social influence Flashcards
what did zimbardo et al (1973) do?
- set up a mock prison in basement of psych dep at stanford
- selected 21 student male student volunteers
- randomly assigned to play role of guard/prisoner
- both encouraged to conform to social roles both through uniforms + instructions about behaviour
what was zimbardo’s aim?
wanted to know why prison guards behave so brutally - whether because they have sadistic personalities or it was their social role that created such behaviour
how were uniforms and instructions about behaviour used in the SPE?
- the uniforms created de-individuation meaning they would be more likely to conform to the perceived social role
- prisoners = loose smock to wear + cap to cover hair + identified with number (names never used)
- guards = own uniform reflecting status of role + wooden club, handcuffs + mirror shades
- further encouraged to identify with role with several procedures
ex: - rather than leaving study early prisoners could ‘apply for parole’
- guards encouraged by being reminded had complete power over prisoners
what were the findings of the SPE related to social roles for guards?
- guards took roles with enthusiasm + treating prisoners harshly - within two days prisoners rebelled - ripped unforms - shouting + guards retaliated with fire extinguishers
- harassed prisoners constantly reminding them powerless - ex conducted freq headcounts when prisoners stand in line + call out numbers
- highlighted diffs in SRs by creating opps to enforce rules + admin punishments
- guards identified more + more closely with their role - behaviour became increasingly brutal + aggressive - some appearing to enjoy power
- when one prisoner went hunger-strike- force feed + punish by putting him in tiny dark closet
what were the findings of the SPE related to social roles for prisoners?
- after rebellion put down prisoners became subdued, depressed + anxious
- one released - symptoms of psychological disturbance - two more released on fourth day
- zimbardo ended study after 6 days instead of intended 14
what are the conclusions of the SPE related to social roles?
- social roles appear to have strong influence on individuals behaviour - guards became brutal + prisoners submissive
- such roles easily taken on by all ptps - even volunteers who came to perform specific functions found themselves behaving as if were in a prison rather than psych study
how did the uniforms create deindividuation?
- prisoners dehumanised by wearing loose fitting smock, nylon stocking cap + referred to by number not name
- guards - wearing uniform, reflective sunglasses + bring referred to only as ‘mr. correctional officer’
evaluation for SPE
- control
- real-life app
- realism
- 1/3
what are strengths of the SPE?
- control - zim + colleagues had control over key variables - selection of ptps - emotionally-stable individuals chosen + randomly assigned to roles guard/prisoner - can rule out individual personality diffs as exp of findings - if guards + prisoners behaved diff + in those roles by chance - beh due to role - internal validity = high - supp roles in conf
- real-life application
what are limitations of the SPE?
- lacks realism - one guard claimed based his role on brutal character from a film - shows performances were artificial
- findings of SPE tell us little about conformity to social roles in actual prisons
- exaggeration of power of social roles - only 1/3 behaved in brutal manner - most guards able to resist situational pressures to conform - zim minimised influence of dispositional factors
- ethical issues - ptps subdued, depressed + anxious + one left after 2 days - zim did not halt - failed in duty to protect their welfare
what was Milgram (1963) aim?
- wanted to assess obedience levels
- see whether people would obey figure of authority when told to harm another person
what was Milgram’s (1963) procedure?
- 40 male volunteers - paid $4.50
- each ptp introduced to conf upon arrival - drew lots on who would be ‘teacher’ (T) and ‘learner’ (L - called mr wallace) - lot fixed so ptp always teacher
- an ‘experimenter’ also involved who was a conf
- learner - strapped to chair + wired up with electrodes - had to remember pair of words each time made error ptp had to give electric shock via switches on ‘shock machine’
- from slight to intense to danger-severe - when teacher 300 volts L pounded on wall + no response to next q
- 315 again pounded but silent rest procedure
- when ptp refused to administer shock - experimenter gave series of prods
what were the four standard ‘prods’ the experimenter used to get the teacher to continue?
prod 1 - ‘pls continue’/’please go on’
prod 2 - ‘the exp requires that you will continue’
prod 3 - ‘it is absolutely essential that you continue’
prod 4 - ‘you have no other choice, you must go on’
what were the baseline findings of Milgram (1963)? what was the qualitative data?
- all ptps went up to 300v
- 65% went up to 450v - fully obedient
- 12.5% stopped at 300v
- he collected qdata including observations: ptps showed signs of extreme tension - sweating, stuttering , biting lips + three had seizures
what did milgram do after the study?
all ptps in baselin - debriefed + assured beh = normal + sent follow-up questionnaire - 84% glad to have ptp
what does germany have to do with Milgram (1963)?
- he wanted to know why such high prop of germany obeyed hitler’s inhumane requests
- thought possible explanation - germans diff from people from other countries - perhaps more obedient
- to determine this needed a procedure to assess how obedient people are
what were the conclusions of Milgram (1963)?
- concluded german people are not ‘different’ - american ptps willing to obey even when might harm another
- suspected certain factors in situation - encouraged obedience - conducted further studies to investigate
what is obedience?
form of SI where individual follows a direct order - person issuing usually figure of authority who has power to punish
what are strengths of Milgram’s study?
- due to the controlled laboratory nature of exp - every ptp completed exact same procedure - can be replicated - The Game of Death-documentary - ptp believed they were contestants in a pilot episode for new game show - paid to give electric shocks to other ptps (actors) - 80% of the participants
delivered the max shock 460v to an apparently unconscious man - beh almost identical - anxiety signs - reliable - not just due to special circumstances - ptp cared for after - carried out role as a psych - same mental state - after the exp stopped- either when the experimenter used all verbal prods/max voltage reached- all ptps thoroughly de-briefed + de-hoaxed - 84% reported that they felt glad to have participated
- Milgram also kept in touch years after - make sure study left no lasting mental or physical damage
what are weaknesses of milgram?
- low internal validity - ptps behaved the way they did because guessed the shocks were not real - so milgram didnt test what he intended to - Perry listened to tapes of ptps + reported many expressed doubts about shocks
- Androcentric study-data cannot be generalised to females - sample included all men
- ethics - some ptps shaking, laughing hysterically; nervously giggling, sweating heavily + one participant had a seizure
what are the situational variables which can affect obedience as investigated by milgram (1963)?
- situational variables
- proximity
- location
- uniform
what was Milgrams proximity variation like? what were the findings? explanation?
- teacher could hear learner but not see him in baseline
- in proximity variation - teacher + learner in same room - obedience rate dropped to 40%
- in touch proximity - dropped 30%
- remote instruction - reduced 20.5%
- decreased proximity allows people to psychologically distance themselves from consequences of actions - in baseline when seperated ptp less aware of harm so more obedient
what was Milgrams location variation like? what were the findings? explanation?
- conducted in run-down office block - obedience fell to 47.5%
- prestigious uni environment gave study legitimacy + authority - ptps more obedient in location bc perceived experimenter shared this legitimacy + obedience expected
what was Milgrams uniform variation like? what were the findings? explanation?
- in baseline experimenter wore grey lab coat as symbol of his authority
- in one variation experi called away at start + replaced by ordinary civilian (conf) in everyday clothes
- obedience dropped to 20%
- uniforms encourage obedience bc widely recognised as symbols of authority
- accept someone in a uniform entitled to expect obedience bc authority legitimate
- someone without - less right to expect obedience
name the strengths and weaknesses of migrams research into situarional variables
LIMITATIONS
- mandel
- demand characteristics
STRENGTHS
- bickman
- miranda et al
what is one limitation of milgram’s research into situational variables when it comes to offering ‘excuses’? ev
- there is discomfort surrounding his finding’s supporting a situational explanation of obedience
- perspective criticised by Mandel (1998) - argues offers excuse/alibi for evil behaviour - offensive to survivors of holocaust to suggest nazis simply obeying orders
- milgram’s explanation also ignores role of dispositional factors - implying nazis victims of situational factors beyond their control
how is support of the power of uniforms a strength of milgram’s research into situational variables? ev
- bickman (1974)
- tested ecological validity of Milgram’s work by conducting in more realistic setting - 3 researchers gave direct requests to random pedestrians
- in milkman uniform, guard uniform or suit+tie
- found ptps most likely to obey researcher dressed as guard 80% than milkman or civilian 40%
- supports milgram’s findings for uniforms - obedience influenced by amount of authority person perceived to have
how is cross-cultural replication a strength of milgram’s research into situational variables?
- replicated in other cultures. The findings of cross-cultural research have been generally supportive of Milgram
- Miranda et al - obedience rate 90%+ amongst Spanish students -suggests
that Milgram’s concs about obedience not limited to American males - valid across cultures + apply to females too
how is DC a limitation to milgram’s research into situational variables?
- ptps may have been aware procedure faked
- Orne and Holland - criticised milgram og study + point out even more likely in variations bc of extra manipulation
- ex, when experi replaced by a ‘member of public’ - even milgram himself said situation so contrived ptps may well have worked out truth
- therefore in all studies unclear whether findings due to obedience or ptps saw through deception + responded to demand characteristics
what is social support?
- One way people can resist pressure to conform/obey is if have ally - someone supporting their pov
- having an ally can build confidence + allow individuals to remain independent
- These people act as models to show others that resistance to social influence is possible
- individuals who have support for their pov no longer fear being ridiculed - allowing them to avoid nsi
- more likely to disobey orders and NOT conform
why are we more likely to resist if there is social support?
dissenting ally raises possibility other - equally legitimate ways of thinking/responding - assessment of reality which makes more confident in decision
how does albrecht et al’s (2006) research support social support? Evpos
- shows positive effects of SS
- evaluated an eight-week programme to help pregnant adolescents aged 14-19 resist peer pressure to smoke - social support provided by a ‘buddy’
- pregnant teens less likely to not smoke if had mentor who encouraged them to resist peer pressure
- those who did not have buddy - more likely to smoke
how does gameson et al’s (1982) research support the link between social support + resistance to obedience?
- support role of dissenting peers in resisting obedience
- ptp’s told to produce evidence that would be used to help oil company run smear campaign
- higher rates of resistance compared to milgram
- argued high rates because they were in groups so could discuss
- 88% rebelled
- shows peer support linked to greater resistance
how does allen + levine’s (1971) NOT support link between social support + resistance to conformity?
- showed social support does not always help in helping individuals resist the influence of a group
- asch type task carried out - in one instance when dissenter had obviously poor eyesight (thick glasses) resistance only 36%
what is locus of control? who was it proposed by?
- rotter (1966)
- how much a person believes that they have control over their own behaviour
what are the two types of LOC? what is the LOC continuum?
- some people have internal LOC - believe things that happen largely controlled by themselves
- some people have external LOC - believe things that happen outside of their control
- measured along a scale - people not just internal or external - LOC is a scale - individuals can vary position on it - high internal on one end and high ex on other
- low internal + external lie in-between
how does high internal LOC allow for resistance to social influence?
- people who have an internal LOC are more likely to be able to resist pressures to obey + conform as take personal responsibility for their actions
- another explanation is people with high internal LOC tend to be more self-confident, more achievement orientated + highly intelligent + have less need for social approval
- these personality traits lead to greater resistance to social influence
how does holland’s (1967) research support the link between LOC + resistance to obedience? Evpos
- repeated milgram’s baseline study into obedience + measured LOC in ptps
- 37% of internals resisted in comparison to 23% of externals
- increases validity of LOC explanation for resistance as those with internal LOC showed greater resistance
how does twenge et al’s (2004) research contradict link between LOC + resistance? Evneg
- analysed data from american LOC studies conducted over a 40 year period
- data showed over time span - people became more resistant to obedience but also more external
- if resistance linked to internal would expect people to become more internal
- suggests LOC not valid explanation of how people resist social influence
how rotter himself (1982) critiques the links between LOC and resistance?
- points out LOC not necessarily most important factor in determining whether someone resists social influence - LOC depends on situation
- LOC only useful for novel situations when we are in familiar situations previous experiences overpower this - if you have conformed/obeyed in specific situation in past - chances are you will do so again in situation regardless of LOC
- therefore relationship can be seen as exaggerated
name evaluation for LOC
STRENGTHS:
- holland
LIMITATIONS
- rotter
- twenge
what is agentic state?
- mental state where we feel no personal responsibility for our behaviour - believe to be acting for an authority figure - as their agent
- allows to be freed from conscience + allows to obey even a destructive authority figure
what is the autonomous state?
- opposite of agentic state
- are free to behave according to own principles + feel sense of responsibility for own actions
