Conformity and obedience

This area of the course on social influence, covers one of the most interesting and controversial areas in Psychology.  Hence the critical issue is the ethics of using human participants in Psychological research.

What the board expects you to know:

First a distinction:

Differences between conformity and obedience:

Conformity

It’s important to remember at the outset that although psychological research generally gets conformity a bad name without it Society would not function.  In the majority of real life situations conformity is seen as good!

Informational Social Influence (ISI)

This happens when there is no obvious right answer so we look to others for information in order to be right.

Examples of Psychological research:

Jenness (1932): ‘Beans.’

A basic study in which Jenness gave a jar of beans to individuals and got them to estimate the number of beans inside.  He then grouped the same participants together and got them to discuss the contents.  Later when they were separated and asked their opinions Jenness found that the estimates had converged around a central figure. 

Sherif (1935): ‘Autokinetic effect’

Participants sit in a darkened room and stare at a pinpoint of light that appears to move, (try it sometime).  They are asked to estimate the distance it moves.  Since the movement is only apparent the correct answer is it doesn’t, but Sherif’s participants were obviously not aware of this.  Again, when put in rooms with others their guesses converge towards a group norm. 

In a follow up experiment Sherif started the participants in groups were they agree on an approximate answer.  When individuals are taken from this group and do the experiment on their own they stick to the answer agreed earlier.

Findings of this sort of research

Clearly there is conformity when people are unsure of the answer since group norms emerge.

Evaluation

Both studies are very artificial so lack ecological validity.  Can we generalise from this to real life situations?

Normative Social Influence

This happens when we go along with the crowd because we want to be accepted or liked or because we want to avoid embarrassment or being ridiculed.

Real life examples: smoking because others in your peer group smoke, dressing like your friends in order to fit in or avoid bullying

Examples of Psychological research

Asch (1951 etc.): ‘The lines’

Conformity is measured by counting the number of times the real participant conforms when stooges give the wrong answer.

Possible questions:

‘Describe the procedure.’  Easy peasie, describe the experiment as above.  You could mention some of the variations. 

‘Describe the findings.’   This one is more likely and also more troublesome.  What you must avoid doing is wasting time by describing the procedure. 

To answer this one, first of all mention Asch’s initial findings:

Overall conformity rate was 37% (sometimes reported as 32%). This means that participants conformed on 37% of all trials.

However, within this there were substantial individual differences:

Nobody conformed on 100% of trials

13 out of the original 50 never conformed at all

Highest rate of conformity was a participant who conformed on 11 out of 12 trials 75% conformed at least once.

Also mention what Asch found in his variations:

Evaluation of Asch’s Paradigm (as it is often called)

The method

The procedure is very artificial (it lacks ecological validity) in that participants are being asked to conform when there is clearly a different and obviously correct answer.  In everyday life disagreements occur over politics, religion, tastes etc., when correct answers are not obvious, except we all agree that Kylie is lush!

Results do not appear to be consistent over time.  Later studies such as Perrin and Spencer’s in Britain in the 1980s found much lower levels of conformity.  It has been suggested that Asch’s original was post war when America was very wary of Communist take over when US citizens were worried about being seen to be different for fear of incrimination.  Levels of conformity did fall in the late 60s when it was popular for students in particular to protest against the Vietnam War, showing low levels of conformity.  More on this later.

The study is androcentric.  Only male participants took part and worse still, only male students.  As a result we can hardly generalise to other groups of people.  In fact when Eagly and Carli (1981) carried out a meta-analysis of research into conformity they found that women were more likely to conform than men.  However, they also report some bias in studies.  When the researchers were male they tended to choose test material that would be more familiar to men than it would be to women, perhaps explaining some of the differences. 

The ethics

Participants were deceived so were unable to give their informed consent.  Note: whenever stooges are used there is always deception.

Participants were clearly stressed and some must have been embarrassed by the procedure and suffered some loss of self esteem once they had been informed that it had all been a big con.  This all constitutes ‘psychological harm.’

Cruchfield (1955): ‘The question booth.’

Cruchfield thought Asch’s experiment was far too expensive, time consuming and inefficient.  Lots of stooges were required to test each participant.  So he devised a method of testing lots of participants quickly and cheaply.  They were sat in cubicles and questions projected onto a screen.  In one corner were the answers given by other participants.  In fact these were made up and often wrong.  Conformity was measured by the number of times participants would go along with these incorrect answers. 

Example of question used: ‘The life expectancy of the average US male is 25.’

Participants answer true or false.  Since the screen indicates that the majority have answered ‘true’ many of the real participants do the same.  In fact Cruchfield found about the same level of conformity as Asch; 30%.

Also worth mentioning in an essay question is the information Cruchfield found out about the personalities of conformist individuals by administering a personality test after the procedure.  According to this, conformist people tend to be: ‘intellectually less effective’, submissive, inhibited, have feelings of inferiority and have less mature social relationships.

Note: one of the questions asked by Cruchfield was; ‘true’ or ‘false’, ‘U.S males sleep 4 to 5 hours a night and eat 6 meals a day.’  Now that one I could believe!

Other factors that may affect conformity

Changes over time

The original study by Asch was carried out in 1950s USA.  America was a very paranoid society, fearful of Communist take over and under the grip of McCartyism in which the government and other institutions in positions of influence were being purged of possible ‘Commies.’  People were afraid of appearing different or stepping out of line, so it is not surprising that Asch found such high levels of conformity.

Later studies by Perrin & Spencer have found much lower levels of conformity.  However, some of these studies were on engineering students at a British University.  Since they were experts on accurate measurement of length it isn’t surprising that they failed to conform.  Out of several hundred trials Perrin & Spencer found only one incidence of conformity, despite the students being ‘very puzzled’ by the stooges’ bizarre answers!

When the study was carried out on young men on probation the rate of conformity was similar to those reported by Asch.

Cultural differences

If we consider culture in broader terms rather than narrow nationalistic ways, we can break societies into two broad kinds:

1. Individualistic: for example Western Societies were the need to be independent and self sufficient is taught as the ideal. 
2. Collectivistic: for example Asian and some African cultures were the needs of the family and larger social group are seen as more important.

Bond and Smith (1996) found the following levels of conformity on Asch-like tasks:

• Collectivist: 37%
• Individualistic: 25%

The same researchers found the highest levels of conformity amongst Indian teachers in Fiji (58%) and the lowest amongst Belgian students (14%).

Kim and Markus (1999) suggest that failing to conform is seen as a strength in Western society whereas collectivist societies see it as deviant behaviour. 

See later notes on the Temmi and Eskimos for similar example.

Personality, intelligence and gender

Students are found to be less conformist.  This could be due to higher intelligence or to education that teaches independent thought and inquiry.

People who are measured high in ‘desire for personal control’ are less conformist than those measured lower.

Minority Influence

So far in all of the studies considered such as Asch etc., a majority have had influence over a minority, such as six stooges influencing one participant.  However, in real life if this were always the case, and the minority always went along with the majority, there would be no change in Society.  For change in ideas, religions, politics etc. there are times when a minority of people with different views have to exert their influence on the rest of us.  This so called minority influence tends to be a slow process, but it does bring about a change both in public and privately held opinions.  This is relatively straight forward if the minority has a good power base, but very often they start from a position of weakness so how do they manage to exert influence?

Real life examples:

The suffragette movement changing attitudes towards women’s rights, Galileo’s ideas on planetary movements, the Nazi’s reign in Germany etc…

Psychological experiments:

Moscovici et al (1969): ‘calling a blue slide green’

I can’t emphasise enough how important it is to remember this study, ‘cos ‘minority influence’ is a likely question and this is the only study to use!

Procedure:

32 groups of six female participants are told they’re taking part in a study on perception.

Each group are presented with 36 blue slides differing in intensity of shade and are asked to say what colour the slides are.  However two of the participants are stooges and these answer in one of two ways:

1. They always say the slides are green
2. They say the slides are green on two thirds of occasions.

Findings:

1. When the stooges say ‘green’ every time: 8% of the majority agree
2. When the stooges are less consistent this falls to 1.25%

These figures aren’t very high, however, 32% of participants conformed with the minority on at least one occasion.  Remember also that the slides are quite clearly blue and NOT green. 

Conclusion:

From this Moscovici concluded that consistency is vital for minority influence to occur.  If the minority consistently give the same answer they are more likely to sway a majority. 

Variations on the procedure

If participants were allowed to write down their answers (private response) as opposed to the usual verbal (public response) you may be surprised to find that conforming to a minority actually increased… bet you thought it would go the other way!  To reiterate… when participants were shown a slide that is clearly blue, but a few stooges claim its green, then real participants are more likely to secretly agree with them than do so openly! 

Moscovici concluded that the reason more people (more than the 8%) didn’t conform in the original study, was because they didn’t want to be seen going along with a minority view.  Secretly it seems they were being convinced!

Nemeth et al (1974) agree that consistency is important but is not always enough in itself.  They carried out a variation on the procedure but allowed the participants to answer with a combination of colours. This time there were three conditions:

1. The stooges randomly answer ‘green’ on half of the trials and ‘blue-green’ on the other half.
2. The stooges answer ‘green’ to the brighter slides and ‘green-blue’ to the darker slides
3. The stooges answer ‘green’ on every trial.

Assuming Moscovici et al to be correct, we would expect the third condition, in which the stooges are consistent to have the greatest influence on the minority.  However this was not the case.

Findings and conclusions:

The majority were most influenced by condition 2 since it is seen as flexible.  21% of participants were influenced by the minority in this condition.

In the other two conditions few participants were influenced.  In the first there is lack of consistency, (supporting Moscovici’s findings), and in the third there is a total lack of flexibility and no attempt for the stooges to use the more complex descriptions allowed.

Moscovici concluded that minorities are more likely to be influential if they are consistent but not to the point of being dogmatic.

Hogg & Vaughan (1995) claim that the following are important for minorities to be influential:

• Principle: if the minority seem to be acting on principle rather than out of self interest
• Sacrifice: if the minority have had to make sacrifices to maintain their position
• Share characteristics with the majority:  if the minority are similar in age, race, social class etc.
• Social trends: if the views of the minority are in keeping with social trends.  For example current trends in Western Society are tolerance and liberalisation.  Therefore calls by a minority for equal rights for a minority group are more likely to meet with acceptance.

Evaluation of Moscovici experiment

Ethics

The experiment uses stooges so deception is employed.  Whenever there is deception consent cannot be informed.              

Methodology

It lacks ecological validity since it is a very trivial exercise, i.e. a silly disagreement over a slide that is very obviously blue.  This is not the sort of thing we normally disagree over, so does it tell us anything about minority influence in real life when very weighty matters of principle tend to be involved.

How minorities exert their influence

According to Moscovici minorities with opposing views to ours create social conflict resulting in discomfort amongst the majority.  According to Moscovici the minority must:

• Challenge the established norm by creating doubt in the minds of the majority
• Make itself highly visible (e.g. public campaigns, marches etc).
• Show that there is an alternative viewpoint
• Demonstrate certainty and confidence in their view
• Avoid compromise or even a hint of it
• Suggest that the only solution to the conflict is for others to move towards their position.

Think of the rise of the Nazi party in Germany in relation to the above!

Atkinson et al (1990) report the following study:

Students were asked to read out summaries of a discussion on gay rights supposedly written by other students like themselves. 

Four of the summaries focused on one viewpoint

One of the summaries focused on the other viewpoint.

When asked to share their views publicly all of the students tended to favour the majority view.  However, when asked to write down their views privately they tended to favour the minority view. 

It was concluded that the majority creates conformity by the granting or withholding of social approval (compliance) but don’t necessarily create a change of opinion.  On the other hand the minority have the power to create internalisation (a real shift in privately held views).

Explaining minority influence

Conversion theory

Moscovici: if we encounter a viewpoint different to our own conflict is created (similar to cognitive dissonance).  Generally we don’t like conflict so we are motivated to take steps to reduce it.  Okay so far, but this next assumption seems dodgy to me (not to be quoted):

According to Moscovici, if a minority of people hold a different view to our own we examine their argument very closely to find out why their view differs to the majority.  However, if a majority of people disagree with our viewpoint we simply fall into line and alter our own view to fit.  The fact that we examine the minority’s argument more closely means we concentrate more on the content of their message and as a result are more likely to be swayed by it on a private level (we are more likely to internalise their viewpoint).

Mackie (1987) disagrees.  We all like to think that others share similar thoughts and viewpoints to ourselves (so called false-consensus theory).  As a result when a majority disagrees with us we spend longer examining their arguments and weighing up the evidence.  When faced with a minority that disagrees we’re generally not that bothered… after all we’re still in the majority. 

Explaining Conformity

According to Kelman (1958) there are three types of conformity:

Compliance: you go along with the crowd and publicly agree with them.  However, internally you maintain your original views.  Paraphrasing kelman, conformity occurs to gain specific reward or approval or to avoid punishment or disapproval. 

Internalisation: occurs when people take on the views of others both publicly and privately.  According to kelman the person adopts the induced behaviour because it is consistent with their own value system. 

For example (not to be quoted in an essay), you may be told that many years ago an evil alien called Xenu brought a lot of other aliens (Thetans) to Earth and blew them up inside volcanoes. The souls of these Thetans now live on by attaching themselves to our bodies and causing mental and physical illnesses.  Having decided that this is your value system and forked out tens of thousands of pounds you become a scientologist!

However, kelman would seem to rule out the above since he says that the message has to be credible!

Identification: occurs when a person conforms to the role that society expects them to play.  As with compliance there does not have to be change in private opinion.  The classic example here obviously is Zimbardo (see later notes)

The dual-process dependency model:

Research distinguishing compliance and internalisation

Kelman (1958)

Black American students were given talks persuading them that some black-only colleges were essential for maintaining black culture.  An idea that most of the students did not agree with at the outset. 

Two conditions:

1. Compliance condition: the message came from an important man who would withdraw funding from the college if they disagreed that black only colleges were not needed.
2. Internalisation condition: the message came form an expert on the issue of minority groups and their culture.

Each group was then given a questionnaire asking them about their beliefs on the necessity of black-only colleges.  However, each of the two above groups was then split into two again:

1. Participants were told that a summary of their questionnaires would be given to the speaker (public)
2. Participants were told that the findings would be kept private.

Findings:

Explaining conformity and minority influence

These two phenomena do seem to contradict one another.  Indeed when Moscovici met Solomon Asch at a conference he reportedly felt embarrassed and concerned that Asch would be critical of his findings.  In fact Asch was very enthusiastic about the research on minority influence since he thought it helped to redress the balance that his research had tipped towards conformity.  Social impact theory proposed by Latane & Wolf (1981) is seen as one way of being able to explain both majority influence (conformity) and minority influence.

Social Impact Theory (SIT)

Social impact refers to changes that occur in a person (cognitive, behavioural, emotional) due to the presence or actions of others.  The theory believes that the impact of others is dependent on three factors.  I’ll explain using the Iraq war debate as an example. 

• Strength

A message is stronger if it is repeated by a lot of people who are all in agreement.  This equates to Moscovici’s ‘consistency.’  You are more likely to be convinced that War on Iraq is right if all of your friends are in agreement.

• Status and knowledge

The message will be strengthened if the person doing the convincing is an expert in the field.  A person who has lived under the Saddam Regime is likely to be more convincing than a politician who has never visited the area.

• Immediacy

The message will have more impact if it comes from friends rather than strangers.  Your friend trying to convince you of the need for war is going to have more impact than a bloke you’ve just met in the pub.

Identification (or conforming to social roles and expectations)

This happens because we learn expectations of how we should behave in certain situations and then conform to these expectations when that situation arises.

Zimbardo’s Stanford prison simulation (1973)

Do I really need to waste trees telling you what he did? 

Again, in the unlikely event that the question asks for a description of the study, assume its party time but try to stick to the key details such as the way the guards were empowered by their dress (khaki uniform, dark glasses etc.), and the way the prisoners were humiliated by being strip searched.

In the more likely case of the question asking for findings:

Mention the effects on the prisoners who showed signs of ‘Pathological prisoner syndrome’ in which disbelief was followed by an attempt at rebellion and then by very negative emotions and behaviours such as apathy and excessive obedience.  Many showed signs of depression such as crying and some had fits of rage.  Zimbardo put these effects down to depersonalisation or deindividuation due to loss of personal identity and lack of control.

Mention also the effects on the guards who conversely showed the ‘Pathology of power.’  They clearly enjoyed their role; some even worked unpaid overtime and were disappointed when the experiment was stopped.  Many abused their power refusing prisoner’s food and toilet visits, removing their bedding etc.  Punishment was handed out with little justification.  Most notable was the way in which the ‘good guards’ never questioned the actions of the ‘bad guards.’ 

Evaluation

Method

The experiment was a role play so it lacks realism with participants behaving as they think they should behave.  However, there is evidence for the guards not just simply role playing, for example their brutal behaviour wasn’t there at the start but developed over the first few days and they did not play up to the cameras as might be expected.  In fact their behaviour was worse when they knew they weren’t being observed.

Ethics

• Consent was obtained in advance and participants were told the nature of the research!
• But, participants were not told that they would be arrested by real police officers and strip searched. 
• Right to withdraw at best appears dubious. 
• Although Zimbardo claims they were free to leave, and indeed some did, word got round the prisoners that this was not he case.
• Participants were clearly subjected to physical and psychological harm. 
• There is still a debate as to whether the experiment should have been stopped sooner, which brings into question Zimbardo’s dual role as researcher and self appointed ‘prison governor.’

However, in defence of Zimbardo you can mention the therapeutic debrief given to all those who took part.

Deindividuation

This is loss of self identity and was evident in Zimbardo’s Prison Simulation when the guards wore dark, reflective glasses.

Zimbardo thought it was responsible for the behaviour he observed in a study he carried out in 1969.  He found that female participants were more likely to administer electric shocks to other women if they were wearing lab coats and hoods that partly covered their faces. 

Role play

Johnson & Downing (1979) disagreed with Zimbardo.  They felt that Zimbardo’s participants were dressed like the Klu Klux Klan and were behaving accordingly, i.e. conforming to expectations.  They got participants to dress as nurses and found that despite the deindividuation that resulted that participants were less likely to deliver shocks.  They were conforming to the caring image of nurses.

Abu Ghraib

They handcuffed me and blindfolded me and put a piece of white cloth over my eyes. They bundled me into a Humvee and took me to a place inside the palace. I was dumped in a room with a single wooden chair. It was extremely cold. After five hours they brought my sister in. I couldn't see anything but I could recognise her from her crying."

"The US officer told us: 'If you don't confess we will torture you. So you have to confess.' My hands were handcuffed. They took off my boots and stood me in the mud with my face against the wall. I could hear women and men shouting and weeping. I recognised one of the cries as my brother Mu'taz. I wanted to see what was going on so I tried to move the cloth from my eyes. When I did, I fainted."

Like most Iraqi women, Alazawi is reluctant to talk about what she saw but says that her brother Mu'taz was brutally sexually assaulted. Then it was her turn to be interrogated. "The informant and an American officer were both in the room. The informant started talking. He said, 'You are the lady who funds your brothers to attack the Americans.' I speak some English so I replied: 'He is a liar.' The American officer then hit me on both cheeks. I fell to the ground.  Alazawi says that American guards then made her stand with her face against the wall for 12 hours, from noon until midnight. Afterwards they returned her to her cell.

"The cell had no ceiling. It was raining. At midnight they threw something at my sister's feet. It was my brother Ayad. He was bleeding from his legs, knees and forehead. I told my sister: 'Find out if he's still breathing.' She said: 'No. Nothing.' I started crying. The next day they took away his body."

Obedience to authority

Historical perspective

The work on obedience stemmed from Nazi atrocities during WWII.  It was widely believed that Hitler himself was an evil genius, but he relied on the co-operation of millions of people to carry out his plans, including ‘the final solution.’ 

Hannah Arendt (1963) published her account of the trial of Adolf Eichmann titled ‘A Report on the banality of evil.’  Eichmann was the mastermind of the ‘final solution’ that involved using gas chambers in the death camps.  In her account Arendt described Eichmann as ‘a dull, uninspired, unaggressive bureaucrat who saw himself as a cog in the machine.’ 

She concludes that the Nazis were mostly just ordinary people following orders.  Most controversially she believed that the rest of us would behave in a similar way, given a similar set of circumstances.

Milgram (1974) wrote ‘Gas chambers were built, death camps were guarded, daily quotas of corpses were produced with the same efficiency as the manufacture of appliances.’

This idea of evil people being a product of their environment rather than evil within their personality will be discussed at greater length later when we consider the reasons for obedience and for independent behaviour.  In a recent work ‘The Lucifer Effect’ Zimbardo affirms his belief that heroes, like baddies, are produced by their situation rather than anything dispositional in their nature. 

In the 1960s it was still comforting to see the Germans as somehow a race apart, Milgram set out to show this.

Milgram (1963)

You are all aware of the study.  The danger is that in any question on Milgram you will regurgitate the procedure.  Read the question and tailor your answer to suit.  If it asks for findings concentrate on the percentages and the variations such as how close the ‘teacher’ stands to the ‘learner’ etc. 

Stanley Milgram’s Shocking Study (1963)

(Yale University psychology Department)

·         An advertisement is placed in a local paper. Participants are paid $4.50 for taking part.  (Issue of payment is important).

• Experiment is supposed to be on learning (deception).
• Participant introduced to ‘Mr. Wallace’ (a harmless looking accountant in his 50’s, with a dickey ticker).  Mr Wallace was in fact a stooge or confederate.  (More deception).
• Mr Wallace and the participant draw lots to see who will be teacher and learner.  Mr Wallace always becomes ‘learner’ so will receive the shocks.
• Mr. Wallace goes next door.

• Participant is shown the equipment, and procedure is explained.
• Mr. Wallace will be asked a series of questions.
• An incorrect answer will result in an electric shock, delivered by the teacher.
• The teacher is given a 45V shock to show that the equipment is real. (This is the only shock used in the experiment!!!!!).

·         The teacher sits in an adjoining room with the experimenter.

• Control panel has switches, 15V to 450V, (labelled slight shock to Danger severe shock and XXX).
• Each incorrect answer gets a shock 15V higher than the last.
• The experimenter encourages the teacher with various instructions.
• As the experiment proceeds Mr Wallace is heard to make various noises
• 75V, 90V and 105V a little grunt
• 120V  complains about the pain
• 150V ‘Experimenter get me out of here/’
• 180V ‘I can’t stand the pain.’
• 270V  An agonised scream
• 300V  He shouts that he will answer no more questions.
• 315V  Violent scream
• 330V  Silence

Remember:  No shocks were ever received!!!

Findings

Before starting the study Milgram asked a variety of academics and students to predict how many would obey.  Most believed that participants would refuse to give electric shocks and certainly few would go beyond 150V.  They believed a ‘pathological fringe’ (perhaps 1 in a thousand) would go to the full 450V.  In fact all went to 300V (‘danger sever shock’) with 65% giving the full whack! 

In addition

In some variations the experimenter allowed the teachers discretion on how big a shock to give.  Given this option, only one participant out of 40 gave the maximum 450V.  95% of participants refused to administer shocks once Mr Wallace started to complain for the first time.

Cross cultural variations

Milgram’s findings have been confirmed by others and there appear to be few sex differences.  Although Milgram’s original study was only carried out on men others have shown the same effect with women participants.  The experiment has also been replicated around the World.  Below are some of the findings. 

Evaluation of the evidence

The research does tend to confirm Milgram’s original findings.  Most of the studies do suggest very high levels of obedience.  However, it is difficult to make comparisons between studies since there are differences in their methodologies.

1.       Different studies have used different populations, i.e. some have used students, others the general population.

2.       Milgram used a mild mannered Mr. Wallace with a dickey ticker.  In the Australian study a female student replaced him. 

3.       In most scenarios the ‘learner‘ was male, in the Australian she wasn’t.

4.       In the Italian study the maximum shock was 330 Volts.

The study that does stand out is the Australian study but this was women giving shocks to other women!

Evaluation of Milgram’s work

It is traditional to split this into two main sections:

1.       Methodology or validity

a.       Experimental validity

b.       Ecological validity

2.       Ethics.

1a. Experimental (or internal) Validity

By now you should know what validity means!  Did the participants taking part in the study actually believe that they were administering electric shocks to Mr Wallace?  Orne & Holland (1968) believe that participants volunteering to take part in psychological studies must realise that the real purpose of the study is going to be disguised.  In this case why would the experimenter stand by and let poor old Mr Wallace cry out in pain without stepping in.  More to the point, why isn’t the experimenter delivering the shocks?  Why pay a volunteer to do the job instead.  Orne and Holland make a number of claims, each of which is refuted by Milgram:

However, the following procedure would seem to support Milgram:

Sheridan & King (1972) carried out a similar procedure but used a puppy as the ‘learner.’  The puppy carried out a learning exercise and each time it made a mistake it would receive an electric shock.  Participants, acting as the teacher, were led to believe that the shocks were becoming increasingly severe, as in Milgram’s original procedure.  In fact the puppy was getting a small shock each time, just enough to make it jump and show obvious signs of receiving a shock.  Eventually the puppy receives an anaesthetic to put it to sleep, and the participants think they’ve killed it.  54% of male and ALL of the female participants continue to give it electric shocks up to the maximum!  The participants can be in no doubt that the puppy is receiving the shocks, so answering Orne & Holland’s first criticism. 

1b. Ecological (or external) Validity

Can the results of the experiment be generalised to situations outside of the laboratory setting?  Since the person in the white lab coat was an authority figure, then Milgram believes that it does.  After all he was trying to show that we do obey such figures in real life.

The next two studies (Bickman and then Holing) show that obedience as described by Milgram does seem to take place in more natural settings too:

Bickman (1974).  People in the street are asked to pick up a piece of litter or stand on the other side of a bus stop etc.  The person doing the asking is dressed either as a milkman, a civilian or a guard.  People were more likely to obey the guard, showing, presumably, the power of uniform or of perceived legitimate authority.

Hofling (1966)

set up an experiment (natural, field or quasi?), in which a nurse receives instructions over the phone, from a Dr Smith, to administer 20mg of a drug Astroten to a patient Mr. Jones.  This instruction breaches three rules:

a.       The nurse did not know Dr Smith

b.       The nurse did not receive written authority

c.       20mg was twice the maximum dose suggested on the bottle.

Despite this, 21 out of 22 nurses were prepared to administer the drug.  Since this is a natural setting, it does have ecological validity, and as such is telling us something about obedience in real life.

For future reference, there are clearly ethical problems with the study:

a.   Nurses were deceived

b.   There was no consent

c.       No right to withdraw.

However, Rank and Jacobsen (1975) carried out a similar study on nurses but found very different results; this time only 2 out of 18 nurses obeyed the instruction to administer a dose of valium.  On this occasion the drug was familiar, and the nurses were able to consult other nurses.  A more natural situation than the one Hofling provided for his unwitting participants. 

Do Milgram’s findings stand up in practice?

Mandel (1998) used the case of Major Wilhelm Trapp of the Reserve Police Battalion 101 to dispute the validity of Milgram’s findings.  In 1942 in the Polish village of Jozefow Major Trapp was given orders to take a large group of Jews to the edge of the village and have them shot.  Although the members of his battalion were given the chance to say no and be assigned to other duties, few did and the massacre went ahead.  Over a four year period the Police Battalion 101 killed 38,000 Jews.

Compare this to Milgram’s findings:

Proximity to victims reduces obedience (Moving Mr Wallace closer)

The members of the battalion walked to the edge of the village with the victims and shot them face to face.

Proximity of authority figure is needed for obedience (Experimenter phoning in)

No authority figures were present.  The soldiers walked to the killing site with no others except the victims

Presence of allies reduces obedience (Other disobedient stooge present)

Some of the battalion dropped out (didn’t obey) and the others were aware of this and presumably aware that they could do the same.

Allowing discretion (Letting teacher decide the shock to give)

Analysis of the massacre suggests that every step was taken to ensure that every Jew was killed.  In this case no steps were taken to reduce suffering despite the soldiers not being directly supervised. 

2.      Ethics of Milgram (aaaaaaggghhh overload, overload!!!)

Other points worth making in an essay on ethics of Milgram.

Milgram's main defence centres on the debrief that all participants received afterwards.  During this participants were reassured about their behaviour:

1.       They were reunited with an intact Mr Wallace

2.       They were assured that no shocks had been given

3.       They were assured that their behaviour was normal.  (Picture the scene, 'its okay Mr Smith, we all have maniacal, homicidal tendencies and feel the need to electrocute to death mild mannered accountants with dickey tickers!').

4.       They all received a full report of the procedure and findings

5.       They were all sent a questionnaire.

The questionnaire:  a staggeringly high 92% returned the questionnaire.  Of these:

·         84% were glad or very glad that they'd taken part.

·         74% claimed that they'd learned something of 'personal importance.'

·         Only 2% were sorry or very sorry that they'd taken part.

One year later, 40 of the participants were interviewed by a psychiatrist who concluded that none of them had suffered long term harm.

Many psychologists are still uneasy about the procedure.  Wrightman & Deux (1979) say that Milgram reports with awe and relish the extreme degrees of tension that his subjects experienced.  For example: they would 'sweat, stutter, tremble, groan, bite their lips and dig their fingernails into their flesh.  Full blown, uncontrollable seizures were experienced by three subjects.'

It is also worth mentioning that Milgram did not breach ethical guidelines, since they did not exist at the time!  In fact it was Milgram's study that was largely responsible for the introduction of such codes of conduct.

Each year Aronson (1988) says he asks his University students how many of them would behave like Milgram's participants.  Typically 1% believes they would!  This figure is the same as 1963, when, before conducting his experiment, Milgram asked students and psychologists to predict how many would deliver 450 Volts.

In 1965 Milgram was awarded the prize for 'Contribution to Psychological Research' by the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Psychological explanations of obedience

Bit of examination advice 

 “Outline two psychological processes that may be involved in obedience to authority.”

An innocuous enough question that has appeared a whopping three times in the past few years.  This suggests to me that it’s generally badly answered and they will keep asking it to sort out the thoroughbreds from the also-ran candidates.  I think the problem with the question is that students don’t get what it’s asking for.  Faced with this question do not fear; simply use two of the following explanations!

Legitimate authority

Society gives power or authority to certain people that they are able to exercise over others.  Obvious examples include the police.  Many examples are situation specific, for examples teachers (supposedly) have authority in schools, traffic wardens in parking areas, doctors over their patients etc.  Hofling (1966) and Bickman (1974) are examples of this.  Respect for authority, like this, clearly has its advantages in allowing for the smooth running of a society, and its rules are hammered home in all of us from a very early age.  The danger comes when we blindly obey such figures and as a result behave in an immoral way as a result.  This would help to explain some of the differences found in levels of obedience between different countries.  Some countries such as Australia have a history of questioning authority whereas countries like Germany teach their children from an early age to respect authority.

Agentic shift

Milgram believed that we operate on two levels:

1.       As autonomous individuals, conscientious and aware of the consequences of our behaviour.

2.       As agentic individuals seeing ourselves as the puppets of others and no longer responsible for our actions.

Normally we behave as autonomous, but under certain circumstances we undergo agentic shift and move to the agentic level.  They are then responsible only to the person giving the orders and their responsibility to others disappears.  He believed this explained the behaviour of participants in his own studies, with the experimenter being in charge during the agentic state.  It would also explain the behaviour of people like Eichmann who could switch from ordinary, dull uninspired etc., to mastermind of the final solution.

Milgram believed this shift was possible because we are taught at an early age to obey without question.  Once in the agentic state, binding factors keep us there:

1.       Fear of being rude and for example spoiling someone’s experiment.

2.       Fear of increasing our levels of anxiety by disobeying.

But: In Milgram’s lab experiment there was 30 minutes or so of obedience in response to constant badgering by the man in the white lab coat.  Compare this to the real life situation of the Nazis who obeyed for many years often without any direct manipulation.  As Goldhagen (1996) points out in his book ‘Hitler’s willing executioners’, it wasn’t simply blind obedience that led to the holocaust.  The Germans had been taught a deep hatred of the Jews.  Many were killed in voluntary executions where obedience was not to blame and often ordinary Germans would be cruel to the Jews in everyday situations. 

Others have argued that Milgram simply does not provide a situational explanation of obedience.  Simply saying that Germans were obeying orders is distressing to victims and their families.  It also removes blames from the perpetrators.

Other factors that may lead to obedience:

Graduated commitment

Used by sales people the World over and usually referred to as foot in the door.  Get people to make a small commitment, i.e. buy a small item or give a small electric shock, and then build up to bigger, expensive items or ‘fatal’ shocks.  Once we’ve agreed to a small concession, then in principle it becomes more difficult to refuse a larger one.

Buffers Acts to protect person from the consequences of their behaviour.  In Milgram’s study putting the ‘teacher’ and the ‘learner’ in different rooms so there was no eye contact and the consequences were distant.  Dropping bombs from 5 miles up is easier than shooting someone face to face!  The airmen who dropped the first atomic bomb were not told the nature of the mission.  On seeing the mushroom cloud they reported ‘conditions novel.’    Did you know the pilot named his Boeing super fortress Enola Gay after his mum?  Bet she was pleased!

The section below is more for information than use in an examination but you may find it interesting.  If anyone wants further information ask me for details.

Authoritarian personality (Adorno et al 1954)

Adorno’s ideas stemmed from the treatment of Jews in Nazi Germany and his work was aimed at discovering a link between ‘collective ideologies’ such as those proposed by the Nazis and the personalities of individuals. 

Adorno believed that adult personality and attitudes stemmed from childhood influences, particularly the actions of their parents.  Harsh and disciplinarian parents would result in children displacing their anger onto others, likely targets being those seen as being weaker and unable to fight back.

Prejudice as conformity

The southern states and ‘Bible-belt’ of the USA are notoriously more racist than the northern states, certainly in terms of their actions (discriminatory behaviour).  However, when tested for authoritarian personality (Pettigrew 1959), southerners were no more authoritarian than their northern cousins.   Additionally, the southern prejudice seemed to be limited to Blacks with other groups such as Jews being no more discriminated against in the south as they were in the north.  This led some researchers to view racism as a form of conformity.  Once the prejudice had begun (in this case historically from slavery) it is maintained by others conforming to the beliefs of others. 

Remaining Independent

In both conformity and obedience studies many participants remain independent.  In Milgram’s experiment 65% obeyed, meaning that 35% did not, and in Asch’s study on conformity participants remained independent on 68% of trials.  13 out of the 50 that took part in the original study failed to conform once!

Factors affecting independence

1 Situational

Seeing others behaving independently

If we see others behaving independently then we are more likely to do the same.   Asch’s conformity rate of 32% fell to 5% if one of the stooges gave the correct answer on all trials.

Milgram’s obedience rate of 65% fell to 10% when two stooges acted as additional teachers and were prepared to disobey.

Environment

When Milgram moved his study to a less prestigious setting, rates of obedience fell (i.e. rate of independence increased).

2. Individual differences

a. Social desirability scale (Crowne & Marlow 1964)

Stang (1972) used this to show that those who do not seek the approval of others are more likely to remain independent.  This is like normative social influence in reverse. 

b. Personality differences.

When Cruchfield carried out his conformity experiment he administered a questionnaire and found the following personality types were most likely to conform:

‘Intellectually less effective,’

Having less mature social relationships,

Lower self esteem

Less leadership ability. 

Others, however, have found little evidence for a consistent personality type.  Burger found that those who scored high on personal control were less likely to conform to what others thought was a funny cartoon. 

3. Sex differences 

Milgram found no sex differences in obedience, but Kilham & Mann in an Aussie replication of the Milgram procedure using female students found 90% independence (i.e. only 10% obeyed).

4. Cultural differences

Berry (1966) found that Eskimos are far more independent than other native groups, for example the Temmi of Africa.  (See later notes on socialisation for reasons).

Not Conforming

Reasons for those remaining independent in Asch’s study:

Confidence based (related more to informational social influence)

The more certain we are, or the more expert we are in a particular area the more likely we are to stick to our guns and not conform to group pressure.  There may be areas were you feel yourself to be particularly expert.  Examples are men who feel comfortable naming tools being prepared not to conform when others mis-identify them, and women having the confidence to do the same with kitchen utensils!  (This really was tested). 

In the Asch procedure, having an ally that agrees with you could be seen as increasing your confidence.  As Asch found, this then significantly reduces conformity.  If the ally is seen as reliable this will reduce conformity even further.  Allen & Levine (1971) got participants wearing glasses with very thick lenses who faked having serious problems with their eyesight to act as allies.  These were not as effective in reducing conformity in the real participant. 

Normative Social Influence

This one takes a little bit of thought but stick with me and perhaps read a few times:

It considers conforming or not to be a balance between avoiding unnecessary attention and/or embarrassment and loss of personal integrity.  If we conform we avoid the attention but feel a loss of integrity because we are abandoning what we know to be right. 

If the situation is trivial (as with the lines study) then little personal integrity is lost, however we do potentially avoid a lot of embarrassment by disagreeing with everyone else.  So we have little to lose and lots to gain by conforming.

Compare that to a situation where there is disagreement on a moral, political, religious, football issue etc., where perhaps we have strongly held beliefs.  In this case our personal integrity holds more sway.  We have more to lose personally by abandoning our personal position.  Therefore in a real life situation we tend not to conform so readily.  Integrity wins over avoiding embarrassment. 

Non conformist personality

Namil et al (2000) points out that some people are not bothered by social norms or are simply not aware of what the social norms may be.  Such a person is unlikely to conform to the pressure of NSI.

Not obeying

35% of Milgram’s participants refused to obey.  Possible reasons for this:

Responsibility.  One of Milgram’s participants refused because she’d lived in Nazi Germany and had seen enough pain inflicted in her lifetime.  Milgram believed past memories had ‘woken’ her from her agentic state.

Education.  Gamson et al (1982) were conducting a research study when one of the participants became suspicious of the procedure and persuaded others to withdraw.  The participant had read about Milgram's research and questioned the legitimacy of the experimenters.  The person made use of their education.

Morality.  Lawrence Kohlberg outlined a number of stages of moral reasoning that we progress through.  He found that people who have reached the higher levels are more likely to disobey unreasonable demands and question authority when it appears unjust.

Disobedient model.  Watching others disobey reminds us that we are able to do the same! For example the variation on Milgram were stooges refuse to obey.

Knowledge of authority.  For example the one nurse out of 22 in Hofling’s study that knew the rules and refused to obey instructions to administer the drug.

Milgram’s had his say, so let’s consider what his school chum Zimbardo has to say on the matter:

Social Heroism 

A good one to use since it’s a very new idea, and from an old favourite too!  Phillip Zimbardo, who is still doing the rounds, touring Universities around the World and giving talks on his work.  In 2007 Zimbardo published a controversial book entitled “The Lucifer Effect.”  Much of the book focuses on people’s blind obedience to unjust authority, however, in the final chapter Zimbardo turns his attention to the good that some people do.  In chapter 16 he considers what he calls ordinary people who decide to take a stance against blind obedience.  He believes these people are not superheroes, rather ordinary people who are prepared to make sacrifices for the good of society or in defence of deeply held views or ideals. 

Hannah Arendt (see earlier notes) referred to ‘the banality of evil’ when describing Adolf Eichmann, following his trial for crimes against humanity.  Zimbardo adapts this and talks of the ‘banality of heroism’ pointing out that these so-called heroes usually see nothing unusual about their actions, rather viewing them as expected or what anyone else would do in a similar situation. 

Zimbardo believes good and evil are not characteristics that are inherent within our make up.  Good is no more a trait that is IN us any more than evil.  Just as Zimbardo believed the prison officers in the Stanford Prison experiment behaved cruelly because of their situation, he believes good is also a consequence of situational factors.  He even goes as far as to say that cultures should teach heroism, perhaps encouraging people to visualise or mentally rehearse how they would take heroic action if and when they were called upon! 

Social heroism can be costly.  Going against the grain can result in loss of credibility, arrest, torture or even death!  Extreme?  Think of some examples: Nelson Mandela (36 years in prison on Robin Island), Martin Luther King (assassinated), Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (eight years hard labour in a Siberian prison camp).  Lesser known examples include Michael Bernhardt who refused to take part in the American massacre of over 500 Vietnamese civilians at Mai Lai and Wesley Autry (below):

Zimbardo believes we possess an heroic imagination and that certain situations can stimulate this into action and cause us to behave in a socially heroic manner. 

The influence of individual differences on independent behaviour

Generally Milgram plays down the role of individual differences in obedience.  Much the same as Zimbardo, Milgram believes that it is situational factors that have the biggest influence on our decision to obey or to conform.  Therefore individual characteristics such as personality play a relatively minor role. 

Locus of control (Rotter)

Compares the impact of these two variables on our behaviour.

Do we see ourselves as being in control of our own behaviour or do we believe outcomes are determined more by events?

INTERNAL LOC

Research suggests that those with a high internal LOC are:

1. Active seekers of information so not so likely to rely on others for information
2. Achievement orientated so tend to make better leaders
3. Better able to resist pressure from others

It is clear from these characteristics that high internal LOCs would be less likely to obey or conform… i.e. are more likely to remain independent. 

Attribution theory and the FAE

Related to LOC is attribution theory which seeks to explain how we attribute a cause to our own or to other people’s behaviour.  Do we attribute behaviour to internal or external factors?

Crucial to attribution theory is the fundamental attribution error (FAE).  This does exactly what it says on the tin.  It is a fundamental mistake we make when attributing a cause to other people’s behaviour.  Is a tendency to place too high an emphasis on dispositional or personal characteristics and ignore other variables such as the specific circumstances at the time of the action.  This is particularly true if we don’t know the person.

In Milgram’s experiment many of you believed that the teachers were sadistic or nasty for delivering shocks to the genteel Mr Wallace.  You were basing your attribution on dispositional factors rather than on the situation in which the teacher found themselves (in a prestigious setting being intimidated by an experimenter in his lab coat).  In fact this precise situation was studied by Bierbrauer (1979) who got participants to watch video footage of the Milgram procedure.  Participants made exactly the same judgements as many of you. 

Back to LOC.  As already stated it seems reasonable to assume that those with an internal LOC will be more likely to remain independent in both Asch and Milgram type procedures. Indeed Holland (1967) found exactly this. 

Those with external LOC are also more likely to be affected by authority figures with a high social status whereas those with an internal LOC are more likely to disobey such figures.

Changing times

Recent research by Twenge et al (2004) found that Americans are becoming increasingly external LOC.  Between 1960 and 2002 students scored increasingly higher scores on external LOC.  The researchers believe this to be bad!  High external LOC is correlated with poor school achievement, depression and less self control.  They believe social trends such as increased rate of divorce, increased suicide rates and mental illness could all be related to a population with an increased external LOC.

Learned helplessness

Seligman (1975) carried out an infamous experiment on dogs and came up with his theory of learned helplessness.  Without going into detail about the procedure he found that we can learn by past experience that what we do has little effect.  We learn that we are helpless to prevent events happening.  This forms the foundation of the behaviourist explanation of depression. 

Evaluation of attribution theory

The good:

1. Situational factors do seem to be responsible for the high levels of conformity and obedience seen in the Asch and Milgram procedures.
2. FAE does appear to explain why as onlookers we are shocked by the behaviour of others in these experiments because we tend to attribute te behaviour to dispositional factors such as sadistic personality when in fact it is more a result of the situation people find themselves in.
3. As predicted by AT, people with internal LOC are more resistant to authority and so are less likely to obey and conform.

The bad:

1. It doesn’t account for the behaviour of psychopaths!  These would almost certainly give Mr Wallace the full 450V and require little persuasion.  However, psychopaths are driven by internal factors and seem oblivious to situational factors such as the setting etc.
2. Choice of internal and external factors in the above explanations tend to be selective.  For example Milgram assumed that external factors such as the authority figure were responsible for the obedience.  However it could be external factors that are influencing those that remain independent too, such as the suffering of others.  Similarly those remaining independent in the Asch procedure could be influenced by external factors, for example the experimenter telling them that they need to give the correct answer. 
3. Very often it is difficult to separate out internal and external factors, for example those relating to addicts.  Addiction is seen as an internal drive (a result of an addictive personality), but in fact the addicts lives are controlled by external factors, namely the drug etc. that they crave.

The Ugly:

Implications for Social Change

Traditionally research into social influence has been associated with social control, particularly the research of Zimbardo, but here we look at how social change can result from this research.

Already in this topic we have seen examples of social influence being a force for good: as with Gandhi in India and the Suffragettes in the UK.  It can also be a force of evil, most notably with the Nazis in Germany but also many atrocities since, such as Mai Lai and the former Yugoslavia. 

The board provide very little information on what they expect from this section of the topic and at time of writing, I have been unable to find any sample questions provided by AQA that might help throw light on what they expect us to teach.  Looking through the half dozen or so text books we have in school they all seem to differ in their interpretation of the specification so what follows is very much a hotchpotch from various sources:

Social change is usually a gradual process but can occur rapidly following a war or revolution, for example the French and Russian revolutions brought about dramatic and rapid social changes in the eighteenth and twentieth centuries respectively.

Promoting social change

1. “The mutual support provided by men for each other is the strongest bulwark against the excesses of authority” Milgram (1974).  Asch and Milgram have shown that social support in the form of allies can significantly increase independent behaviour. 
2. Collectivist cultures such as Asian and African are more likely to conform than Western, individualistic societies.  As the world becomes a wealthier place (present credit crunch excepted) it is likely that the number of individualistic societies will increase.  As a result we would expect to see a decline in world-wide conformity.  (Note: this is the opinion of Eysenck in AS level psychology).  This does not seem to be in accordance with Twenge’s findings that in the USA (a most individualistic society), external locus of control is on the increase.  External LOC is associated with greater conformity!
3. People are more likely to conform with a group when that group is perceived as being of higher status.  As a result conformity is more likely in hierarchical structures such as the military when orders are delivered from above. 
4. Education is vital in preventing blind obedience.  During Milgram’s debrief of participants many said that they’d learned something useful about themselves and as a result would be less likely to conform or obey in future.  Gamson reported the case of a participant that refused to obey in a Milgram-esque experiment since he’d read about the research of Milgram. 
5. Those with higher self esteem are far more likely to remain independent.  It is unclear whether this is due to self esteem per se or attributable to the relationship between self esteem and internal locus of control.

Practical applications:

If we want people to behave in a more socially responsible way and not blindly conform to unjust authority we need to:

• Provide people with social support
• Foster personal responsibility (in line with individualistic societies)
• Avoid hierarchical organisations
• Provide education and encourage free and open thinking
• Enhance social esteem

Explaining social change using the Suffragettes as an example

1. Getting started

In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century few people considered women should have the right to vote.  Even women conformed to the traditional gender role has it had existed for centuries.  However, during the second decade of the twentieth century a minority of women began calling for suffrage (the right to vote).  At this stage we have a small group ignoring the pressure to conform.  This could be for a number of reasons that we’ve already seen:  It is clear that the women involved

• Were low in authoritarian personality
• Were non-compliant personalities
• Had internal locus of control.

2. Bringing about change

Asch and Milgram both found that having an ally significantly increases independent behaviour.  Once the group had become established and gained publicity they would have acted as a disobedient role model to other women.  Obviously at this point they would still be a minority and according to Moscovici, minorities are more likely to create internalisation since their message is examined more closely to see why it differs from the majority view.  Internalisation is a private as well as public conversion.  If you look back at the “calling a blue slide green” study you’ll also see that Moscovici believed the message of a minority needs to be consistent and the group need to be committed.  Clearly the suffragettes were consistent and as for committed… Emily Davison through herself under the horse of the King’s horse Anmer as it ran in the Derby and died a few days later.

3. Critical mass

There eventually comes a point when the message has so much support that others begin to conform through normative social influence.  The once minority now hold the majority position and others feel left out.  However, with NSI there can be compliance rather than true conversion.  Those conforming may only do so publicly, privately still maintaining their original beliefs.  Today those airing dissenting views would be seen as sexist.  Public opinion expects us to conform!

4. Enshrined in law

In 1918 Parliament passed the Representation of the People Act giving some women over the age of 30 the right to vote.  Further legislation has followed since.  We now have obedience! 

Note: the word suffragette was coined by the Daily Mail (nicknamed the ha’penny liar) and was initially intended as a term of abuse! 

Tajfel’s Minimal Group Theory

We are all members of groups.  Some are obvious if we belong to a football or netball team or all study at the same school.  Other groupings could depend on social class, gender, religious convictions, ethnicity, hobbies etc.  Once we identify with a certain group, according to Tajfel we develop an ingroup mentality and see those outside of our group as different.  As a member of CAMRA (campaign for real ale) we chuckle when punters ask for a pint of Fosters at the bar.  MX-5 drivers often wave to each other as they pass, as VW Beetle drivers used to do in the 1970s. 

Such ingroup/outgroup mentality can develop for the most trivial of reasons.  Below is an experimental example:

In 1967 Henri Tajfel (of Polish origin) carried out a classic series of experiments on teenage boys in Bristol.  The boys were split into two groups on the basis of whether they preferred the paintings of Klee or Kandinsky (chosen because it’s such an arbitrary way of splitting people).  Very quickly the boys developed an ingroup and outgroup mentality with those preferring Klee pulling together and turning against those that preferred Kandisnky.  To illustrate this Tajfel gave the participants grids of points. 

For example:

The top row were points that could be allocated to them (the ingroup) whereas the bottom row were points that would be awarded to the outgroup.  They were told that points could later be exchanged for cash! 

Each time such a grid was presented they had to select a pair of values.  Common sense might suggest that they’d chose the one on the far right 

since this would provide their group with he highest reward (19 points).  In fact they tended to choose the one on the far left

since this gave them the greater number of points in RELATION to the outgroup.

So just to clarify; they deliberately gave themselves lower rewards to ensure the outgroup suffered! 

Although the groups were chosen on very random grounds they very quickly adopted a distinct ingroup-outgrroup mentality. 

Just to emphasise (if not labour the point): the participants were prepared to give their own group far less reward than was possible if it meant that the out-group would come off even worse!  This despite the ‘minimal’ group situation.  The only thing the out-group had done ‘wrong’ was to prefer a different style of painting!

For Tajfel we maintain our social identity by member ship of groups, which is fine provided our ingroups are well viewed and are seen as high status.

But what happens if our social groups are not well liked or respected, for example if our groups are chavs, asylum seekers, Manchester City fan etc?

In this situation, according to Tajfel we have two choices:

1. Social mobility: we try to move to groups with a higher social status.  The asylum seeker obtains qualifications and becomes a doctor or lawyer.  This appears to be the preferred rout in the UK.
2. Improve status of existing group: sometimes the only way forward if mobility is not possible.  This can be achieved in one of two ways:

a.       social creativity: puts the groups attributes to better use, making them appear more positive.  Chavs could try and popularise shell suits and chunky jewellery.  A better example would be the ‘Black is Beautiful’ campaign of the 1960s in which newly arrived immigrants from the Carribean popularised their music and culture in the UK.

b.       Social competition: the group with the lower social status challenges more powerful groups head on and seeks to right the perceived injustice.  For example radical feminism that fought for equal rights for female workers and obviously the Suffragette movement of the early 1920s. 

Minority to majority: global warming

Perhaps not a good one to use in an examination though!

In 1979 only one person on the World stage was popularising the idea of global warming fuelled by human-produced carbon dioxide.  Margaret Thatcher had just been elected Britain’s first woman prime minister and was trying to gain prominence on the World stage.  Sir Crispin Tickell, UK Ambassador to the UN suggested that she put her degree in chemistry to good use and make a scientific story a key issue.  In the next few years Maggie brought up the issue of global warming at every European summit until eventually others began to realise that it could be used to put pressure on the World’s leading economy in the USA.  In domestic politics global warming was also a winner.  Maggie used it to turn the country away from its dependence on coal (revenge on the miners) and expensive and unreliable oil from the Middle East.  The country could instead switch to cleaner nuclear power that didn’t result in carbon emissions. 

Today we have a situation where the only way scientific research can get government funding is to link it to global warming!  Any scientist foolish enough to publish research questioning the theory is ostricised by the rest of the scientific community and is unlikely to get further funding.