Social obedience studies Flashcards
Zimbardo procedure - Selecting participants and setting up study
Mock prison in basement of Yale psych dept
21 male student volunteers who tested as “emotionally stable”
Randomly assigned to prison guard or prisoners
Both roles encouraged to conform to their social roles through uniform they wore and instructions about their behaviour
:)
:)
Zimbardo procedure - Uniforms
Prisoners = Loose smock and cap, identified by number (names never used)
Guards = Mirror shades (hide identity), wooden club, handcuffs, khaki uniform
These uniforms created a loss of personal identity (de-individualisation), meaning they would be more likely to conform to a perceived social role
Zimbardo procedure - Instructions about behaviour
Prisoners could “apply for parole” instead of leaving the study early
Guards were reminded they had complete power over the prisoners
What did Zimbardo want to investigate?
Whether prison guards behaved brutally due to sadistic personalities or their social role
Zimbardo findings related to social roles
Within 2 days prisoners rebelled - ripped uniforms, shouted and swore at guards who retaliated with fire extinguishers
Guards used “divide-and-rule” tactics by playing the prisoners off against each other
Guards constantly harassed prisoners to remind them of the powerlessness of their role e.g. frequent headcounts, sometimes at night
Guards highlighted differences in social roles by creating opportunities to enforce the rules and administer punishments
Prisoners became subdued, depressed and anxious after rebellion was put down
One was released as he showed signs of psychological disturbance
Two more released on 4th day
One went on hunger strike, guards tried to force-feed him and then punished him by putting him in “the hole” (tiny dark closet)
Guards identified more closely with their role
Their behaviour became increasing brutal and agressive, some appeared to enjoy the power they had over prisoners
Zimbardo ended study after 6 days instead of 14
Zimbardo conclusions related to social roles
Social roles APPEAR to have strong influence on individual’s behaviour
Guard became brutal, priosners became submissive
Roles were easily taken on
Even volunteer who came in to perform specific functions e.g. prison chaplain behaved like they were in a prison
Milgram’s baseline procedure
US male participants gave fake electric shocks to a “Learner” in response to instructions from an “experimenter”
Milgram’s baseline findings
65% gave highest shock of 450 V
100% gave shocks of up to 300V
Many showed signs of anxiety e.g. sweating
Milgram’s situational variables procedure and findings
Proximity - Obedience 40% with T and L in same room, 30% for touch proximity. Psychological distance affects proximity
Location - Obedience 47.5% in run-down office building. University’s prestige gave it authority
Uniform - Obedience 20% when Experimenter was “member of the public”. Uniform is symbol of legitimate authority
Agentic state AO1
Agentic state -Acting as an agent of another person
Autonomous state - Free to act according to conscience. Switching between two - agentic shift
Binding factors - Allow individual to ignore the damaging effects of their obedient behaviour, reducing moral strain
Legitimacy of authority AO1
Legitimacy of authority - Created by hierarchical nature of society. Some people entitled to expect obedience. Learned in childhood
Destructive authority - Problems arise when used destructively (e.g. Hitler)
The Authoritarian personality AO1
AP and obedience - Adorno et al. described AP as extreme respect for authority and submissiveness to it, contempt for inferiors
Origins of AP - Harsh parenting creates hostility that cannot be expressed against parents so is displaced onto scapegoats
Adorno et al.’s research: Procedure - Used F-scale to study unconscious attitudes towards other racial groups
Findings - APs identify with “strong” people, have fixed cognitive style, and hold stereotypes and prejudices
Minority influence AO1
Consistency - If the minority is consistent (synchronic or diachronic) this attracts the attention of the majority over time
Commitment - Personal sacrifices show commitment, attract attention, reinforce message (augmentation)
Flexibility - Minority more convincing if they accept some counterarguments
Explaining the process of change - The three factors make the majority think more deeply about an issue
Snowball effect - Minority view gathers force and becomes majority influence
Social influence and social change AO1
Lessons from minority influence research - Minority influence is a powerful force for innovation and social chang eE.g. civil rights marches (USA): influence involves (1) drawing attention, (2) consistency, (3) deeper processing (thinking), (4) augmentation (risks), (5) snowball effect,
(6) social cryptomnesia (forgetting). Lessons from conformity research Dissent breaks power of majority (Asch). Normative social influence draws attention to what majority is doing. Lessons from obedience research
Disobedient role models (Milgram).
Gradual commitment leads to change
(Zimbardo)
