S1W10-Major Flashcards
Compliance
the process of doing what one is asked or required to do by regulation.
Conformity
the convergence of one’s thoughts, feelings and behaviours with external standards
Obedience
the process of doing as one is told by an authority figure.
Autokinetic effect
visual illusion where a spot of light (projected onto a screen) in a dark room will appear to move, even though it stays still.
Sherif (1935) method
Autokinetic effect
Participants were tested in threes.
With two people with similar estimates and one completely different.
Each person had to say aloud how much the light moved.
Sherif (1935) results
Group converged to a common estimate.
Person whose estimate was different conformed with other two.
In ambiguous situations, a person will look to others for guidance
People will adapt to the group norm in the hope that they know better
Informational influence
Dependence on others for information and to resolve ambiguity (can cause actual cognitive change).
Believe a group is better informed than them.
Asch (1951) method
1 participant, 7 actors.
Say aloud which line was like the target.
Participant went last.
Actors wrong on 12 trials (critical trials).
Asch (1951) results
33% conformed on the critical trials (average).
50% conformed on 6+ trials
5% conformed on all trials
75% conformed at least once
25% of never conformed
In the control group less than 1% gave wrong answer
Normative influence
They want to fit in with the group.
Need for approval.
Mori & Arai (2010) (glasses)
Criticised Asch for using confederates (may act unnaturally).
Instead used 3D glasses and overlay techniques to distort the lines.
Tested in groups of 4.
One person wore different glasses so saw differently.
Women generally conformed with the group norm but men did not.
The different results could have been due to cultural differences (in Japan).
Hodges & Geyer (2006)
Asch’s subjects didn’t conform most of the time (%).
Shows people’s tendency to tell the truth even when others do not.
Show people’s concern for others and their views.
Asch’s subjects had demands placed on them:
o Truth (expressing own view accurately)
o Trust (taking seriously the value of others’ claims)
o Social solidarity (commitment to integrate views of self and others)
Internal attribution
the outcome was caused by something about the person
External attribution
the outcome was caused by something about the situation
Milgram experiments (1963)
21 experiments total (740 participants)
Initial experiment: 100% of participants delivered the highest electrical shock (300V)
Classic experiment: 62.5% went to 450V shock level
Lower rates depending on condition – but always high.
Implications of Milgram experiments
Highly unintuitive and unflattering.
Focused on the situation rather than the person.
Milgram why did people obey?
Foot-in-the-door technique (gradual build-up of shocks)
Proximity of ‘learner’ to participant
Proximity of experimenter to participant
Group pressure
Legitimacy of authority
Participant agentic state
Agentic state
Allow others to direct their actions, and then pass off the responsibility for the consequences to the person giving the orders.
Sheridan & King (1972) - puppy
In Milgram – the closer the teacher was to the learner the lower obedience.
Milgram could be due to ‘poor acting’.
Same as Milgram but learner was a puppy and the shocks were genuine.
Puppy stood to right/left depending on light.
If the puppy got it wrong the participant had to shock.
20/26 went to maximum voltage despite being upset
The only six that refused were men.
Reicher & Haslam (2011)
Explain Milgram through a social identity theory
Participants identify with either experimenter or learner, and act accordingly.
If there is no verbal response from the learner 100% shock maximum.
If the learner complains or sounds hurt the obedience reduces to 62.5%.
Different conditions = different results due to social identification with learner/experimenter.
Russell (2010) - criticism of Milgram
Classic study was calculated to get positive results.
Introduction of learner’s feedback.
Careful choice of actors.
Carefully spaced increments on shock machine.
Burger (2009) - replicating Milgram
Milgram unethical later on
If someone went past 150V they shocked max.
More ethical to test whether people get up to 150V
Most people did
Criticism: • Cultural changes • Heavy screening • Can't see the emotional side of it like Milgram (were they actually upset?) • Loss of power
Milgram as persuasion not obedience
Most weren’t orders:
• “Please continue”
Only the last prompt was:
• “You have no choice”
Stanford Prison Experiment (Zimbardio ,1971)
24 male students randomly assigned as ‘prisoners’ and ‘guards’
Day 2:
Prisoner rebellion & authoritarian backlash
Stripping prisoners of privileges and clothes
Denying use of toilet
Clean toilets with hands
Day 6:
Termination
One prisoner already left due to distress & paranoia
Comparison of Milgran & Zimbardio
Milgram:
Under the right circumstances ordinary people do apalling things
Participants are reluctant
Zimbardio:
Guards applied creativity and enthusiasm to their roles
Less reluctant to be obedient and inflict harm
Only experimental manipulation was role assignment so difficult to know what factors were important in obedience.
Three main factors of obedience
o Authority
o Group pressure
o Norms
