individuals
this reflects the ways that different societies are structured and how children are raised to perceive authority figures
CANNOT EXPLAIN ALL OBEDIANCE AND DISOBEDIANCE -
one limitation is that legitimacy cannot explain all instances of disobedience in a hierarchy where the legitimacy of authority is clear and accepted
this includes the nurses in Rank and Jacobson’s study, most of them were disobedient despite working in a rigidly hierarchical authority structure
also a significant minority of milgrims participants disobeyed despite the experimenters scientific authority
this suggests that some people may just be more or less obedient than others
it is possible that innate tendencies to obey or disobey have a greater influence on behaviour than the legitimacy of an authority figure
RESISTANCE TO SOCIAL INFLUENCE -
RESISTING CONFORMITY -
the pressure to conform can be resisted if there are other people present who are not conforming
as seen in Asch’s research, the confederate who is not conforming may not be giving the right answer
the fact that someone else is not following the majority is social support , it enables other people to follow their own conscience and make their own decisions
the confederate, in the case of asch’s study acts as a model for independent behaviour
their dissent gives rise to more dissent because it shows that the majority is no longer unanimous
RESISTING OBEDIENCE -
the pressure to obey can be resisted if there is another person who is seen to disobey
for example in one of milgrims variations, obedience dropped from 65% to 10% when the genuine participant was joined by a disobedient confederate, the participant may not follow the disobedient persons behaviour, but they do act as a model of dissent for the participant to copy, freeing them to act of their own accord
the disobedient model challenges the legitimacy of the authority figure, making it easier for others to disobey
LOCUS OF CONTROL -
Rotter (1966) proposed locus of control as a concept concerned with internal control versus external control
some people have an internal LOC and believe that the things that happen to them are largely controlled by themselves, for example, if they do well on a test its because they worked hard
some people have an external LOC so tend to believe the things that happen are outside of their control, so if they did badly in an exam its because the test was to difficult, or the textbook was bad
THE LOC CONTINUUM -
people are not just either internal or external, LOC is a scale and individuals vary in their position on it, so high internal LOC is on one end of the continuum and high external LOC is on the other end, with low internal and external lying in the middle
RESITANCE TO SOCIAL INFLUENCE -
people with a high internal LOC are more able to resist pressures to , conform or obey, if a person takes responsibility for their actions and experiences they tend to base their decisions on their own beliefs rather than depending on the opinions of others
another explanation is that people with a high internal LOC tend to be more self confident, more achievement orientated and have higher intelligence, these traits lead to greater resistance to social influence
these are also characteristics of leaders, who have much less need for social approval than followers
SOCIAL SUPPORT EVALUATION POINTS -
REAL WORLD RESEARCH SUPPORT -
one strength is research evidence for the positive effects of social support
EG Albrecht et al (2006) evaluated the teen fresh start USA campaign (helps pregnant adolescents to resist the peer pressure to smoke) the teens were given an older ‘buddy’ who didn’t smoke and so acted as a social support model for them
they found that teens who had a buddy were significantly less likely to smoke than those that hadn’t had a mentor
this shows that social support can help people resist social influence as part of an intervention in the real world
RESEARCH SUPPORT FOR DISSENTING PEERS -
another strength in research to support the role of dissenting peers in resisting obedience
Gamson et al (1982) told participants to produce evidence that would be helpful to an oil company running a smear campaign
the researchers found higher levels of resistance than milgrim did in his study, this probably was because the participants were told to discuss in groups, so could talk about what they were told to do
29 out of 33 groups of participants rebelled against their orders
this shows that peer support can lead to disobedience by undermining the legitimacy of authority a figure has
LOCUS OF CONTROL EVALUATION POINTS -
RESEARCH SUPPORT -
one strength of this research is evidence to support the link between LOC and resistance to obedience
Holland (1967) repeated milgrims study and measured whether participants and internal or external LOCs
he found 37% of internals did not continue to the highest shock level, whereas on 23% of externals didn’t continue to the highest level
in other words internals showed the highest levels of resistance to authority
this shows that resistance is at least partly related to LOC, which increases the validity of LOC as an explanation of disobedience
CONTRADICTORY RESEARCH -
one limitation is evidence that challenges the link between LOC and resistance
for example Twenge (2004) analysed data from American LOC studies conducted over a 40 year period, the data showed that across this time people became more resistant, but also more externally attributing
this is a contrast as if an internal LOC makes people more likely to resist social pressure, we would expect them to become more internal
this suggests that locus of control is not a valid explanation of how people resist social influence
MINORITY INFLUENCE -
MINORITY INFLUENCE - refers to situations where an individual or small group of people influences the beliefs or actions of a larger majority group of people
this is the opposite to conformity as when this happens the majority is influencing the minority
minority influence results in internalisation most of the time
moscovi first studies this process in his blue/green slide study, and since then other research has drawn attention to three main processes that can result in successful minority influence
CONSISTENCY -
the minority must be consistent in their views, over time this consistency increases the amount of interest from other people
consistency can take two forms -
SYNCHRONIC CONSISTENCY = everyone saying the same thing
DIACHRONIC CONSISTENCY = everyone saying the same thing for a long time
a consistent minority makes other people question their own views, as if they keep saying the same thing, people will think that the minority has a valid point
COMMITMENT -
the minority must demonstrate commitment to their cause or views
sometimes minorities engage in quite extreme activities in order to draw attention to their cause
its important that these activities pose some risk to the minority as this shows greater commitment and makes majority groups pay even more attention ( called the augmentation principle ) - EG chaining yourself to a railing in the middle of a road
FLEXIBILITY -
Nemeth (1986) argued that consistency is not the only important factor in minority influence because it can be off-putting if someone is extremely consistent
someone who repeatedly says the same arguments and does the same behaviours can be seen as rigid, unbending and dogmatic
the minority group has to be prepared to adapt their views and accept valid counter arguments
the key for a successful influence of the majority is to strike a perfect balance of consistency and flexibility
EXPLAINING THE PROCESS OF CHANGE -
the three factors make people think about the minority’s view or cause, hearing something you agree with doesn't make you stop and think, but thinking something new may make you think more deeply about it, especially if that persons consistent. committed and flexible
this level of deeper thinking, overtime makes people convert there views from the majority position to the minority standing
the more this happens, the faster the rate of conversion becomes, this is called the snowball effect, gradually the minority view becomes the majority and change has occurred
MINORITY INFLUENCE EVALUATION -
RESEARCH SUPPORT FOR CONSISTENCY -
one strength is research evidence demonstrating the importance of consistency
moscovi’s blue/green slide study showed that a consistent minority opinion had a greater effect on changing the views of other people than an inconsistent minority
wood et al (1994) carried out a meta analysis of almost 100 similar studies and found that minorities that were seen to be consistent were the most successful
this suggests that presenting a consistent view is a minimum requirement for a minority trying to influence a majority
RESEARCH SUPPORT FOR DEEPER PROCESSING -
another strength is evidence showing that a change in the majoritys position does involve deeper processing of the minorities ideas
martin et al (2003) presented a message supporting a particular viewpoint and then measured participants agreement
one group then heard a minority group agree with the original view, and another group heard a majority group agree with it
participants where then exposed to a conflicting view and attitudes were measured again
people were less willing to change their views if they had listened to a minority group than if they had listened to a majority group
this suggests that the minority message had been more deeply processed and had a more enduring effect which supports the central view of how minority influence works
ARTIFICIAL TASKS -
one limitation of minority influence research is that the tasks involved in the studies are often artificial, for example asch’s line judgement task
research is therefore far removed from how minorities attempt to change the views of majorities in real life
in cases such as jury duty and political campaigns, the outcomes are much more important
this means that findings of minority influence studies can lack validity when generalised and are limited as to what they can tell us about how minority influence works in real world social settings
SOCIAL INFLUENCE AND SOCIAL CHANGE -
SOCIAL CHANGE -
1 - DRAWING ATTENTION -
works through social proof - in the 1950s black and white segregation applied to all parts of America, there was black neighbourhoods and even certain schools for each race, the civil rights marches of this period drew attention to this situation, providing social proof of the problem
2 - CONSISTENCY -
civil rights activists represented a minority of the American population, but their position remained consistent, millions of people took part in many marches over several years, always presenting the same non-aggressive messages
3 - DEEPER PROCESSING -
the activism meant that many people who has simply accepted the status quo began to think deeply about the unjustness off it
4 - THE AUGEMENTATION PRINCIPLE -
individuals risked their lives numerous times, for example freedom riders (black Americans riding on white only buses EG rosa parks) challenged racial segregation of transport, many of them where attacked, so this personal risk indicates a strong belief and reinforces their message
5 - THE SNOWBALL EFFECT -
activists such as Martin Luther King gradually got the attention of the US government and more and more people backed the minority position, this lead to the 1964 civil rights act which prohibited discrimination on the basis of race and marked a change from the minority to majority view
6 - SOCIAL CRYPTOMNESIA -
this means that people don’t have a memory of the change occurring, or what society was like before the change occurred, in the instance of the civil rights movement, change clearly did happen as America is very different now, but not everyone remembers this
LESSONS FROM CONFORMITY RESEARCH -
Asch’s research highlighted the importance of dissent, in one of his variations in which one of his confederates gave consistent correct answers, this broke the unanimous power of the majority which encouraged others to do the same
this social support/dissent has the ability to ultimately lead to social change
a different approach is using normative social influence to encourage people to change their actions, normally in health or environmental campaigns
for example to stop littering, they put signs on bins saying ‘bin it - others do’ so in other words social change can happen by drawing attention to what the majority are doing to try and encourage people to do the same, in order to prevent them being seen as odd or rejected by society
LESSONS FROM OBEDIENCE RESEARCH -
milgrims research clearly demonstrated the importance of disobedient role models, for example in the research variation where a confederate teacher refused to give shocks to the learner, obedience levels plummeted
Zimbardo suggested how obedience can be used to create social change through the process of gradual commitment (once a small instructions been obeyed, its harder to disobey a bigger one, which causes a drift into a new kind of behaviour)
SOCIAL CHANGE EVALUATION POINTS -
RESEARCH SUPPORT FOR NORMATIVE INFLUENCES -
one strength is that research has shown that social influence processes based on psychological research do work
Nolan et al (2008) aimed to see if they could change peoples energy use habits, they hung posters on peoples doors in San Diego every week for a month
the key message was that most residents were trying to reduce their energy usage, as a control some people had posters asking them to reduce their usage, but made no reference to other peoples behaviour
there were significant decreases in energy uses in the first group, compared to the second
this shows that conformity can lead to social change through the operation of normative social influence
MINORITY INFLUENCE EXPLAINS CHANGE -
another strength is that psychologists can explain how minority influence brings about social change
Nemeth (2009) claims that social change is due to the type of thinking that minorities inspire, as when people consider a minority groups view point they engage in divergent thinking
this type of thinking is broad, instead of narrow, in which the thinker actively searches for information and weighs up multiple options
he argued this leads to better decisions and more creative solutions to social issues
this shows why dissenting minority groups are valuable in bringing about new ideas and thoughts in a way majority’s cant
ROLE OF DEEPER PROCESSING -
one limitation is that deeper processing may not play a role in how minorities bring about social change
some people are supposedly converted because they think more deeply about the minorities views, Mackie (2009) suggests that its actually the majority influence that may create deeper processing if you do not share their views
this is because we like to believe that other people share our views and think in the same way as us, so when we find out the majority believes things differently to us we think and question their arguments and reasoning
this means that a central element of minority influence has been challenged, casting a doubt on its validity as an explanation of social change