Social learning theory

• Obedience


  When someone of higher authority gives you an order and you feel compelled to do it.

  The result of social influence as without the order the person wouldn't of acted this way.
• Obedience - Milgram's study: Background

  Background: The thinking in the USA at the time was that Germans were different and would follow orders, whereas ordinary Americans would never simply follow orders to harm other humans.
• Obedience- Milgram's study: Method

  Method: Volunteer sample of 40 males (recruited through an ad) for a "memory experiment". Experimenter and learner=confederates, ppts was the "teacher". Learner strapped to a chair and electrodes, shock machine 15-450v, shock for every incorrect answer, increasing by 15v. Experimenter used prompts such as "The experiment requires you to continue". DV=shocks. Teacher heard cries from learner in other room.
• Obedience- Milgram's study: Results

  65% of participants went to the maximum of 450V.

  The estimate was that less than 0.01% would go up to 450V. At 270V screaming was heard and 300V is enough to kill.
• Obedience- Milgram's study: Conclusion

  Crimes against humanity may be the outcome of situational rather than dispositional factors. It is not necessarily evil people who commit evil crimes but ordinary people who are just obeying orders.
• Variations of Milgram's original experiment

  Office building: obedience decreased 48%

  Ordinary person in charge: decreased 18%

  Experimenter in a different location: decreased 20%

  Victim in same room as p: decreased 40%

  P required to put victims hand down on the plate: decreased 30%

  Two confederates rebel (social support): decreased 10%
• Conclusion of Milgram's variations

  People are most obedient when the experimenter is in a uniform, close proximity and a credible location as it defines them as a legitimised authority.
• Milgram's internal validity


  ☹️Orne & Holland- demand characteristics, p's knew it was set up. questioned why experimenter wasn't giving shocks & didn't respond to screams.

  Milgram's response- p's filmed reactions, suggest it was real to them & showed real distress.

  ☹️Perry- followed up p's of Milgram's exp, 50% expressed doubt over legitimacy of shocks. Suggests situation was affecting obedience levels.

  Defence- If they believed it was fake P's would go to 450v across all variations- this didn't happen suggesting they thought it was real.
• Milgram's external validity


  ☹️Little resemblance to the holocaust & Germany's situation in WW2. There were consequences for not following orders in Nazi Germany but not in the study.

  ☹️ Milgram stresses proximity of authority. Reserve police battalion 101: Men carried out the execution of Jews regardless of the presence of an authority figure telling us that proximity doesn't matter.
• Hofling- Milgram's external validity

  Demonstrated that 95% of nurses in a natural setting would follow the orders of a fake doctor even if it's against hospital rules. Nurses weren't allowed to take orders over the phone, let alone exceed the drug dose (it was a placebo). Other nurses (control group) were asked what they would do in a similar situation & 21/22 said they wouldn't obey the order. Tells us proximity is not as powerful in a natural setting. Doctor has higher authority than nurses so has legitimacy.
• Milgram's study- Ethical issues Deception

  Milgram deceived his p's as he said the exp was on "punishment and learning" but was actually measuring obedience, pretending the learner was receiving electric shocks. It was also very difficult for p's to withdraw as they were prompted by the experimenter to continue.

  😊Study wouldn't have been possible if p's knew what was being investigated as everyone who had the study described to them felt sure they'd disobey.
• Milgram's study ethical issues: Protection from harm

  Measures not taken to protect p's from harm physically or psychologically. Signs of tension included trembling, sweating, stuttering etc. 3 p's had uncontrollable seizures and many pleaded to stop the exp

  😊Interviews w/ p's after apparently 83.7% were glad to be in exp & extensively debriefed p's going to lengths to prove no lasting harm was done.

  ☹️1.3% wished they weren't involved & he downplayed the seriousness of their distress.
• Conformity


  A change in behaviour or belief as a result of a real or imagine GROUP pressure. Minority yielding to the majority.
• Compliance - type of conformity


  Publicly conforming to the behaviour or views of others but privately maintaining ones own views. Based around a desire to fit in & caused by NSI. The change is weak & temporary to when group are around.

  e.g smoking in the presence of others because they are doing it but not smoking alone.
• Identification - type of conformity


  Adjusting behaviour and opinion to the group because membership of the group is desirable. Public & private acceptance when the group are around. Caused by conformity to social rules (Zimbardo).

  e.g being vegan around certain people & believing it's right but when not with them you don't follow it.
• Internalisation - type of conformity 


  True conformity, publicly & privately agreeing to the majority. A total change of beliefs after being exposed to the group opinion & the individual makes up their own mind. Caused by ISI.

  e.g going to university not a vegetarian but people in your halls are so you eat their food and adapt to their beliefs both at home and uni.
• Asch - supports compliance - procedure


  123 American male undergraduates. Tested in a group of confederates and were each asked to state whether the "standard" line is the same as 3 other lines. Confederates were told to give same incorrect answer on 12 critical trials out of 18. True p was always last or 2nd to last to answer.
• Asch - supports compliance - findings (AO3)


  On the critical trials 3.2% conformed to wrong answers.

  75% conformed at least once.

  5% conformed to all wrong answers,

  They conformed to gain acceptance.
• Asch - supports compliance - conclusion


  They conformed to gain acceptance and avoid rejection from the group which supports compliance.
• Variations of Asch's study

  Group size- With a majority of 3 conformity started to rise however adding more people only had an effect up until a certain point.

  Task difficulty- In the initial study task was unambiguous however when making comparison lines more similar to standard the task got harder causing conformity to increase. May be due to internalisation - motivated to be right.

  Unanimity- When there was another non-conformist the unanimity was broken and conformity of p's decreased by 25%. Suggests presence of another non-conformist reduces conformity, majority must be unanimous.
• Asch evaluation - time the study was carried out

  ☹️McCarthyism exerted a strong influence - historical bias.

  Perrin=Spencer p's admitted they felt they'd have been ridiculed for conforming. However Asch's felt they'd be ridiculed if they didn't.

  Research took place in a particular period of US history when conformity was high so when Perrin+Spencer repeated the study in the UK in the 80's only one student conformed out of 396 trials.

  Shows Asch study has little relevance in explaining conformity nowadays.
• Asch evaluation - resemblance to real life

  ☹️It was a trivial task and also we rarely have to make decisions among total strangers - conformity takes place between people who know eachother: lacks ecological validity as there was no consequence for conforming or not
• Asch evaluations - conformity not a stable/fixed behaviour


  ☹️Conformity differs across cultures (collectivist&individualistic) therefore Asch's findings may only be relevant to this study. Conformity levels in Asch's study may not show stable human behaviour.

  Smith et al- found average conformity rates were 25% in individualist cultures compared to 37% in collectivist.

  Can't generalise findings to other cultures from this research.
• Asch evaluations - ethical issues

  ☹️P's were not protected from psychological distress which may occur if they disagreed w/ the majority.

  Beck et al - found p's in Asch's strange situation had greatly increased levels of autonomic arousal.

  ☹️Deception - claiming they were taking part in a vision test, however the real test was their behaviour to the behaviour of the confederates.

  😒HOWEVER deception was necessary to produce valid results.
• Reasons we obey - legitimacy of authority

  • we obey because we feel obligated
  • we accept people's credentials and that they know what they're doing.
  • Held by authority figures whose role is defined in society (e.g Hofling research of nurses)
  • Ingrained in us to obey these people despite our beliefs
  • Authority given legitimacy by: uniform, proximity, location
• AO3 legitimacy of authority - reasons we obey


  😊Evidence for situational variables (Milgram's Variations)

  When exp took place in an office building conformity decreased 48%.

  When experimenter was in a diff room to p obedience decreased 20%

  When experimenter wasn't in uniform obedience decreased by 18%.
• AO3 legitimacy of authority - not always apparent in real world


  ☹️Real life examples dispute this research into legitimacy of authority figures (Battalion 101 and Mandel's comments)

  Milgram stresses proximity of authority figure however Battalion 101 (carried out execution of Jews regardless of authority figures presence)

  Mandel (1968)- claims situational factors do not occur in real world despite presence of these factors, very few people participated in the mass killing of Jews in Poland.
• AO3 legitimacy of authority - evidence for the role of uniform studies (Bickman)

  😊Investigated power of uniform in a field exp in NY. The 3 conditions were men: dressed as a milkman, a security guard or ordinary clothes. The actors asked a member of the public to: pick up a bag, give someone money for a parking meter, stand on the other side of a bus stop sign which said "no standing".

  On avg the guard was obeyed 76%, milkman 47% and normal clothes 30%.

  People more likely to obey when instructed by someone in a uniform- adds sense of legitimacy.
• Legitimacy of authority evaluation - Evidence for situational factors


  😊Tarnow: looked at aircraft accidents in USA where flight crew actions were the contributing factor. There was excessive dependency on the captain's authority on over half the accidents. One officer claimed he didn't question the captains behaviour as he assumed the captain knew what he was doing.

  This supports legitimacy of Authority because the co-pilot would be in close proximity to pilot, legitimate location & captain wearing uniform.
• Agentic state (AO1)


  When we obey we give up our free will (autonomous state) and become an "agent" for the legitimate authority figure. They become responsible for our actions and we become deindividuated, we defer responsibility. Most common in hierarchy.

  We revert back to autonomous state after.
• AO3 of Agentic state- experimental evidence

  😊Milgram's variations - in one variation a confederate gave shocks on behalf of the teacher (ppt) and Milgram found obedience rose to nearly 100%.

  This supports agentic state because they defer the responsibility to someone else, p's no longer responsible for their actions/consequences so obey fully.
• AO3 of Agentic state - Research into real life examples disputes experimental evidence.


  ☹️Lifton (1986) found when studying German doctors working in Auschwitz.

  Found that ordinary doctors who originally cared for people had turned into people capable of carrying out vile and lethal experiments on helpless prisoners. The idea of rapidly shifting states fails to explain the gradual and irreversible transition.

  This goes against agentic state because they did not "switch" back from this mindset and just became evil.
• AO3 of Agentic state - dispositional factors


  ☹️Obedience may be better explained by dispositional factors (personality/internal factors) such as authoritarian personality.
• Minority influences leading to social change-AO1

  Minority influence-social influence can occur when a minority changes attitudes, belief and behaviour of the majority.

  Social change- refers to the ways in which society develops over time to replace beliefs, attitudes and behaviour with new norms and expectations.

  Examples of minority becoming majority: suffragettes, gay rights
• Minority influences leading to social change- factors enhancing effectiveness of minority

  Consistent- A consistent opposition causing members of the majority to take notice and rethink, consistency shows minority are committed to their viewpoint. e.g civil rights movement.

  Flexibility- members of the minority able to adapt and accept valid counter arguments and negotiate rather than enforce. Non dogmatic- willing to listen to arguments against.

  Commitment- Minority continues to put their view across even though it involves sacrifices e.g suffragettes had children taken away, hunger strikes.
• Minority influences leading to social change- snowball effect


  If the minority follows these principles (flexibility, consistent, commitment) then social change can be explained through the snowball effect:

  The gradual build up of support that gains momentum, minority becomes majority.
• Minority influences leading to social change- ext


  Social cryptoamnesia- our failure to give credit minorities for their role in provoking social change.

  Link to ISI- change their views due to thinking they're correct.
• Minority influences leading to social change- AO3 commitment & consistency evidence

  Moscovici-could a consistent minority could influence a majority to give an incorrect answer? sample consisted of 172 female p's told they were partaking in a colour perception task. Placed in groups of 6 and shown 36 slides varying in shades of blue, aloud each stated the colour of each slide. 2/6 p's confederates in condition 1 & were consistent but inconsistent in condition 2. Found in condition 1 real p's agreed on 8.2% of trials in whereas 1.25% in c2. A consistent minority is more effective.
• Minority influences leading to social change- evidence for flexibility AO3

  Nemeth- based on a mock jury, groups of 3p's and 1 confed decided on the amount of compensation to be given to the victim of a ski-lift accident. When consistent minority (confederate) argued for a low amount and refused to change his position, he had no effect on the majority. But when he compromised and moved some way towards majority position the majority also compromised & changed their view.

  Supports - non-dogmatic & willing to adapt.
• Minority influences leading to social change- most research comes from lab conditions


  ☹️methodological issues w/moscovici- used a bias sample of 172 females from America. Cannot be generalised to to other populations & doesn't explain how men would respond. Research also suggests females more likely to conform so more research needed to determine the effects on males.