SOCIAL INFLUENCE Flashcards
WHAT IS MEANT BY ‘SOCIAL INFLUENCE’?
Process, in which an individual’s behaviour, beliefs or attitude is changed by the presence of others
WHAT IS MEANT BY ‘CONFORMITY’?
A change in beliefs or behaviours to be accepted by the majority (majority influence)
WHAT TYPES OF CONFORMITY DID KELMAN (1958) PROPOSE?
(FROM THE MOST SUPERFICIAL TO THE MOST REAL)
COMPLIANCE
IDENTIFICATION
INTERNALISATION
OUTLINE WHAT IS MEANT BY ‘COMPLIANCE’ CONFORMITY.
Simply going along with the majority (a superficial change), but there is no personal acceptance of the behaviour of beliefs. Although the individual may reflect these behaviours/beliefs in public, they will not practice them privately and therefore, compliance results in temporary changes
WHERE = results in only public change in behaviour (superficial change) and private behaviour remains the same
TIME = temporary, as behaviour lasts until there is less group pressure to conform
OUTLINE WHAT IS MEANT BY ‘IDENTIFICATION’ CONFORMITY.
When an individual values or admires a group, they tend to display the same same behaviours/beliefs to improve their chances of being accepted, but this does not necessarily result in a change of a person’s private beliefs
WHERE = public change, less common to have a private change in behaviour/beliefs- considered social acceptance
TIME = ranges from short-term to long-term changes
OUTLINE WHAT IS MEANT BY ‘INTERNALISATION’ CONFORMITY.
An individual genuinely accepts the social norms of a group
WHERE = Results in both public and private change in behaviour, with behaviour persisting outside group
TIME = Long-term and permanent changes in individual’s behaviour, added to lifestyle
WHAT DOES DEUTSCH & GERARD’S TWO-PROCESS THEORY (1955) INTEND TO EXPLAIN?
Deutsch & Gerard (1955) attempted to explain the reason why people people conform to the majority- the reasoning behind conformity
OUTLINE WHAT TWO EXPLANATIONS THE TWO-PROCESS THEORY OFFERS.
Deutsch & Gerard (1955) believed that there was two central desires for people to conform;
1. The desire to be right (ISI)
2. The desire for social acceptance/the fear of social rejection (NSI)
BRIEFLY OUTLINE THE KEY FEATURES OF THE INFORMATIONAL EXPLANATION OF CONFORMITY (ISI).
DEFINITION - when people are uncertain, they rely on others for guidance and may conform to the majority
WHY - the majority is more likely to be correct, therefore people conform to also be correct
PROCESS - ISI is a cognitive process
TYPE/TIME - permanent change in behaviour (internalisation)
WHERE - most likely to occur in new, ambiguous and crisis situations because there is more confusion and a greater need for an answer, people are more likely to conform (high-stress situations)
BRIEFLY OUTLINE THE KEY FEATURES OF THE NORMATIVE EXPLANATION OF CONFORMITY (NSI).
DEFINITION - people conform to group norms (common behaviours or traits found in individuals/social circles), in hopes of social acceptance fear of social rejection
WHY - following norms increases social acceptance and reduces risk of social rejection
PROCESS - NSI is an emotional process
TYPE/TIME - temporary change in behaviour (compliance)
WHERE - NSI is most commonly found in interactions with strangers and friends, because there is a higher risk of social rejection also occurs more often in stressful situations, greater need for social acceptance
EVALUATE TYPES OF CONFORMITY.
STRENGTH:
RESEARCH SUPPORT (WITTENBRINK & HENLEY 1996)
Wittenbrink & Henley conducted a study on participants and gave them negative truths about African Americans (what they assumed to be from a majority). They found that following the study, participants reported similar negative attitudes towards African Americans. This supports the ISI explanation, as it suggests that individual’s changed their attitudes and views to align with the majority, who they believed were more correct or informed. As a result, this supports the ISI explanation of conformity because it suggests individuals may change their views (internalisation) to be correct, which adds validity to Duetsch & Gerard’s two-process theory.
EVALUATION: TYPES OF CONFORMITY.
STRENGTH:
RESEARCH SUPPORT (ASCH 1951)
NSI has research evidence to support the explanation given. Asch (1951) interviewed participants post-study and found that some participants reported to have conformed due to desire of social approval. In a follow-up, participants were made to write their answer down and results showed that conformity levels fell to only 12.5%, this is because anonymity may reduce the weight of normative group pressure. Therefore, this adds validity to this explanation because NSI has been found as an explanation for conformity in the results of social studies, such as Asch.
EVALUATION: TYPES OF CONFORMITY
STRENGTH:
RESEARCH SUPPORT (LUCAS ET AL. 2006)
ISI has research evidence to support the explanation. Lucas et al. (2006) found that participants conformed when they were given more difficult Math problems. This supports ISI because it suggests that when people are uncertain, they rely on others for guidance in order to be correct, especially in stress-inducing or ambiguous situation. Therefore, this adds validity to this explanation because ISI has been found as an explanation for conformity in the results of social studies, such as Lucas et al.
EVALUATION: TYPES OF CONFORMITY
STRENGTH:
REAL-WORLD APPLICATION (SCHULTZ ET AL. 2008)
Schultz et al. (2008) conducted a study and found that hotel guests changed their behaviour when messages suggested that other guests used fewer towels. This supports the normative explanation of conformity because it suggests that individuals are likely to behave similarly or in-line with others for social acceptance and fear of social rejection. In this case, hotel guests may have used what they assumed was the ‘average’ amount of towels, in hope that the hotel staff kept the individuals in their best regards. As a result, the adoption of the ‘average’ towel usage by hotel guests adds validity to the normative explanation of conformity, as it suggests individuals will conform with what they assume to be the majority in order to be socially accepted. This adds real-world application to Deutsch & Gerard’s two-process explanation.
EVALUATION: TYPES OF CONFORMITY
WEAKNESS:
COUNTER-ARGUMENT (OVERSIMPLISTIC EXPLANATIONS)
ISI and NSI can be considered oversimplistic explanations because there is no clear differentiation between the two. In a follow-up study conducted by Asch (1955), he found that conformity is reduced when there is another dissenting participant, who does not conform with the majority view. However, it is unclear whether the dissenter weakens NSI (dissenter provides social support) or weakens ISI (dissenter provides new source of information). Therefore, this weakens the validity of these explanations because there is no real telling which explanation is occurring or if it is both, in a real-world social situation.
EVALUATION: TYPES OF CONFORMITY
WEAKNESS:
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES
NSI fails to explain exaggerated or unique cases of conformity. For example, nAffiliators have a strong desire for social approval (people-pleasers) more than a regular individual. McGhee & Teevan (1967) found that participants, who were nAffiliators had higher conformity levels than other individuals. However, Deutsch & Gerard’s two-process theory does not take into account unusual cases, like nAffiliators, where conformity may be due to an intrinsic need for social acceptance. Therefore, NSI fails to recognise all cases of conformity and individual differences, as situational pressures do not affect everyone equally, especially as nAffiliators have an exaggerated desire for social approval.
Furthermore, Spencer (1980) conducted a study on science and engineering students and found that there was very low conformity levels. This suggests that individual differences, including expertise and self-confidence may also influence an individual’s decision of whether to conform or not. Deutsch & Gerard failed to recognise that individuals may refuse to conform, in some cases and other explanations beyond ISI and NSI, that might influence refusal to conform. As a result, this undermines the validity of the two-process theory because there may be wider aspects that influence conformity, which Deutsch & Gerard failed to fully recognise.
EVALUATION: TYPES OF CONFORMITY
WEAKNESS:
COUNTER-ARGUMENT (LAB STUDIES)
Studies into the two-process theory and the NSI/ISI explanations of conformity are mostly conducted in lab settings; for example, Asch, Lucas et al (2006) and Wittenbrink and Henley. Lab studies are often highly contrived and artificial and fail to fully reflect the nature of real-life settings. This can undermine the ecological validity of social studies, as they cannot be reflected in the same nature, as real-life social situations, which means there is a high risk of participants developing demand characteristics and behaving artificially, in response. As a result, it is difficult to determine whether participants’ responses in lab-based social studies reflects the full extent of real-life situations, which undermine the ecological validity of research supporting the two-process theory.
EVALUATION: TYPES OF CONFORMITY
WEAKNESS:
THIRD EXPLANATION OF CONFORMITY (TURNER 1991)
Turner (1991) criticised that the two-process theory was a simplistic and incomplete explanation of conformity. He commented that it fails to factor in the importance of social identity. To be liked and right are merely humane natural needs and do not explain every instance of conformity. Instead, we may conform because of our desire to belong within a group and in such cases, group norms wield great influence over us. For example, Abrams et al. (1990) found that participants were much more likely to be influenced by people they considered to be part of their group, rather than outsiders.
Turner therefore argues that there is a third explanation for conformity, which he calls referent social influence (RSI). This suggests that we conform because we want to maintain the norms of the group we see ourselves as belonging to. Doing this reinforces our self-categorisation as a member of that group. The great strength of this triple-process theory is that it can explain why majority opinion continues to influence individuals long after the group itself no longer exists. This suggests that the current two-process model may not fully represent all instances of conformity and instead, Turner’s ‘Referent Social Influence’ (RSI) explanation is much better at explaining cases of conformity.
BRIEFLY OUTLINE THE AIMS & METHODS OF ASCH’S STUDY OF CONFORMITY.
AIM
* To determine whether individuals conform and follow the majority opinion, even when the answer is clearly wrong and unambiguous
METHOD
* Line comparison task- unambiguous (clear answer)
* Naïve participant and confederates
123 American male Psychology student participants
* A few critical trials- all confederates voted one way for the wrong answer
OUTLINE THE FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS OF ASCH’S STUDY OF CONFORMITY.
FINDINGS
* The naïve participant gave the incorrect answer 36.8% of the time
* 25% of participants did not conform at all- 75% conformed in at least one trial
CONCLUSION
* ASCH EFFECT - extent to which participants conform to the majority, despite the existence of a clear answer
* Conformity was most likely due to normative social influence (NSI- recorded in a post-study follow-up)
NAME THE THREE VARIATIONS OF ASCH’S BASELINE PROCEDURE OF CONFORMITY.
- GROUP SIZE - whether the size or agreement of the group was more important
- UNANIMITY - whether a confederate dissenting from the majority would influence levels of conformity
- TASK DIFFICULTY - whether the difficult of a task would influence conformity
OUTLINE THE RELATIONSHIP ASCH FOUND BETWEEN GROUP SIZE AND CONFORMITY.
Asch found a curvilinear relationship between group size and conformity (this means that conformity and group size proportionately increased until a point)
WHAT DOES ASCH’S VARIATION SUGGEST ABOUT GROUP SIZE AND CONFORMITY?
- 1 CONFEDERATE = 3% CONFORMITY
- 2 CONFEDERATES = 14% CONFORMITY
- 3 CONFEDERATES = 31.8% CONFORMITY
- 4, 5 & 6 CONFEDERATES = 35%
DISCUSS WHY THE FINDINGS ON GROUP SIZE MAY RESULT IN THIS.
- Asch suggested that most people are sensitive to the views of others because just one/two confederates was enough to sway their opinion
- However, as the amount of confederates increase the participant may have found the study artifical and refused to conform
OUTLINE THE RELATIONSHIP ASCH FOUND BETWEEN UNANIMITY AND CONFORMITY.
The participant conformed less with a dissenter, even when the dissenting confederate answered with a wrong answer (and not the actual correct one)
WHAT DOES ASCH’S VARIATION SUGGEST ABOUT UNANIMITY AND CONFORMITY?
Conformity rates decreased less than 25% of the level when the majority was unanimous
DISCUSS WHY THE FINDINGS ON UNANIMITY MAY RESULT IN THIS.
The presence of a dissenter freed the participant of the majority opinion and led them to behave independently; conformity depends on the unanimity (agreement) of the majority- the more solid the majority, the more likely an individual is to conform (vice versa)
OUTLINE THE RELATIONSHIP ASCH FOUND BETWEEN TASK DIFFICULTY AND CONFORMITY.
Increased difficulty of line-comparison task (by making the lines similar in length) increased rate of conformity
WHAT DOES ASCH’S VARIATION SUGGEST ABOUT TASK DIFFICULTY & CONFORMITY?
Increased task difficult, equally increased conformity rates
DISCUSS WHY THE FINDINGS ON TASK DIFFICULTY MAY RESULT IN THIS.
Conformity increased; suggests the more ambiguous a situation/task is, the more likely an individual is to rely on the guidance of others; therefore, this means they will conform to the majority more (ISI - in order to be right)
EVALUATION- GROUP SIZE & UNANIMITY
WEAKNESS: METHODOLOGICAL LIMITATIONS
METHODOLOGICAL LIMITATIONS. In Asch’s study, the task and procedure were highly artificial. The lab setting and use of confederates means that there was high risk of demand characteristics. The task itself was trivial and there really was no reason not to conform. Instead, Mori & Arai’s study seems more realistic; they used the MORI technique, which meant that all participants received glasses, but one participant received a pair of glasses that would distort their vision of the comparison lines. This required less acting and deception than the original Asch procedure, and equally could be deemed more ethical and efficient. As a result, Asch’s study lacked mundane realism and ecological validity, two things that Mori & Arai were able to express in their study, which means their findings may be much more relevant and accurate than Asch.
EVALUATION- ASCH’S STUDY OF CONFORMITY
WEAKNESS: ETHNOCENTRISM
ETHNOCENTRISM & GENDER BIAS. Asch conducted his study with a limited sample, all male and American participants. Mori & Arai conducted an updated replica of Asch’s study with 104 Japanese participants (both male and female). Participants were asked to wear ‘sunglasses’, but for one participant, the glasses would distort the actual length of the comparison line on the ‘critical’ trials. They found that the majority participants who saw the correct size rarely answered incorrectly (8%). The minority participants who saw the different sized comparison lines answered incorrectly (conformed), with female minority participants answering incorrectly 29% of the time, while for males it was only 5% of the time. The fact that women conformed more readily than men may be due to cultural differences, as the Japanese participants were exposed to different cultural expectations, and females in Japan are more likely to conform than males. The sample included both genders and had a greater size than Asch’s baseline procedure. None of the participants reported suspecting they were seeing different lines, and all the participants took the task seriously. Mori & Arai’s study, therefore, modernised and enhanced Asch’s baseline procedure (1951). This undermines Asch’s study, as he made incorrect universal assumptions and applied American culture on other collectivist cultures, although they behave differently. This means that this study undervalued the responses of collectivist cultures, as it failed to represent scope of conformity in wider cultural context.
EVALUATION - ASCH’S STUDY
WEAKNESS: GENDER BIAS
(EAGLY & CARLI 1981)
…
EVALUATION - UNANIMITY/GROUP SIZE
WEAKNESS: LOW REALISM WITH ASCH’S GROUPS
(FISKE 2014 & STANG 1973)
LOW REALISM IN GROUP TASKS. In Asch’s study, the groups did not resemble groups that we experience in everyday life (Fiske 2014), most likely due to the confederates. Stang (1973) found that the attractiveness of belonging to a group, for the individual, influences conformity; generally, the more attractive the group is to an individual, the more likely it is they would conform. This means that because the groups in Asch’s study did not reflect realistic groups in everyday life, with their artificiality, it is likely that individuals did not feel the need to conform. Therefore, it is difficult to assume whether the highly artificial and contrived setting produced by the confederates and laboratory environment may have influenced the conformity rates in participants, especially during unanimity and group variations. As a result, this weakens the validity of Asch’s study, as it lacks realism and ecological validity, which makes it difficult to apply to real-world context.
EVALUATION - ASCH’S STUDY OF CONFORMITY
WEAKNESS: CHILD OF ITS TIME (LACKS TEMPORAL VALIDITY)
…
EVALUATION - ASCH’S STUDY OF CONFORMITY
WEAKNESS: ETHICAL ISSUES
…
EVALUATION - ASCH’S STUDY OF CONFORMITY
STRENGTH: RESEARCH SUPPORT
(LUCAS ET AL 2006)
COUNTERARGUMENT: THIRD FACTOR
…
OUTLINE THE AIMS & METHODS OF ZIMBARDO’S STANFORD PRISON EXPERIMENT.
AIM
* To find out if conformity to social roles (behaviour of prisoners and prison guard) was due to dispositional factors or situational variables
METHOD
* 24 ‘emotionally stable’ male participants volunteered to participate (21 later- 3 dropped out)
* Study was conducted in Stanford university, in a mock-prison setup
* Participants were randomly allocated roles of either prisoner or prison guard and were encouraged to follow
* Prisoners were arrested at home, fingerprints and mugshots were taken, like true prisoners
* Uniform was handed out: prisoners had number tags, wig caps and smocks and guards had reflective glasses (blocks view- deindividuation), baton, own uniform and handcuffs
* Several procedures enforced conformity to roles, including encouragement to go on ‘parole’ instead of leaving study, etc this added to the realism of the prison setup
OUTLINE THE FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS OF ZIMBARDO’S STANFORD PRISON EXPERIMENT.
FINDINGS
* DAY 1 – uneventful
* DAY 2 – prisoners barricaded themselves inside a room with mattresses and a cycle of retaliation ensued, one prisoner even had a panic attack
* DAY 3-5 – prison guard utilised extreme methods to punish prisoners and assert dominance;
- Locking up misbehaving prisoners, stripping prisoners, waking up prisoners at midnight to conduct mundane headcounts, verbal assault, forcing them to defecate in buckets etc
- Prison guards used opportunities to highlight differences in social roles and administer punishments
- Prisoners showed symptoms of depression and anxiety, with one prisoner even showing signs of psychological disturbance, in fact 3 had to drop out
- Zimbardo ended the study after 6 days, instead of intended 14
- Even smaller roles given, like ‘prison chaplain’ ended up conforming to social roles, identifying with the prison setting
CONCLUSIONS
* Zimbardo concluded that social roles and situational factors lead people to conform, due to deindividuation (losing self-identity due to becoming overly immersed in social norms)
* Situational factors majorly influence conformity of social roles, with the prisoners becoming submissive and guards behaving brutally
EVALUATION- ZIMBARDO’S STANFORD PRISON EXPERIMENT
STRENGTH:
INTERNAL VALIDITY
INTERNAL VALIDITY. Zimbardo and his colleagues exercised control over the experiment. For example, he selected emotionally stable participants and randomly assigned them the role of prison guard or prisoner to eliminate the influence of participant variables on the study, therefore the behaviour demonstrated by participants can be considered a direct result of conformity to social roles. As a result, the control over extraneous variables produced a high level of internal validity, which means we can be much more confident in concluding that social factors can lead to conformity.
EVALUATION- ZIMBARDO’S STANFORD PRISON EXPERIMENT
WEAKNESS: METHODOLOGICAL LIMITATIONS
COUNTERARGUMENT: ETHICACY OF DUAL-ROLE
COUNTERARGUMENT - ETHICACY OF DUAL-ROLE. Zimbardo may have had too much control over the SPE. His personal involvement and observation of the study may have led to him making decisions and opinions off personal bias. For example, one participant wanted to leave the study and spoke to Zimbardo, in role of superintendent. However, the entire conversation was conducted in the setting that the participant was a prisoner looking to be ‘released’ and Zimbardo responded as a ‘superintendent’, rather than a psychologist conducting a study. Because Zimbardo was also conforming to the role of prison superintendent, he was unable to fulfil his main ethical responsibility. Instead, participants were exposed to the risk of psychological harm. Zimbardo should have maintained his role as an ethical psychologist, through detaching himself from the study and focusing on the participants. Zimbardo’s failure to uphold ethical standards in the SPE undermines the value of the study and can undermine the credibility of psychology as an ethical science.
EVALUATION- ZIMBARDO’S STANFORD PRISON EXPERIMENT
WEAKNESS: METHODOLOGICAL LIMITATIONS
LACKS MUNDANE REALISM.
LACKS MUNDANE REALISM. The experiment did not imitate the true realism of a prison setting. Banuazizi and Movahedi (1975) argued that participants were simply conforming to stereotypes of prisoners and guards, instead of conforming to social roles. One guard reported that he behaved brutally because he was following a character from a film. Equally, the prisoners’ riot could have been done to imitate the stereotypes of typical prisoners. Therefore, this study does little to truly tell us about conformity to social roles, if participants were only following stereotypes.
EVALUATION- ZIMBARDO’S STANFORD PRISON EXPERIMENT
STRENGTH: COUNTERARGUMENT- REAL-WORLD APPLICATION & HIGH REALISM
COUNTERPART – however, there was some degree of realism to the prison setting. McDermott (2019) argued that, because 90% of prisoners had conversations about prison life and Prisoner ‘416’ believed that the prison was a normal prison run by psychologists, rather than the government, the study did effectively replicate a real-life prison setting. Therefore, this provides the SPE a high degree of validity.
REAL-WORLD APPLICATION. Furthermore, real-life research into conditions in Iraqi prisons post-war conditions suggest that Zimbardo may have been correct about conformity to social roles. In the Abu Ghraib prisons, US military police subjected prisoners to violent torture, sexual and physical abuse, with some even being murdered. The guards at Abu Ghraib were similarly affected by an ‘evil situation’ which led them to behave in ways which they would normally reject. Just like some of the guards in Zimbardo’s prison study, the real-life guards at Abu Ghraib inflicted torture on the prisoners. As a result, Zimbardo’s study reflects cases in real-life where individuals may behave violently because of their setting, which adds real-world application to the study. This can offer credible insight into human nature and ways in which prisons can be set up to combat the rise of autocratic guards and mistreated prisoners.**
EVALUATION- ZIMBARDO’S STANFORD PRISON EXPERIMENT
WEAKNESS: COUNTERARGUMENT- SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS
COUNTERARGUMENT – SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS. Zimbardo aimed to explain why guards behaved violently and his explanation sufficiently explains this, however, there may be social implications present with this type of research. Zimbardo failed to recognise that his study could be used as a defence for this type of torture and violence displayed by guards and the influence of ‘social roles’ can be used as an excuse to continue this. His failure to also acknowledge personal autonomy beyond conforming to social roles may give guards in real-life settings (like Abu Ghraib) the right to justifiably continue their behaviour. As a result, this weakens Zimbardo’s study because he failed to recognise the capacity and influence his research may have on real-life prison settings, he may have offered violent guards an excuse, without realising.
EVALUATION- ZIMBARDO’S STANFORD PRISON EXPERIMENT
WEAKNESS: EXAGGERATES POWER OF SOCIAL ROLES.
EXAGGERATES THE POWER OF SOCIAL ROLES. Zimbardo may have exaggerated the influence of social roles on behaviour. For example, 1/3 of the prison guards applied the rules fairly, with another third sympathising with the prisoners, by offering them cigarettes and reinstating privileges (Zimbardo 2007). This left only the final 1/3 to behave brutally. Therefore, this suggests that Zimbardo’s personal views could have led him to bias and over exaggerate the behaviours produced, there could have been more influence of dispositional factors.
EVLUATION- ZIMBARDO’S STANFORD PRISON EXPERIMENT
WEAKNESS: LACK OF REPLICABILITY
LACK OF REPLICABILITY. Recent findings on conformity to social roles reject the findings drawn by Zimbardo. Reicher & Haslam replicated the SPE and found that participants did not immediately conform to their social roles. For example, the guards did not identify with their status and refused to issue their authority. On the other hand, the prisoners challenged guard’s authority, leading to an imbalance in power dynamics and ultimately collapsed the prison system. These results clearly contradict the findings of Zimbardo and suggests that conformity to social roles may not be automatic, as Zimbardo implied; instead, conformity to social roles may rely on further aspects, like dispositional factors (as seen in Reicher & Haslam’s study).
EVALUATION- ZIMBARDO’S STANFORD PRISON EXPERIMENT
WEAKNESS: SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY (SUPPORTS REICHER & HASLAM)
SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY. Tajfel (1981) used social identity theory to explain the differences in findings. Amongst ‘in groups’ (groups identified with) and ‘out groups’ (groups not identified with), individuals prefer and mainly accept the group norms of ‘in groups’. As a result, high levels of social identity gives motivation for individuals to view their ‘in group’ as superior than other groups, including ‘out groups’. This reflects the behaviour of participants in R&H’s study, as although guards were unable to develop as a cohesive group, the prisoners did develop ‘in group’ behaviours and redefined their role as prisoners, to break the system. This supports R&H’s study and suggests there may have been other factors involved in the conformity to social roles because not all guards will conform to their social role.
EVALUATION - ZIMBARDO’S STANFORD PRISON EXPERIMENT
STRENGTH: RESEARCH SUPPORT (SUPPORT FOR REPLICABILITY)
(ORLANDO 1973)
RESEARCH SUPPORT (SUPPORT FOR REPLICABILITY). Orlando (1973) conducted a one-week study and selected psychiatric staff to play the role of patients. After two days, ‘mock patients’ experienced symptoms of psychological disturbance: some cried uncontrollably, others became extremely withdraw and few even attempted to escape. The mock patients quickly began to behave like real patients in a real psychiatric ward. This supports the SPE because staff began to behave realistically and conformed to the role of psychiatric patients like Zimbardo’s participants conformed to the roles of prisoners and guards. The findings support Zimbardo’s argument that the situation has great power to influence behaviour and is more important than personality or other dispositional factors.
OUTLINE THE AIMS & PROCEDURE OF MILGRAM’S STUDY OF OBEDIENCE.
AIM
* To investigate destructive obedience, as a result of the demands given by authority figures, especially the mass obedience observed in WW2 by the Nazis
METHOD
* 40 middle-aged American participants volunteered for a study they were told was on memory
* Roles of ‘teacher’ or ‘learner’ were to be selected, but participants always had ‘teacher’ and confederates always had ‘learner’
* Participants were introduced to ‘experimenter’, who wore a white lab coat and stood at the back assessing participant responses (authority figure)
* Participants were told to shock Learner after every wrong answer, increasing in 15V intervals- began at 15V and increased to 450V (labelled XXX DANGER/LETHAL etc)
* Confederates pretended to be shocked by participants, and by 300V some would pound on the wall, shout and ask to leave
* Participants were given prods by experimenter to continue;
- PROD 1 – ‘Please continue’
- PROD 2 – ‘The experiment requires you to continue’
- PROD 3 – ‘It is absolutely essential that you continue’
- PROD 4 – ‘You have no other choice; you must go on’
OUTLINE THE FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS OF MILGRAM’S STUDY OF OBEDIENCE.
RESULTS
* All participants administered the shocks up to 300V, but only 12.5% (5 participants) stopping at 300V
* 65% of participants continued to 450V- the maximum voltage (lethal voltage)
* Participants demonstrated extreme signs of tension (qualitative data); seen ‘sweating, trembling, stuttering, biting lips, groaning, digging fingernails into palm’ and 3 even experienced uncontrollable seizures
OTHER DATA
* Pre-study, 14 psychology students believed that only 3% of participants would continue to 450V
* Participants were debriefed and 84% said they were glad to have participated
CONCLUSIONS
* Milgram suggested there were certain situational variables, which influenced obedience levels
* Found that people were more obedient than originally predicted
EVALUATION - MILGRAM’S STUDY OF OBEDIENCE
STRENGTH: RESEARCH SUPPORT
(BEAUVOIS ET AL 2012)
RESEARCH SUPPORT. Results of Milgram’s study replicated in a French documentary. Beauvois et al. (2012) found that, in a French reality show, when participants were paid to give electric shocks to other participants (actors), under presenter’s commands, 80% complied and gave the maximum voltage of 460V. Behaviour was identical to Milgram’s participants, producing nervous laughter, nail-biting and other signs of anxiety. This adds reliability to Milgram’s findings, as further research provides the same results.
EVALUATION - MILGRAM’S STUDY OF OBEDIENCE
WEAKNESS: LOW INTERNAL VALIDITY
(ORNE & HOLLAND 1968 - PERRY 2013)
LOW INTERNAL VALIDITY. Milgram might not have truly studied obedience. Milgram reported that 75% of participants believed the shocks were real, however Orne & Holland (1968) believed that the participants were simply going along with what researchers wanted them to do and were simply play-acting; Perry (2013) confirms this with tape evidence that recorded only half of Milgram’s participants believed shocks were real. This suggests that the behaviour produced might not have been realistic and instead based of demand characteristic, with individuals simply going along with the researcher’s wanted results.
EVALUATION - MILGRAM’S STUDY OF OBEDIENCE
COUNTER-ARGUMENT (STRENGTH): HIGH REPLICABILITY
(SHERIDAN & KING 1972)
COUNTER ARGUMENT – Sheridan & King (1972) conducted a study with a procedure like Milgram’s and found that 54% of men and 100% of women would administer electric shocks to a puppy, when commanded by the experimenter. This supports Milgram’s study and adds validity because in multiple replications of Milgram’s study results remain the same, so demand characteristics did not have full effect on results.
EVALUATION - MILGRAM’S STUDY OF OBEDIENCE
WEAKNESS: ALTERNATIVE INTERPRETATION OF FINDINGS
(HASLAM ET AL 2014)
ALTERNATIVE INTERPRETATION OF FINDINGS. Blind obedience requires more factors than Milgram suggested. Haslam et al (2014) found that when the first three prods were delivered, participants continued to administer shocks, but after the fourth prod, this was no longer the case and participants disobeyed. Social identity theory suggests that only participants who identified with the scientific aims of the research felt a need to continue, but participants who did not identify, did not continue. Therefore, destructive obedience can only occur once the individual identifies with the aims of the demands, given by the authority figure.
EVALUATION - MILGRAM’S STUDY OF OBEDIENCE
WEAKNESS: ETHICAL ISSUES
(BAUMRIND 1964)
(+ COUNTER-ARGUMENT)
ETHICAL ISSUES. Milgram’s baseline procedure breached many ethical standards. For example, the participants could not give their full informed consent because they were unaware what the procedure would involve. Participants believed that the allocation of Teacher and Learner roles was random, but the drawing of lots was fixed to make the participant always the Teacher. The main case of deception was leading the participants to believe they were giving real electric shocks that caused harm to the Learner, which could have resulted in long-term psychological damage. Baumrind (1964) argued that the deception was unjustified, in the weighing of costs and benefits. The main consequence of the deception was that the participants could not give their fully informed consent to take part. Their consent was worthless because the participants did not know what they were actually consenting to. The deception also made them vulnerable to psychological harm because they did not know what the procedure involved and what their role in it was. Therefore, the benefits may not outweigh the costs because the reputation of psychological research could become damaged if it frequently uses deception. This in turn would reduce the number of people willing to become participants, making psychological research with representative samples more difficult. This limits the value of Milgram’s study because it could have potentially undermined the ethical considerations behind Psychology as a science.
COUNTERARGUMENT – LACK OF ETHICAL GUIDELINES AT THE TIME. Considering the age of Milgram’s study, there was a lack of ethical guidelines or routinely checks on psychological studies. Milgram’s failure to uphold ethical standards reflects the present issue of psychological studies at the time and raised awareness for a solution to this. As a result, although Milgram’s study really undermined psychology as an ethical science, it also enabled future changes to make psychology more ethical and created formal ethical guidelines.
EVALUATION - MILGRAM’S STUDY OF OBEDIENCE
STRENGTH: RESEARCH SUPPORT
(HOFLING ET AL 1966)
RESEARCH SUPPORT. Holfing et al. (1966) arranged for an unknown doctor to telephone 22 nurses and ask them to administer an overdose of a drug (‘Astroten’) that was not on their ward list. 21/22 nurses obeyed the anonymous doctor’s instructions, which supports Milgram’s conclusions, as they showed incredible obedience towards an authority figure (the doctor), in a real-world situation (hospital ward) in response to an order from an authority figure (a doctor).
EVALUATION - MILGRAM’S STUDY OF OBEDIENCE
WEAKNESS: CONTRADICTING RESEARCH
(RANK & JACOBSON)
CONTRADICTORY RESEARCH. Rank & Jacobson also conducted a replica of Hofling et al’s procedure, but made some methodological adjustments, for example, instead of using an unknown drug the doctor ordered an overdose of an existing drug (‘vallum’). However, Rank and Jacobson’s findings do not support Milgram’s conclusions because only 2/18 nurses complied with the anonymous doctor’s instructions. Their findings suggest that when issues with Hofling et al.’s study are addressed, high levels of obedience do not extend to situations outside the lab. The more realistic the situation, the more resistance to obedience there was.
EVALUATION - MILGRAM’S STUDY OF OBEDIENCE
COUNTER-ARGUMENT: LOW INTERNAL VALIDITY
COUNTERARGUMENT – LACK OF CONTROL OVER EXTRANEOUS VARIABLES. In Rank & Jacobson’s study, nurses conversed with one another, which means that there might have been external factors that influenced levels of obedience. For example, the resistance of obedience (2/18 nurses obeyed) may have been due to social support, as they discussed the conversation with other nurses after the phone call. This means that Rank & Jacobson may not have been testing obedience levels in individual nurses but may have been testing how social support may reduce obedience levels. This reduces the validity of the study because the psychologists did not appropriately control the extraneous variables to measure a cause-and-effect relationship.
EVALUATION - MILGRAM’S STUDY OF OBEDIENCE
STRENGTH: HISTORICAL VALDITY
(BURGER)
HISTORICAL VALIDITY (BURGER) – Burger conducted a replication of Milgram’s baseline procedure 50 years after his study and found similar results. He found that obedience levels were at 70%, with no difference between female and male obedience rates. Burger’s study demonstrates that obedience rates have not dramatically changed in the 50-odd years since Milgram’s study. This suggests that Milgram’s baseline procedure holds historical and temporal validity, as it reflects the same results that it did in the past, as it does in contemporary society.
OUTLINE WHAT IS MEANT BY PROXIMITY & HOW IT CONTRIBUTES AS A SITUATIONAL FACTOR OF OBEDIENCE.
- PROXIMITY – The physical distance/closeness between an individual and an authority figure
- The closer the teacher was to learner, the greater responsibility they felt for their actions and vice versa with farther proximity, they felt less responsibility—easier to administer shocks (due to deindividuation)
OUTLINE THE STANDARD PROCEDURE FOR PROXIMITY IN MILGRAM’S BASELINE STUDY.
In Milgram’s baseline procedure, the teacher could hear the learner but not see them
BRIEFLY OUTLINE THE THREE PROXIMITY VARIATIONS WITH MILGRAM’S BASELINE STUDY.
- STANDARD PROXIMITY VARIATION – The ‘Teacher’ and ‘Learner’ were in the same room
- TOUCH PROXIMITY VARIATION – The teacher had to force the learner’s hand onto an electroshock plate, to administer the electric shocks
- REMOTE INSTRUCTION VARIATION – The Experimenter gave instructions to the teacher via telephone call
