Psychologists

• Solomon Asch(1951)

  Conformity

  
  

  Line task, line X on the left, lines ABC comparison, 1 the same 2 very different

  Had to verbally say which was the same length

  Tested in groups of 6/8

  Only 1 genuine participant seated last or next to

  Confederates gave same scripted answers

  36.8% of the time agreed with confederates incorrect answers

  25% never gave a wrong answer

  
  

  Interviewed participants, some said they felt self-conscious + afraid of disapproval

  When they wrote their answers down conformity fell to 12.5%, no NSI
• Susan Fiske (2014)

  'Asch's research group were not very groupy'

  Asch's findings do not generalise to real-world situations
• Todd Lucas et al. (2006)

  Asked participants to solve easy and hard maths problems

  Participants given answers from 3 other students (fake)

  Conformed more when the problem was harder

  Asch correct task difficulty a variable of conformity

  Conformity more complex than Asch suggested

  Participants with high confidence in their maths abilities conformed less on hard tasks than those with low confidence

  Individual-level factors can influence conformity by interacting with situational variables (confidence + task difficulty)

  Asch did not research the roles of individual factors

  ISI, when problems harder didn't want to be wrong so relied on answers given, ISI valid
• Herbert Kelman (1958)

  Types of conformity:

  Internalisation - private/public change of opinions/behaviour, permanent, opinions remains regardless of presence of other group members

  Identification - public change of opinions/behaviours to be accepted, something about the group they value

  Compliance - public change of opinions/behaviours to be accepted, superficial change, particular behaviour or opinion stops as soon as the group pressure stops
• Morton Deutsch and Harold Gerard (1955)

  Two-process theory to explain conformity

  Informational Social Influence - 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

  Normative Social Influence - we agree with the opinion of the majority because we want to gain social approval and be liked, this may lead to compliance
• Solomon Asch (1955)

  Conformity

  Extended baseline study to investigate variables:

  Group size, number of confederates varied from 1-15, 3 confederates most effective 31.8% conformity, curvilinear relationship

  Unanimity, decreased to less than a quarter than when it was unanimous whether confederate agreed or not

  Task difficulty, lines more similar in length, conformity increased informational social influence less clear which was right

  Conformity reduced when there is 1 other dissenting participant

  NSI - dissenter may reduce the power of NSI as they provide social support

  ISI - provide an alternative source of social information

  Hard to separate NSI and ISI as they work together in most real-world conformity situations
• Paul McGhee + Richard Teevan (1967)

  Found that students who were nAffiliators were more likely to conform

  Shows NSI underlies conformity for some people more than it does for others

  Individual differences in conformity cannot be fully explained by one general theory of situational pressures
• Wesley Schlutz et al (2008)

  Found that they were able to change the behaviour of hotel guests by using printed messages encouraging them to save energy

  The messages that suggested other guests were using fewer bath towels were most successful
• Jean Orlando (1973)

  Investigate how conformity to social roles can influence people to behave in extreme ways

  Selected staff at a psychiatric hospital to play the roles of patients on a ward for 1 week

  After 2 days several mock patients experienced symptoms of psychological disturbance (cried uncontrollably, extremely withdrawn, escape)

  As time progressed participants became more anxious and depressed, felt very strongly they were trapped and isolated

  Study ended early because some patients were losing their sense of identity
• Philip Zimbardo (1973)

  Wanted to understand why prison guards behave brutally

  Based on Orlando's study (1973)

  Mock prison in Stanford University's psychology department

  21 male student volunteers

  Tested as emotionally stable

  Randomly assigned as prison guards or prisoners

  Encouraged to conform

  Uniforms caused de-individuation 

  Created opportunities to enforce the rules and administer punishments

  One prisoner released because he showed signs of psychological disturbance

  2 prisoners released on the 4th day

  One prisoner went on a hunger strike, guards tried to force-feed him and punish him by putting him in 'the hole' (tiny dark closet)

  Ended study after 6 days instead of the intended 14

  Social roles have a strong influence on individual's behaviour

  Guards became brutal, prisoners submissive

  Roles easily taken on by participants

  Behaved as if they were in a prison rather than a psychological study
• Ali Banuazizi and Siamak Movahedi (1975)


  Participants merely play-acting rather than genuinely conforming to a role

  Participants performance based on their stereotypes of how prisoners and guards are supposed to behave

  One guard based his role on brutal character from Cool Hand Luke

  Prisoners rioted because they thought that's what real ones did
• Mark McDermott (2019)

  Participants in Prison study behaved as if the prison was real to them

  90% of prisoners conversations about prison life

  Discussed how it was impossible to leave the experiment before their 'sentences' were over

  Prisoner 416 later explained how he believed the prison was a real one but run by psychologists rather than the government

  High internal validity as it did replicate the social roles of prisoners and guards
• Steve Reicher and Alex Haslam (2006)

  Criticise Zimbardo's explanation because it does not account for the behaviour of the non-brutal guards

  Social identity theory, guards actively identify with their social roles to act as they did
• Stanley Milgram

  1963, obedience

  40 US males

  Fixed draw for teacher and learner

  Learner 'Mr Wallace' had to remember pairs of words and each he's wrong the fake shock becomes more powerful

  Teacher hear not see confederate

  300v Learner pounded on the wall and then silent, 315v pounded again, silent for the rest

  Experimenter (confederate in grey lab coat) used 4 props to keep Teacher going

  Every participant delivered all the shocks up to 300v

  12.5% (5) stopped at 300 volts (intense shock)

  65% continued to highest (450v)

  Observations of extreme tension

  3 had seizures

  Before study 14 psychology students estimated >3% of participants would continue to 450v

  All participants debriefed

  Follow up questionnaire, 84% glad they participated

  Further studies about situational variables

  Proximity, same room 40%, forced hand 30%, instructions via telephone 20.5%

  Location, office 47.5%

  Uniform, experimenter ordinary person 20%
• Leonard Bickman (1974)

  Field experiment

  New York City

  3 confederates dressed in differed outfits: jacket and tie, milkman's outfit + security guard's uniform

  Confederates individually stood in the street and asked passers by to perform tasks such as litter picking or handing over a coin for the parking meter

  People were 2x likely to obey the assistant dressed as a security guard than the one in a jacket and tie

  Supports situational variables (uniform) have a powerful effect on obedience
• Martin Orne + Charles Holland (1968)

  Milgram reported 75% believed the shocks were real

  They believe participants didn't believe in the set-up so were play acting

  
  

  Even more likely in his variations because of the extra manipulation of variables

  Experimenter replaced with a member of the public

  Even Milgram recognised this situation so contrived some participants may well have worked out the truth

  Unclear in all of Milgram's studies whether the findings are genuinely due to the operation of obedience or because the participants saw through the deception and just play-acted
• Gina Perry (2013)

  Listened to tapes of Milgram's participants and reported that only half believed the shocks were real

  2/3 of these were disobedient

  Participants may have been responding to demand characteristics trying to fulfil the aims of the study
• Charles Sheridan and Richard King (1972)

  Conducted a study using procedures like Milgram's

  Participants gave real shocks to a puppy in response to orders from an experimenter

  Real distress of the animal

  54% male students and 100% female students delivered what they thought was a fatal shock

  Effects in Milgram's study genuine because people behaved obediently even when the shocks were real
• Alex Haslam et al. (2014)

  Milgram's participants obeyed when the Experimenter delivered the first 3 verbal prods

  Every participant who was given the 4th prod 'you have no other choice, you must go on' without exception disobeyed

  Social identity theory: participants only obeyed when they identified with the scientific aims of the research 'the experiment requires you go on'

  When ordered to blindly obey an authority figure they refused

  Social identity theory may be a more valid interpretation of Milgram's findings

  Milgram himself suggested 'identifying with the science' is a reason for obedience
• Diana Baumrind (1964)

  Criticised Milgram for deceiving his participants

  She objected because she believed deception in psychological studies can have serious consequences for participants and researchers
• Charles Hofling et al. (1966)

  Arranged for an unknown doctor to telephone 22 nurses and ask each of them alone to administer an overdose of a drug that was not on their ward list 'Astroten'

  95% (21) started to administer the drug

  Obeyed without question
• Steven Rank + Cardell Jacobson (1977)

  Replicated Hoffling et al.'s study

  Altered aspects of original study that might have maximised obedience

  Unusual things: order through telephone, administering unknown drug

  Nurses instead told by a doctor to administer an overdose of valium, real drug they would be familiar with

  Doctor's name known to the nurses and they had the chance to discuss the order with each other

  More realistic circumstances

  2/18 obeyed the orders before being prevented from carrying it out

  Agentic shift can only account for some situations of obedience
• Wim Meeus + Quintin Raaijmakers (1986)

  More realistic procedure than Milgram's

  Obedience in Dutch participants

  Participants ordered to say stressful things in an interview to someone (confederate) desperate for a job

  90% obeyed

  Replicated findings concerning proximity

  When person giving orders was not present obedience decreased drastically

  Milgram's findings about obedience not just limited to American males, valid across cultures and genders
• Peter Smith + Michael Bond (1998)

  Identified just 2 replications between 1968/85 that took place in non-Western countries

  Other countries involved are not that culturally different from the United States

  Similar notions about the role of authority

  Inappropriate to conclude Milgram's findings apply to people in all or most cultures
• David Mandel (1998)

  Milgram's research supports a situational explanation of obedience

  This offers an excuse or alibi for evil behaviour

  Offensive to survivors of the Holocaust to suggest Nazis simply obeying orders

  Milgram's explanation also ignores the role of dispositional factors implying that the Nazis were victims of situational factors beyond their control
• Milgram (1974)

  Agentic state - mental state where we feel no personal responsibility for our behaviour because we are acting for an authority figure

  Interest sparked by Nazi Eichmann's trial in 1961 for war crimes, in charge of death camps, defence was he was only obeying orders

  Agentic Shift - Shift from autonomous to agentic 

  Occurs when someone else is perceived as an authority figure, they have greater power as they're higher in the social hierarchy

  Binding factors - Aspects of the situation that allow the person to minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour and thus reduce the 'moral stain' they are feeling, keeping them in the agentic state

  Legitimacy of Authority - We are more likely to obey people who we perceive to have authority over us, justified by their agreed position within a social hierarchy

  Learn acceptance of legitimate authority from childhood

  Charismatic and powerful leaders can use power for destruction
• David Mandel (1998)

  WW2

  German Reserve Police Battalion 101

  These men shot many civilians in a small town in Poland

  Didn't have orders to do so

  They were told they could be assigned to other duties if they preferred
• Wesley Kilham and Leon Mann (1974)

  16% of female Australians went all the way to 450v in Milgram-style study

  Culturally dependent, some cultures authority more likely to be accepted as legitimate, reflects how society is structured and how children are raised
• David Mantell (1971)

  85% German participants went all the way to 450v in Milgram-style experiment

  Culturally dependent, some cultures authority more likely to be accepted as legitimate, reflects how society is structured and how children are raised
• Herbert Kelman + Lee Hamilton (1989)

  Real-world crime of obedience can be understood in terms of the power hierarchy of the US Army

  Commanding officers operate within a clearer legitimate hierarchy than hospital doctors and have a greater power to punish
• Theodor Adorno (1950)

  Authoritarian personality - especially susceptible to obeying people in authority, submissive to higher status and dismissive of inferiors, inflexible outlook

  Dispositional psychodynamic explanation

  Society weaker than historically, strong leaders enforce traditional values

  Forms in childhood because of harsh parenting which creates hostile resentment, this cannot be expressed directly because they fear punishment so displaced onto weaker others, scapegoating

  High obedience is a psychological disorder

  Wanted to understand antisemitism

  More than 2000 middle-class white Americans 

  F-scale (fascism) measures 9 dimensions of authoritarian personalities

  Very conscious of status and showed extreme respect and servility to higher status (obedience)

  Authoritarians' cognitive style categorised people distinctively (black and white thinking)

  Strong positive correlation between authoritarianism and prejudice
• Milgram + Alan Elms (1966)

  Interviewed a small sample of people who had participated in the original obedience studies and been fully obedient

  They completed the F-scale and other measures as part of their interview

  20 obedient participants scored significantly higher on the F-scale than comparison 20 disobedient

  Supports Adorno et al.'s view that obedient people may well show similar characteristics to people who have an Authoritarian Personality

  
  

  When the researchers analysed the individual subscales of the F-scale they found obedient participants had a number of unusual characteristics for authoritarians

  Milgram's obedient participants generally did not glorify their fathers, did not experience unusual levels of punishment in childhood and did not have particularly hostile attitudes towards their mothers

  Link between obedience and authoritarianism is complex, authoritarianism is unlikely to be a useful predictor of obedience
• Richard Christie and Marie Jahoda (1954)

  Argued that the F-scale is a politicialy-biased interpretation of the Authoritarian Personality

  Reality of left-wing authoritarianism in Russian Bolshevism or Chinese Maoism

  Extreme left and right wing have a lot in common

  Adorno's theory is not a comprehensive dispositional explanation that accounts for obedience to authority across the whole political spectrum
• Fred Greenstein (1969)

  Calls the F-scale 'a comedy of methodological errors' because it is a seriously flawed scale

  It is possible to get a high score just by selecting agree answers

  Anyone with this response bias is assessed as having an Authoritarian Personality
• Julian Rotter (1966)

  Locus of control - Refers to the sense we each have about what directs events in our lives

  Internal control - things that happen to them are largely controlled by themselves

  External control - believe things that happen are outside their control

  Scale with internal and external either end of the continuum

  
  

  (1982)

  LOC is not necessarily the most important factor in determining whether someone resists social influence

  LOC's role depends on the situation

  LOC's only significantly affects their behaviour in new situations

  If you have conformed or obeyed in a specific situation in the past the chances are you will do so again in that situation regardless of your LOC
• Susan Albrecht et al. (2006)

  Evaluated Teen Fresh Start USA

  8 week programme to help pregnant adolescents aged 14-19 resist peer pressure to smoke

  Social support provided by a slightly older mentor or buddy

  At the end of the programme adolescents who had a 'buddy' were significantly less likely to smoke than a control group of participants who did not

  Social support can help young people resist social influence as part of an intervention in the real world
• William Gamson et al. (1982)

  Participants told to produce evidence that would be used to help an oil company run a smear campaign

  Researchers found higher levels of resistance in their study than Milgram

  Participants in groups so could discuss what they were told to do

  29/33 (88%) rebelled against their orders

  Support can lead to disobedience by undermining the legitimacy of an authority figure
• Vernon Allen + John Levine (1971)

  Showed social support can help individuals resist the influence of a group

  In Asch-style task the dissenter was someone with apparently good eyesight 64% genuine participants refused to conform

  No supporter at all only 3% resisted

  Dissenter obviously poor eyesight wearing thick glasses resistance was only 36%

  Social support does not always help
• Charles Holland (1967)

  Repeated Milgram's baseline study and measured whether participants were internal or external

  37% internals did not continue to highest shock

  23% externals did not continue

  Internals showed greater resistance

  Resistance is at least partly related to LOC which increases the validity of LOC as an explanation of disobedience
• Jean Twenge et al. (2004)

  Analysed data from American locus of control studies conducted over a 40-year period

  Over this time span people became more resistant to obedience but also more external

  Expect internals to be more resistant

  Locus of control is not a valid explanation of how people resist social influence