What the Board expects you to know:
- Types of conformity: internalisation, identification and compliance.
- Explanations for conformity: informational social influence and normative social influence, and variables affecting conformity including group size, unanimity and task difficulty as investigated by Asch.
- Conformity to social roles as investigated by Zimbardo.
- Explanations for obedience: agentic state and legitimacy of authority, and situational variables affecting obedience including proximity, location and uniform, as investigated by Milgram.
- Dispositional explanation for obedience: the Authoritarian Personality.
- Explanations of resistance to social influence, including social support and locus of control.
- Minority influence including reference to consistency, commitment and flexibility.
- The role of social influence processes in social change.
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:
Conformity
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:
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. Conclusion: when we are unsure of an answer we look to others for help assuming that a majority figure will be more reliable. |
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?
Other examples of ISI
Participants listened to US presidential debates and were given information on how other viewers were rating the different candidates. This information was faked! Participants tended to favour the candidates favoured by the made up observers and their opinions swung back and forth as their apparent popularity rose and fell.
Normative Social Influence (NSI)
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
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?
Other examples of ISI
Participants listened to US presidential debates and were given information on how other viewers were rating the different candidates. This information was faked! Participants tended to favour the candidates favoured by the made up observers and their opinions swung back and forth as their apparent popularity rose and fell.
Normative Social Influence (NSI)
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
|
Again, you are all aware of the procedure. Briefly stated: participants are deceived
into taking part in a study on visual perception. They are seated at a desk with others that
they believe to be fellow participants but who in reality are in league with
the researchers (stooges or confederates).
Lines are presented on a screen and participants simply have to say
which line (out of 3 possibilities, is the same length as the target line). The stooges get the right answer on the first
two trials but then start to make deliberate mistakes.
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:
‘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%. 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
|
Factor
Size of group Supporter Difficulty of task Familiarity of task |
Description and conformity
One stooge (3%), two stooges (14%), three stooges (32%). Further increases in group size do not increase conformity. With very large groups conformity actually begins to fall! If one of stooges also disagrees with others conformity drops sharply (5%) As task becomes more difficult conformity increases We are less likely to conform when we are confident in our ability, e.g. men are less likely to conform to incorrectly named tools than they are to incorrectly named kitchen utensils. Clearly research of the 1950s! |
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.
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.’
Crutchfield (1955): ‘The question booth.’
Crutchfield 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 Crutchfield found about the same level of conformity as Asch; 30%.
Also worth mentioning in an essay question is the information Crutchfield 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.
Although Crutchfield found similar levels of overall conformity to Asch the reasons underlying this might be different. Because the participant is not being directly observed there is less pressure to comply with others. However, some of the tasks are more difficult than the Asch lines and some even involve general knowledge. It is therefore possible that some of the conformity Crutchfield found was due to Informational Social Influence rather than Asch’s pure NSI.
Bringing Asch up to date
Asch's findings were confounded by the fact that some confederates will be more convincing than others. To solve these problems Mori and Arai adapted the MORI technique (Manipulation of Overlapping Rivalrous Images by polarizing filters), used previously in eye-witness research. By donning filter glasses similar to those used for watching 3-D movies, participants can view the same display and yet see different things.
Mori and Arai replicated Asch's line comparison task with 104 participants tested in groups of four at a time (on successive trials participants said aloud which of three comparison lines matched a single target line). In each group, three participants wore identical glasses, with one participant wearing a different set, thereby causing them to observe that a different comparison line matched the target line. As in Asch's studies, the participants stated their answers publicly, with the minority participant always going third.
Whereas Asch used male participants only, the new study involved both men and women. For women only, the new findings closely matched the seminal research, with the minority participant being swayed by the majority on an average of 4.41 times out of 12 key trials (compared with 3.44 times in the original). However, the male participants in the new study were not swayed by the majority view.
Evaluation and Asch comparisons
There are many possible reasons why men in the new study were not swayed by the majority as they were in Asch's studies, including cultural differences (the current study was conducted in Japan) and generational changes. Mori and Arai highlighted another reason - the fact that the minority and majority participants in their study knew each other, whereas participants in Asch's study did not know the confederates.
The researchers argue that this is a strength of their new approach: 'Conforming behaviour among acquaintances is more important as a psychological research topic than conforming among strangers,' they said. 'Conformity generally takes place among acquainted persons, such as family members, friends or colleagues, and in daily life we seldom experience a situation like the Asch experiment in which we make decisions among total strangers.'
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:
Bond and Smith (1996) found the following levels of conformity on Asch-like tasks:
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.
It is always worth pointing out that cultures are not homogenous (i.e. the people within them are not all the same). Cultures are made up of individuals and there are big individual differences in conformity, as Asch highlighted. Cultures also contain sub-cultures such as different ethnic groupings and social classes.
Gender issue
Many studies have a found a sex difference with women generally being more conformist. Eagley (1978) however noticed that the tasks tend to favour masculine characteristics, for example spatial tasks such as Asch’s lines. Maslach et al (1987) gave women tasks based on more traditional feminine characteristics and found women to be no more compliant than men!
Types of 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. Importantly when the group pressure disappears the conformity stops too.
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. Usually with internalisation the content of the message is important and as a result the person considers the new information carefully before making the change in opinion.
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)
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:
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.
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.’
Crutchfield (1955): ‘The question booth.’
Crutchfield 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 Crutchfield found about the same level of conformity as Asch; 30%.
Also worth mentioning in an essay question is the information Crutchfield 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.
Although Crutchfield found similar levels of overall conformity to Asch the reasons underlying this might be different. Because the participant is not being directly observed there is less pressure to comply with others. However, some of the tasks are more difficult than the Asch lines and some even involve general knowledge. It is therefore possible that some of the conformity Crutchfield found was due to Informational Social Influence rather than Asch’s pure NSI.
Bringing Asch up to date
Asch's findings were confounded by the fact that some confederates will be more convincing than others. To solve these problems Mori and Arai adapted the MORI technique (Manipulation of Overlapping Rivalrous Images by polarizing filters), used previously in eye-witness research. By donning filter glasses similar to those used for watching 3-D movies, participants can view the same display and yet see different things.
Mori and Arai replicated Asch's line comparison task with 104 participants tested in groups of four at a time (on successive trials participants said aloud which of three comparison lines matched a single target line). In each group, three participants wore identical glasses, with one participant wearing a different set, thereby causing them to observe that a different comparison line matched the target line. As in Asch's studies, the participants stated their answers publicly, with the minority participant always going third.
Whereas Asch used male participants only, the new study involved both men and women. For women only, the new findings closely matched the seminal research, with the minority participant being swayed by the majority on an average of 4.41 times out of 12 key trials (compared with 3.44 times in the original). However, the male participants in the new study were not swayed by the majority view.
Evaluation and Asch comparisons
There are many possible reasons why men in the new study were not swayed by the majority as they were in Asch's studies, including cultural differences (the current study was conducted in Japan) and generational changes. Mori and Arai highlighted another reason - the fact that the minority and majority participants in their study knew each other, whereas participants in Asch's study did not know the confederates.
The researchers argue that this is a strength of their new approach: 'Conforming behaviour among acquaintances is more important as a psychological research topic than conforming among strangers,' they said. 'Conformity generally takes place among acquainted persons, such as family members, friends or colleagues, and in daily life we seldom experience a situation like the Asch experiment in which we make decisions among total strangers.'
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:
- Individualistic: for example Western Societies were the need to be independent and self sufficient is taught as the ideal.
- 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%
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.
It is always worth pointing out that cultures are not homogenous (i.e. the people within them are not all the same). Cultures are made up of individuals and there are big individual differences in conformity, as Asch highlighted. Cultures also contain sub-cultures such as different ethnic groupings and social classes.
Gender issue
Many studies have a found a sex difference with women generally being more conformist. Eagley (1978) however noticed that the tasks tend to favour masculine characteristics, for example spatial tasks such as Asch’s lines. Maslach et al (1987) gave women tasks based on more traditional feminine characteristics and found women to be no more compliant than men!
Types of 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. Importantly when the group pressure disappears the conformity stops too.
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. Usually with internalisation the content of the message is important and as a result the person considers the new information carefully before making the change in opinion.
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)
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:
- 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.
- Internalisation condition: the message came form an expert on the issue of minority groups and their culture.
- Participants were told that a summary of their questionnaires would be given to the speaker (public)
- Participants were told that the findings would be kept private.
|
Public Private |
Compliance (funding)
Participants conformed with the message Participants retained their independent views |
Internalisation (expert)
Participants conformed with the message Participants conformed with the message |
Conclusion
This shows the difference between compliance and internalisation and how they come about. Compliance is conforming outwardly but having no genuine change in underlying attitude (as caused by the threat of removal of funding). Internalisation however, is having a genuine change in opinion and fully taking on board the views of others.
Allen and Levine (1971)
Again a partial replication of the Asch style study. In this case the participants were faced with one of three conditions. No supporter, a supporter with good eyesight or a supporter with very poor eyesight (which he made obvious). With no support conformity was at 97%. With a valid supporter this dropped to 36%. However, although the invalid supporter reduced conformity it did so significantly less (64%).
It seems that an invalid supporter simply reduces the normative social influence of the stooges. Having a valid supporter reduces the normative influence but also the informational influence so has much greater impact.
This shows the difference between compliance and internalisation and how they come about. Compliance is conforming outwardly but having no genuine change in underlying attitude (as caused by the threat of removal of funding). Internalisation however, is having a genuine change in opinion and fully taking on board the views of others.
Allen and Levine (1971)
Again a partial replication of the Asch style study. In this case the participants were faced with one of three conditions. No supporter, a supporter with good eyesight or a supporter with very poor eyesight (which he made obvious). With no support conformity was at 97%. With a valid supporter this dropped to 36%. However, although the invalid supporter reduced conformity it did so significantly less (64%).
It seems that an invalid supporter simply reduces the normative social influence of the stooges. Having a valid supporter reduces the normative influence but also the informational influence so has much greater impact.
Conformity and Obedience in real life (background information only)
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."
Identification
This happens because we learn expectations of how we should behave in certain situations and then conform to these expectations when that situation arises. As I write this (August 2014) this study and area of social influence seems to be out of favour with AQA. However, be warned, identification is due for a return on the post 2015 specification!
Zimbardo’s Stanford prison simulation (1973)
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. The remaining prisoners became passive, dependent and had flattened emotions. Zimbardo suggested that there were a number of processes that contributed to the pathological prisoner syndrome:
The loss of personal identity – the prisoners were de-individuated by being stripped of their individuality, their name, dress, appearance, behaviour style, and history. Living among strangers who do not know your name or history, dressed like all the other prisoners, all led to the weakening of self-identity among the prisoners.
The arbitrary control exercised by the guards - on post-experimental questionnaires, the prisoners said they disliked the way that the way they were subjected to the arbitrary and changeable decisions and rules of the guards as this made life unpredictable and unfair. For example, smiling at a joke could be punished in the same way that failing to smile might be. As the environment became more unpredictable, the prisoners’ behaviour showed signs of learned helplessness. ·
Dependency and emasculation - the prisoners were made to be totally dependent on the guards for commonplace functions such as going to the toilet, reading, lighting a cigarette and this emasculated them. The smocks, worn without underwear, lessened their sense of masculinity. This was taken to the extent that when the prisoners were debriefed they suggested that they had been assigned to be prisoners because they were smaller than the guards. In fact there was no difference in average height between the prisoners and guards, and the perceived difference was a response to the prisoners’ perception of themselves and their lack of power.
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.’ The guards were given control over the lives of other human beings and did not have to justify their displays of power as they would normally have to in their daily lives. They started to enjoy this power very earlier on in the study (pathology of power) as demonstrated that even after the first day all prisoner rights became redefined as privileges, and all privileges were cancelled.
Evaluation
This happens because we learn expectations of how we should behave in certain situations and then conform to these expectations when that situation arises. As I write this (August 2014) this study and area of social influence seems to be out of favour with AQA. However, be warned, identification is due for a return on the post 2015 specification!
Zimbardo’s Stanford prison simulation (1973)
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. The remaining prisoners became passive, dependent and had flattened emotions. Zimbardo suggested that there were a number of processes that contributed to the pathological prisoner syndrome:
The loss of personal identity – the prisoners were de-individuated by being stripped of their individuality, their name, dress, appearance, behaviour style, and history. Living among strangers who do not know your name or history, dressed like all the other prisoners, all led to the weakening of self-identity among the prisoners.
The arbitrary control exercised by the guards - on post-experimental questionnaires, the prisoners said they disliked the way that the way they were subjected to the arbitrary and changeable decisions and rules of the guards as this made life unpredictable and unfair. For example, smiling at a joke could be punished in the same way that failing to smile might be. As the environment became more unpredictable, the prisoners’ behaviour showed signs of learned helplessness. ·
Dependency and emasculation - the prisoners were made to be totally dependent on the guards for commonplace functions such as going to the toilet, reading, lighting a cigarette and this emasculated them. The smocks, worn without underwear, lessened their sense of masculinity. This was taken to the extent that when the prisoners were debriefed they suggested that they had been assigned to be prisoners because they were smaller than the guards. In fact there was no difference in average height between the prisoners and guards, and the perceived difference was a response to the prisoners’ perception of themselves and their lack of power.
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.’ The guards were given control over the lives of other human beings and did not have to justify their displays of power as they would normally have to in their daily lives. They started to enjoy this power very earlier on in the study (pathology of power) as demonstrated that even after the first day all prisoner rights became redefined as privileges, and all privileges were cancelled.
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. This link is to a 30 minute documentary on the SPE. Youtube does have shorter versions if you want an abridged viewing. |
Ethics
The right to withdraw was denied to one participant for a short time: “Less than 36 hours into the experiment, Prisoner #8612 began suffering from acute emotional disturbance, disorganized thinking, uncontrollable crying, and rage. In spite of all of this, we had already come to think so much like prison authorities that we thought he was trying to "con" us -- to fool us into releasing him.” “When our primary prison consultant interviewed Prisoner #8612, the consultant chided him for being so weak, and told him what kind of abuse he could expect from the guards and the prisoners if he were in San Quentin Prison. #8612 was then given the offer of becoming an informant in exchange for no further guard harassment. He was told to think it over.“. “During the next count, Prisoner #8612 told other prisoners, "You can't leave. You can't quit."
Other issues
- 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.
- 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
Zimbardo believes that the study demonstrate the powerful effect roles can have on peoples’ behaviour. Basically the participants were playing the role that they thought was expected of, either a prisoner or prison guard. (It is in fact a simulation of what we expect prison life to be, rather than what it is, as none of the participants had previously been in prison as a guard or prisoner).
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.
Real Life example:
|
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 WW II. 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.’
|
In fact Eichmann himself was said to be sickened by what he saw when he toured the concentration camps. However, although he had dreamed up the ‘final solution’ as far as we know he took no part in the following through of the genocide. All those that did played a relatively minor role in the overall massacres and, according to Milgram, were able to comfort themselves with the knowledge that they were only obeying orders. 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.
|
|
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!!!!!).
- 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!!!
|
This link is to a BBC re-run of the Milgram procedure carried out in 2009. The procedure is faithful to the original as are the findings.
Again there are lots of Youtube clips of the original, mostly poor quality. This clip provides explanations of the procedure and comments by a social psychologist. Note however, that psychologists would not have been able to get involved in the design of the study due to BPS code of ethics! |
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!
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!
|
Variation
Standard procedure Closer proximity Touch proximity Less prestigious setting Telephoned orders An ally Less responsibility |
How it was done
Teacher and learner in adjacent rooms Teacher 1 metre from learner Teacher has to push learner’s hand onto electrodes Experiment repeated in a run down office Experimenter has to leave and phones instructions in. A stooge disagrees with the experimenter A stooge gives the shocks when the ‘teacher’ says so. |
% Obedience
65% 40% 30% 48% 21% 10% 90% |
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.
|
Country
USA Germany UK Jordan Australia Italy |
Researchers
Milgram (1963) Mantell (1971) Barley & McGuinness Shanab & Yahya (1978) Kilham & Mann (1974) Ancona & Pareyson (1968) |
Participants
Male (general population) Male (general population) Male (students) Students Female students Students |
% Obedience
65 85 50 62 16 85 |
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.
Different studies have used different populations, i.e. some have used students, others the general population.
- Milgram used a mild mannered Mr. Wallace with a dickey ticker. In the Australian study a female student replaced him.
- In most scenarios the ‘learner‘ was male, in the Australian she wasn’t.
- 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: validity and ethics
Experimental (or internal) Validity
Internal validity considers whether the procedure is measuring what the researchers believe. In this case is it measuring obedience to authority? 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. Orne and Holland make a number of claims, each of which is refuted by Milgram:
The following procedure would seem to support the internal validity of 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.
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:
- The nurse did not know Dr Smith
- The nurse did not receive written authority
- 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:
- Nurses were deceived
- There was no consent
- No right to withdraw.
However, Rank and Jacobsen (1977) 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. We shall see later that having time to think about your actions and the opportunity to discuss actions with others significantly reduces obedience. (See Gamson).
Meeus and Raaijmakers (1995)
Participants had to interview job applicants in order to see how good they were at coping with stress. The participants had to ask a series of questions, fifteen of which were ‘stress questions’ which got ever more negative about the job applicants. The applicants (stooges of the research team) became ever more stressed during the interview and pleaded for the interviewers to stop. Obedience was assessed by how many of the stress questions the participants were prepared to ask. 22 of the 24 participants asked all fifteen. Again an example of obedience to authority but in a more natural setting than Milgram.
Ethics of Milgram
|
Criticism
Measures were not taken to protect participants from physical or psychological harm The right to withdraw from the experiment was not made clear to participants. Use of phrases such as ‘You have no choice, you must go on,’ would suggest participants did not have a choice. The experiment should have been stopped. Although participants gave their consent to take part, this was not informed since they did not know the purpose of the study or what it would entail. Deception was used. |
By who
Baumrind (1964) Coolican (1990) Baumrind (1964) |
Milgram’s defence
The results were unexpected. Before starting Milgram asked professionals for their opinions. Most thought the teacher would stop when the learner protested. Milgram believes that they did have the right to withdraw, in fact, some did. Milgram did not believe the distress caused was sufficient to warrant stopping! Milgram refers to deception as ‘technical illusions.’ Without them the experiment would have been meaningless. |
Other points worth making in an essay on ethics of Milgram.
They all received a full report of the procedure and findings
They were all sent a questionnaire.
The questionnaire: a staggeringly high 92% returned the questionnaire. Of these:
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.
- Milgram's main defence centres on the debrief that all participants received afterwards. During this participants were reassured about their behaviour:
- They were reunited with an intact Mr Wallace
- They were assured that no shocks had been given
- 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!').
They all received a full report of the procedure and findings
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.
Police Batallion 101
Beginning in mid-July 1942 with the round-up of Jews in the town of Jozefow near Bilgoraj, members of Police Battalion 101 were utilized for the mass shooting of Jewish civilians in towns throughout the Lublin district.
Police Battalion 101's participation in the Final Solution culminated in the Erntefest [Harvest Festival] massacre of November 3-4, 1943. In the course of this killing action, perhaps the largest directed against Jews of the entire war, an estimated 42,000 Jewish prisoners at the Lublin district concentration camps of Majdanek, Trawniki and Poniatowa were wiped out. It is estimated that during the period between July 1942 and November 1943, Police Battalion 101 was alone responsible for the shooting deaths of more than 38,000 Jews and the deportation of 45,000 others.
In the final sixteen months of the war Police Battalion 101 was engaged in actions against partisans and enemy troops. Almost all battalion members survived the collapse of the Third Reich and returned safely to Germany. In the immediate postwar period only four members of the unit suffered legal consequences for their actions in Poland.
Beginning in mid-July 1942 with the round-up of Jews in the town of Jozefow near Bilgoraj, members of Police Battalion 101 were utilized for the mass shooting of Jewish civilians in towns throughout the Lublin district.
Police Battalion 101's participation in the Final Solution culminated in the Erntefest [Harvest Festival] massacre of November 3-4, 1943. In the course of this killing action, perhaps the largest directed against Jews of the entire war, an estimated 42,000 Jewish prisoners at the Lublin district concentration camps of Majdanek, Trawniki and Poniatowa were wiped out. It is estimated that during the period between July 1942 and November 1943, Police Battalion 101 was alone responsible for the shooting deaths of more than 38,000 Jews and the deportation of 45,000 others.
In the final sixteen months of the war Police Battalion 101 was engaged in actions against partisans and enemy troops. Almost all battalion members survived the collapse of the Third Reich and returned safely to Germany. In the immediate postwar period only four members of the unit suffered legal consequences for their actions in Poland.
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.
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.
|
Mai Lai massacre
Mai Lai is a hamlet in the Son My district of Quang Ngai Province of the then South Vietnam Republic. On March 16, 1968, Captain Ernest Medina ordered ‘Charlie Company’ into the Mai Lai area. The exact wording of those orders was to become a major bone of contention in subsequent investigations and court hearings. Like a lot of the American forces in Vietnam in 1968, Charlie Company was in a demoralized state. It had suffered casualties by sniper fire, machine-gun fire, mines and other forms of attack. |
|
When Charlie Company entered Mai Lai they encountered no resistance from Viet Cong Soldiers, yet three hours later there were over 500 civilian Vietnamese, men, women and children dead. Lieutenant William Calley, for whatever reason, ordered his men to kill, burn and destroy everything in the village. By late evening the American Army Headquarters was claiming a victory, with 128 Viet Cong and some civilians killed. It was to take over a year and numerous investigations before the full horror of Mai Lai was to emerge into the public domain. In 1971 Calley was convicted of premeditated murder and sentenced to life in prison. A few days later he was released on the orders of President Nixon and eventually served just over four months of the sentence.
Situational Factors
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. 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.
Blass & Schmitt (2001) showed video footage of the Milgram procedure to students and asked them who they blamed for the outcome. Most blamed the experimenter who was seen as a legitimate authority figure to be obeyed.
Some degree of obedience is essential for societies to function. Legitimate authority is an essential element of this. The danger arises when that authority is destructive, for example The Nazis in 1930s Germany, Stalin in the Soviet Union and the actions of Charlie Company in the Mai Lai Massacre in Vietnam.
Blass & Schmidt (2001)found support for the idea of legitimate authority. They showed video footage of the Milgram experiment to a collection of students and asked them who was to blame for the behaviour of the teachers. Most believed the experimenter to be to blame since he was the one with legitimate authority in this situation. They believed obedience to be caused by legitimate authority.
Cross-cultural explanations
As we saw earlier, when Milgram’s situation has been recreated in other parts of the world, the findings have varied, ranging from 85% obedience in Germany down to 16% in Australia. Some have suggested that this could be caused by differing attitudes to authority in different cultures. Australians are famed for their healthy disrespect for authority and perhaps are therefore less likely to obey.
However, comparison of these cross-cultural studies isn’t valid. Each used differing samples, sometimes men only, sometimes mixed gender groups, sometimes students, sometimes adults. The low level of obedience in the Australian study is usually attributed to it being women giving shocks to other women!
Agentic State
Milgram believed that we operate on two levels:
- As autonomous individuals, conscientious and aware of the consequences of our behaviour.
- 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 of a combination of obedience to authority, buffers that prevent an appreciation of consequences and graduated commitment that blurs the distinction between reasonable and unreasonable requests by others.
Once in the agentic state, binding factors keep us there:
- Fear of being rude and for example spoiling someone’s experiment.
- Fear of increasing our levels of anxiety by disobeying.
Milgram famously described agentic shift as ‘the fatal flaw that nature has designed into us.’ He also believed it was agentic shift that explained both the behaviour of the participants in his study as well as the behaviour of the Germans under the Nazis. As a result he considered his study to be a good model of Nazi behaviour.
Once in an agentic state Milgram believes binding factors prevent us leaving easily. These help us justify our behaviour or allow it to be rationalised. For example in his procedure, the participants may blame Mr Wallace for his predicament, claiming he volunteered, he deserves what he gets.
|
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! |
|
Dispositional Factors
|
Authoritarian personality (Adorno et al 1954)
Theodor Adorno’s ideas stemmed from the treatment of Jews in Nazi Germany. His work was aimed at discovering a link between ‘collective ideologies’ such as those proposed by the Nazis and the personalities of individuals. Adorno (a German sociologist and philosopher) 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. Outwardly they would still idolise their parents whilst fearing or loathing them at an unconscious level (reaction formation). Likely targets for their displaced anger would be those seen as being weak and unable to fight back, what we call scapegoating. Minority groups, the poor, unemployed would be ideal. This is clearly a psychodynamic theory of personality! |
F-scale
Adorno and his co-workers devised a number of scales to measure the authoritarian personality, the one that became synonymous with authoritarianism being the F (fascism) scale. Someone scoring highly would have the following characteristics:
- Rigid beliefs in conventional values
- Hostility to out-groups or anyone they perceive as different to themselves and their in-groups
- Intolerance of ambiguity, preferring simple issues with plain yes/no answers. Shades of grey would not be appreciated (especially not fifty of them J)
- Submissive to authority figures... always doing as they’re told without question or hesitation
- Belief that people can be divided simply into two groups; weak or strong
- Belief that authority should be aggressive, for example support the use of capital and overly aggressive corporal punishment such as public beatings
- Believe homosexuals should be severely punished
Anyone got a copy of the Daily Mail?
Evaluation
Milgram and Elms (1966) administered the test to some of the participants who had been most obedient in his research and found a strong correlation. However, being correlational we cannot be sure that the authoritarian personality caused the obedience. Other factors, for example low level of education could just as easily be responsible for both.
In Nazi Germany, millions of people obeyed and were involved in the holocaust at some level. It is difficult to believe that all of these had an authoritarian personality. Mass obedience of this sort seems to be much easier to explain using situational rather than dispositional factors.
Methodological criticism
Try taking the questionnaire online. You’ll immediately notice a trend in the direction of the questions. Scores of 1 or 2 ALWAYS suggest low authoritarian personality whereas scores of 5 or 6 ALWAYS suggest high authoritarian personality. This is bad practice, almost drawing participants into high or low scores.
Take the F-test
How do we become authoritarian?
According to Adorno, the personality stems from harsh treatment and overly strict upbringing and by parents who impose conditional love, i.e. affection is dependent on the child behaving in accordance with parental wishes. Children are brought up to be fearful of failure, believing it will let their parents down.
Children become resentful, but because of the respect for parents that they feel, they have to displace this resentment and sometimes hatred elsewhere. Usually it is focused on those perceived to be weak by the process of scapegoating.
However, McCourt et al (1999) believed the authoritarian personality to be inherited. Certainly MZ twins seem to have a higher concordance rate than DZ. However, MZ twins also have a more similar upbringing and shared environment. They are also always the same gender. This might explain the greater similarity.
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, found that southerners were no more authoritarian than their northern cousins. This suggests a lack of internal validity in what the F-scale is measuring.
However, 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.
Resistance to Social Change
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.
Social Support and Conformity
Asch found that a non-conformist ally reduced conformity from a baseline 37% down to 25%. This effect remained even if the ally gave a different answer to both the other stooges and the real participant.
However, is this reduction in conformity due to ISI, NSI or perhaps an element of both?
In one of Asch’s variations the ally gave an answer that was even more wrong than the other stooges. This still resulted in lower levels of conformity than without an ally. The participant realises that they are wrong (they give a different answer) but are still more confident in remaining independent. We can only assume this is due to reduced NSI.
Allen & Levine on the other hand (1971 by the way), provide some support for ISI. They provided the participant with a dissenting ally, but one with very thick glasses who was clearly having issues seeing the lines. This invalid ally (in-valid, not invalid) reduced conformity but not by as much as a confederate with good eyesight. It seems plausible to assume that the difference between the two stooges (one valid one not, 64% and 36% respectively) must be due to ISI. The invalid stooge being less believable.
Social support and obedience
A disobedient ally in the Milgram procedure had an even more dramatic effect, reducing obedience from the baseline 65% down to 10%. This idea of group or social support is also evident in the Gamson ‘Oil Company’ study. Only 29 out of the 33 groups that took part obeyed what were seen as morally unjust instructions from the company. Disobedience, therefore ran at 88%. The reason for this might be that the participants were in groups, were able to discuss the situation and had a result had the confidence to disobey.
Locus of Control (Dispositional Factor)
Rotter (1966) believes that dispositional factors also need to be considered and came up with the concept of Locus of Control. Do we see ourselves as being in control of our own behaviour or do we believe outcomes are determined more by events?
Research suggests that those with a high internal LOC are:
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.
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.
Applying LoC to social influence
Shute (1975) found that people with high internal LoC were less likely to be influenced by other’s attitudes to drugs. Avtgis (1998) found a slight correlation between external LoC and conforming behaviour. Other studies have found little or no correlation.
Holland (1967) however, found high internals were significantly less likely to obey in the Milgram situation (37% disobeyed) compared to only 23% disobedience for high externals. Rotter (1982) believes LoC is most effective in novel situations. If a person has conformed or obeyed in a situation before then, regardless of their LoC, they are likely to so again in future.
A disobedient ally in the Milgram procedure had an even more dramatic effect, reducing obedience from the baseline 65% down to 10%. This idea of group or social support is also evident in the Gamson ‘Oil Company’ study. Only 29 out of the 33 groups that took part obeyed what were seen as morally unjust instructions from the company. Disobedience, therefore ran at 88%. The reason for this might be that the participants were in groups, were able to discuss the situation and had a result had the confidence to disobey.
Locus of Control (Dispositional Factor)
Rotter (1966) believes that dispositional factors also need to be considered and came up with the concept of Locus of Control. Do we see ourselves as being in control of our own behaviour or do we believe outcomes are determined more by events?
Research suggests that those with a high internal LOC are:
- Active seekers of information so not so likely to rely on others for information
- Achievement orientated so tend to make better leaders
- 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.
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.
Applying LoC to social influence
Shute (1975) found that people with high internal LoC were less likely to be influenced by other’s attitudes to drugs. Avtgis (1998) found a slight correlation between external LoC and conforming behaviour. Other studies have found little or no correlation.
Holland (1967) however, found high internals were significantly less likely to obey in the Milgram situation (37% disobeyed) compared to only 23% disobedience for high externals. Rotter (1982) believes LoC is most effective in novel situations. If a person has conformed or obeyed in a situation before then, regardless of their LoC, they are likely to so again in future.
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
- “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.
- 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!
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
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
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:
- They always say the slides are green
- They say the slides are green on two thirds of occasions.
Findings:
- When the stooges say ‘green’ every time: 8% of the majority agree
- When the stooges are less consistent this falls to 1.25%
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:
- The stooges randomly answer ‘green’ on half of the trials and ‘blue-green’ on the other half.
- The stooges answer ‘green’ to the brighter slides and ‘green-blue’ to the darker slides
- 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.
Maass and Clark (1984) got a group of heterosexual participants to watch a debate on gay rights between a majority heterosexual group and a minority homosexual group. In fact the observers were more likely to be swayed by the majority heterosexual group than the minority. Regardless of the majority or minority position we are more likely to be swayed by people like ourselves… our in-group. This is best explained by Tajfel’s Social Identity Theory.
Social Change
This final section builds upon minority influence, seeing this as the igniting spark of social change. However, to some extent it also ties in some of the earlier ideas of internalisation and compliance that we looked at in conformity.
Attention seeking
The minority need to get lots of media attention. They are a minority and may therefore struggle to get their message across. Usually this involves organising marches, sit ins, blocking roads or access to public buildings. Examples would include the civil rights protests in the southern states of the USA and Ghandi’s sit ins during India’s fight for independence from the British.
Consistency
As already seen with Moscovici’s research and Conversion theory, consistency is vital, both over time and between individuals within the minority group.
Deeper processing of the message
If a message is significantly different to ideas currently in circulation amongst the majority it gets further attention. People want to know how others can develop ideas so different to those commonly held as fact. Because the message is processed at a deeper level it is likely to take on greater significance and at least for a few, lead to internalisation.
Augmentation Principle
Some members of the minority often take greater risks to get their message across. Women that strapped themselves to the gates of Greenham Common US air force base during the CND rallies of the 1980s, or members of Greenpeace that place small boats between whales and the harpoons of the whalers. This are seen to be making sacrifices and clearly not benefiting from their stance.
Snowball Effect
Gradually others are drawn to the message and numbers start to increase. In the early days this will be via internalisation of the message. Later, as numbers grow and grow, those left outside will start to feel like a minority and may conform initially via compliance and NSI. They will feel left out by not conforming.
Eventually, the message will be so strong that a change in the law will be needed. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed racial discrimination in the USA. In the UK gay marriage as recently been legalised, smoking has been banned in public places, drink-driving has long since been illegal. All of these started as minority ideas.
Social Cryptomnesia
This is a strange concept. You probably recognise the ‘mnesia’ component as referring to some kind of memory loss. This refers to the idea that as a social group we tend to recall that change has taken place but tend to forget about the steps that brought it about; the rallies, sit-ins, riots etc.
Evaluation
All of the ideas presented above are based on social influence research, Moscovici, Asch etc. As we’ve noted throughout, this often lacks external validity, is carried out in laboratories and involves tasks of low mundane realism. Use these ideas when evaluating research into social change!
Explaining social change using the Suffragettes as an example
Personally this is how I'd answer the typical questions that AQA seem to ask. You may be asked about recent revolutions/evolutions in gay rights, recycling, vegetarianism, ant-smoking etc., but the same rules and same basic structure are the same:
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 threw 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. Minority groups often get lots of media coverage because their message is different. Lots of coverage can give the impression that the idea is more prevalent than it really is. 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!
