Psychology Social Influence – Flashcards

A change in a person's behaviour or opinions as a result of real or imagined pressure from a person or group of people' (Elliot Aronson 2011).

A deep type of conformity where we take on the majority view because we accept it as correct. It leads to a far-reaching and permanent change in behaviour. even when the group is absent.

A moderate type of conformity where we act in the same way with the group because we value it and want to be part of it. But we don't necessarily agree with everything the majority believes.

A superficial and temporary type of conformity where we outwardly go along with the majority view, but privately disagree with it. The change in our behaviour only lasts as long as the group is monitoring us.

An explanation of conformity that says we agree with the opinion of the majority because we believe it is correct. We accept it because we want to be correct as well. This may lead to internalisation.

Why the German population had followed the orders of Hitler and slaughtered over 10 million Jews, gypsies and members of other social groups in the Holocaust during the second world war

that there are three ways in which people conform to the opinion of a majority

Internalisation Identification Compliance

Internalisation Identification Compliance

Occurs when a person genuinely accepts the group norms. This results in a private as well as a public change of opinions/behaviour. This change is likely to be permanent because attitudes have been internalised, i.e. become pan of the way the person thinks. The change in opinions/behaviour persists even in the absence of other group members.

when a person genuinely accepts the group norms.

in a private as well as a public change of opinions/behaviour.

because attitudes have been internalised, i.e. become part of the way the person thinks.

persists even in the absence of other group members.

When we conform to the opinions/behaviour of a group because there is something about that group we value.

we publicly change our opinions/behaviour to achieve this goal, even if we don't privately agree with everything the group stands for.

Sometimes we conform to the opinions/behaviour of a group because there is something about that group we value. We identify with the group, so we want to be part of it. This may mean we publicly change our opinions/behaviour to achieve this goal, even if we don't privately agree with everything the group stands for.

'going along with others' in public, but privately not changing personal opinions/behaviour.

only a superficial change.

as soon as group pressure stops.

This type of conformity involves simply 'going along with others' in public, but privately not changing personal opinions/behaviour. Compliance results in only a superficial change. It also means that a particular behaviour or opinion stops as soon as group pressure stops.

Informational social influence Normative social influence

They developed a two-process theory, arguing that there are two main reasons people conform.

Deutsch and Gerard

on two central human needs: the need to be right (ISI), the need to be liked (NSI).

who has the better information - you or the rest of the group.

Because we are uncertain about what behaviours or beliefs are right or wrong.

Not knowing the answer to a question in class. But if most of the class agrees on one answer, you accept that answer because you feel they are likely to be right.

is because people want to be right.

cognitive process

because it is to do with what you think.

new to a person (so you don't know what is right) situations where there is some ambiguity, so it isn't clear what is right. crisis situations where decisions have to be made quickly. when one person (or group) is regarded as being more of an expert.

An explanation of conformity that says we agree with the opinion of the majority because we want to be accepted, gain social approval and be liked. This may lead to compliance.

If Germans were different (if they were more obedient).

By establishing a method to study obedience

A form of social influence in which an individual follows a direct order. The person issuing the order is usually a figure of authority, who has the power to punish when obedient behaviour is not forthcoming

Milgram recruited 40 male participants through newspaper adverts and flyers in the post. The ad said that he was looking for participants for a study about memory. The participants requited were aged between 20-50 years. Their jobs ranged from unskilled to professional. They were offered $4.50 to take part. When participants arrived at Milgram's lab they were paid the money at the outset and there was a rigged draw for their role. A confederate always ended up as the learner while the true participant was the teacher. There was also an experimenter (another confederate) dressed in a lab coat, played by an actor. Participants were told they could leave the study at any time. The learner was strapped in a chair in another room and wired with electrodes. The teacher was required to give the learner an increasingly severe electric shock each time the learner made a mistake on a learning task. The task involved learning word pairs. The shocks were demonstrated to the teacher. Thereafter the shocks were not real. The shock level started at 15 (labelled slight shock on the shock machine) and rose through 30 levels to 450 volts (labelled 'danger'-severe shock). When the teacher got to 300 volts (intense shock), the learner pounded on the wall and then gave no response to the next question. After the 315 volt shock, the learner pounded on the wall again but after that there was no further response from the learner. When the teacher turned to the experimenter for guidance, the experimenter gave a standard instruction. 'An absence of response should be treated as a wrong answer'. If the teacher felt unsure about continuing, the experimenter used a sequence of four standard 'prods' which were repeated if necessary Prod 1- 'Please continue' or 'Please go on' Prod 2- 'The experiment requires that you continue' Prod 3- 'It is absolutely essential that you continue' Prod 4- 'You have no other choice, you must go on'

Prod 1- 'Please continue' or 'Please go on' Prod 2- 'The experiment requires that you continue' Prod 3- 'It is absolutely essential that you continue' Prod 4- 'You have no other choice, you must go on'

40

Through newspaper adverts and flyers in the post

Memory

20-50

unskilled to professional

$4.50

At the outset

at 15 (labelled slight shock on the shock machine)

30 levels to 450 volts

The learner pounded on the wall and then gave no response to the next question

The learner pounded on the wall again but after that there was no further response from the learner

The experimenter gave a standard instruction. 'An absence of response should be treated as a wrong answer'

The experimenter used a sequence of 4 standard prods, which were repeated if necessarily Prod 1- 'Please continue' or 'Please go on' Prod 2- 'The experiment requires that you continue' Prod 3- 'It is absolutely essential that you continue' Prod 4- 'You have no other choice, you must go on'

The learner was strapped in a chair in another room and wired with electrodes. The teacher was required to give the learner an increasingly severe electric shock each time the learner made a mistake on learning task of word pairs. The shocks were demonstrated to the teacher. Thereafter the shocks were not real.

No participants stopped below 300 volts 12.5% stopped at 300 volts (5 participants)(intense shock) 65% continued to the highest level of 450 volts Participants showed signs of extreme tension. Eg. sweat, tremble, stutter, bite their lips, groan and dig their fingernails into their hands 3 participants had 'full-blown uncontrollable seizures' Milgram asked 14 psychology students to predict the participants behaviour. They estimated no more than 3% of the participants would continue to 450 volts. This shows that the findings were not expected. All participants were debriefed, and assured that their behaviour was entirely normal. Participants were sent a follow up questionnaire, 84% reported they felt glad to participated

Observations that the participants showed signs of extreme tensions Eg. sweat, tremble, stutter, bite their lips, groan and dig their fingernails into their hands

3

65%

No participants

5 participants 12.5%

84%

3%

Orne and Holland (1968) argued that participants behaved the way they did because they didn't really believe in the set up. They guessed it wasn't real electric shocks. In which case, Milgram was not testing what he intended to test (i.e. the study lacked internal validity) Gina Perry (2013) listened to tapes of Milgram's participants and reported that many of them expressed their doubts about the shocks. However Sheridan and King (1972) conducted a similar study where real shocks were given to a puppy. Despite the real shocks, 54% of the male student participants and 100% of the females delivered what they thought was a fatal shock. This suggests that the effects in Milgram's study were genuine because people behaved the same way with real shocks. Milgram reported that 70% of his participants said they believed the shocks were genuine.

Milgram's study at first may appear to lack external validity because it was conducted in a lab. However the central feature of this situation was the relationship between the authority figure (the experimenter) and the participant. Milgram argued that the lab environment accurately reflected wider authority relationships in real life. Hofling (1966) studied nurses on a hospital ward and found the levels of obedience to unjustified demands by doctors was very high. 21/22 nurses obeyed. This suggests that the process of obedience to authority that occurred in Milgram's lab study can be generalised to other situations. So his findings do have something valuable to tell us about how obedience operates in real life

Le Jeu de la Mort (The Game of Death) is a documentary about reality TV, presented on French television in 2010. It includes a replication of Milgram's study. The participants believed they were contestants in a pilot episode for a new game show called La Zone Extreme. They were paid to give (fake) electric shocks, when ordered by the presenter to other participants, who were actors, in front of a studio audience 80% of the participants delivered the maximum shock of 460 volts to an apparently unconscious man. Their behaviour was almost identical to that of Milgram's participants. Eg. Nervous laughter, nail biting and other signs of anxiety. This replication supports Milgrams original conclusions about obedience to authority and demonstrates that his findings were not just a one-off chance occurance

The key to obedience lies in group identification. In Milgrams study, participants identified with the experimenter. They identified with the science of the study. When obeience levels fell, this was because the participants identified less with the science and more with the victim or with another group Haslam and Reicher analysed behaviour of the participants in Milgrams study. They looked at how a person behaved every time one of the 4 prods were used. The first 3 prods don't demand obedience, they appeal for help with the science. The 4th prod demands obedience. (You have no other choice, you must go on). Every time the 4th prod was used, the participant quit

Baumrind (1964) was very critical of the ways Milgram deceived his participants. Milgram led participants to believe that the allocation of roles as 'teacher' and 'learner' was random, but it was fixed. One of the most significant deception involved believing that the electric shocks were real. Baumrind objected because she saw deception as a betrayal of trust that could damage the reputation of psychologists and their research

Milgram identified several factors that he believed influenced the level of obedience shown by participants. They are all related to the external circumstances rather than to the personalities of the people involved. They include proximity, location and uniform

Proximity, location and uniform

The physical closeness or distance of an authority figure to the person they are giving the order to. It also refers to the physical closeness of the teacher to the victim (learner) in Milgram's study

The place where an order is issued. The relevant factor that influences obedience is the status or prestige associated with the location

People in a position of authority often have a specific outfit that is symbolic of their authority, for example a police officers and judges. This indicates to the rest of us who is entitled to expect our obedience

He carried out a large number of variations in order to consider the situational variables that might create greater or lesser obedience

in order to consider the situational variables that might create greater or lesser obedience

In Milgrams original study, the teacher and learner were in adjoining rooms, so the teacher could hear the learner but not see him. In the proximity variation, they were in the same room. In this condition, the obedience rate dropped from the baseline 65% to 40%

The teacher had to force the learners hand onto an 'electroshock plate' when he refused to answer a question. In his touch proximity condition, the obedience rate dropped further to 30%. In a third proximity variation, the experimenter left the room and gave instructions to the teacher by telephone. In this remote instruction condition time proximity was reduced. The outcome was a further reduction in obedience to 20.5%. The participants also frequently pretended to give shocks or gave weaker ones than they were ordered ton

30%

20.5%

Milgram changed the location of the obedience study. He conducted a variation of the study in a run-down building rather than the prestigious university setting where it was originally conducted (Yale University). In this situation, the experimenter had less authority. Obedience level fell to 47.5%. This is still quite a high level of obedience but it is less than the original 65% in the original baseline study.

47.5%

In the original baseline study, the experimenter wore a grey lab coat as a symbol of authority. Milgram carried out a variation in which the experimenter was called away because of an inconvenient call right at the start of the procedure. The role of the experimenter was taken over by an ordinary member of the public (played by a confederate) in everyday clothes rather than a lab coat. The obedience rate dropped to 20%

20%

Other studies have demonstrated the influence of these situational variables on obedience. In a field experiment in New York, Bickman had 3 confederates dress in 3 different outfits (Jacket and tie, milkmans outfit and a security guards uniform. The confederates stood in the street and asked passers by to perform tasks such as picking up litter or giving the confederates a coin for the parking the one dressed in the jacket and tie. This suppports Milgram's conclusions that a uniform conveys the authority of its wearer and is a situational factor likely to produce obedience

Orne and Holland's criticisms of Milgrams original study was that many of the participants worked out that the procedure was faked. It is even more likely that participants in Milgrams variations realised this because of the extra manipulation. A good example is the variation where the experimenter is replaced by a 'member of the public'. Even Milgram recognised that this situation was so contrived that some participants may well have worked out the truth. This is a limitation of all Milgram's studies because it is unclear whether the results are genuinely due to the operation of obedience or because the participants saw through the deception and acted accordingly

A general strength of Milgram's research , that applies to his variation as well, it that his findings have been replicated in other cultures. The findings of cross-cultural research have been generally supportive of Milgram. For example, Miranda et al. found an obedience rate of over 90% amongst Spanish students. This suggests that Milgram's conclusions about the obedience and not limited to American males, but are valid across cultures and apply to females too. However, Smith and Bond (1998) make the crucial point that most replications have taken place in Western, developed societies ( such as Spain and Australia). These are culturally not that different from the USA, so it would premature to conclude that Milgram's findings about proximity, location and uniform apply to people everywhere.

A mental states where we feel no personal responsibility for our behavior because we believe ourselves to be acting for an authority figure, i.e as their agent. This frees us from the demands of our conscience and allows us to obey even a destructive authority figure.

And explanation for obedience which suggests that we are more likely to obey people who we perceive to have authority over us. This authority is justified (legitimate) by the individuals position of power within the social hierarchy

The trial of Adolf Eichmann in 1961 for war crimes

He had been in charge of the Nazi death camps and his defense was that he was only obeying orders

Because a person does not take responsibility. instead they believe they are acting for someone else. That they are an agent

Someone who acts for or in the place of another

They experience high anxiety (moral strains) when they realize that what they are doing is wrong but feel powerless to disobey

Autonomous state

They are free to behave according to their own principles and therefore feel a sense of responsibility for their own actions

The shift from autonomy to agency

The agentic shift

When a person perceives someone else as a figure of authority. This other person has greater power because of their position in the social hierarchy

Others defer to this person and shift from autonomy to agency

Due to binding factors

Aspects of the situation that allow a person to ignore or minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour and therefore reduce the 'moral strain' they are feeling

Shifting the responsibility to the victim (he was foolish to continue) Or denying the the damage they were doing to the victims

Most societies are structured in a Hierachy way. This means that people in certain positions hold authority over the rest of us at some times coparents teaches police officers who have some kind of authority over us at times