Social Influence Reading Chapter PDF

## Conformity The specification says... Variables affecting conformity including group size, unanimity and task difficulty as investigated by Asch. Solomon Asch's research has had a considerable impact on our understanding of conformity. We often 'go along' with other people in our everyday social...

## Conformity The specification says... Variables affecting conformity including group size, unanimity and task difficulty as investigated by Asch. Solomon Asch's research has had a considerable impact on our understanding of conformity. We often 'go along' with other people in our everyday social lives. We agree with their opinions and change our behaviour to 'fit in' with theirs. In other words, we conform. Asch wanted to find out why. ### Key terms * **Conformity**: A change in a person's behaviour or opinions as a result of real or imagined pressure from a person or group of people. (Aronson 2011) * **Group Size**: Asch increased the size of the group by adding more confederates, thus increasing the size of the majority. Conformity increased with group size, but only up to a point, levelling off when the majority was greater than three. * **Unanimity**: The extent to which all the members of a group agree. In Asch's studies, the majority was unanimous when all the confederates selected the same comparison line. This produced the greatest degree of conformity in the naïve participants. * **Task Difficulty**: Asch's line-judging task is more difficult when it becomes harder to work out the correct answer. Conformity increased because naïve participants assume that the majority is more likely to be right. ### Asch's baseline procedure * 123 American male participants were tested, each one in a group with other apparent participants. * Each participant saw two large white cards on each trial. * The line X on the left-hand card is the standard line. * The lines A, B and C are the three comparison lines. * One of the comparison lines is always clearly the same length as X, the other two are substantially different (i.e. clearly wrong). * On each trial, the participants had to say (out loud) which of the comparison lines was the same length as the standard line X. ### Physical Arrangement of the Participants in the Study * Participants were tested in groups of 6 to 8. * Only one was a genuine (naïve) participant, always seated either last or (as here) next to last in the group. * The others were all confederates of Asch - that is, they all gave the same (incorrect) scripted answers each time. * The genuine participant did not know the others were 'fake' participants. ### Baseline findings * On average, the genuine participants agreed with confederates' incorrect answers 36.8% of the time (i.e. they conformed about a third of the time). * There were individual differences, 25% of the participants never gave a wrong answer (i.e. never conformed). ### Apply it **Concepts**: The big night out Some students are celebrating the end of their exams by having a night out. They have been in the pub all evening and are now discussing which nightclub to go on to. Imogen prefers Rotting Flesh but the majority of the group wants to go to Scar Tissue. **Question**: Briefly explain how each of the following factors might affect whether or not Imogen conforms to the majority: (a) Group size, (b) Unanimity, (c) Task difficulty. ## Asch's research ### Asch's baseline procedure Solomon Asch (1951) devised a procedure to assess to what extent people will conform to the opinion of others, even in a situation where the answer is certain (i.e. unambiguous). The procedure of his original study is briefly described below left - this is called the 'baseline' study because it is the one against which all the later studies are compared. Note that the specification focuses on the findings and conclusions from Asch's later research. Therefore, we have not described the baseline procedure and findings in the main text. ### Variables investigated by Asch Asch (1955) extended his baseline study to investigate the variables that might lead to an increase or a decrease in conformity. 1. **Group Size**: Asch wanted to know whether the size of the group would be more important than the agreement of the group. To test this, he varied the number of confederates from one to 15 (so the total group size was from two to 16). Asch found a curvilinear relationship between group size and conformity rate (see Apply it on facing page for graph). Conformity increased with group size, but only up to a point. With three confederates, conformity to the wrong answer rose to 31.8%. But the presence of more confederates made little difference - the conformity rate soon levelled off. This suggests that most people are very sensitive to the views of others because just one or two confederates was enough to sway opinion. 2. **Unanimity**: Asch wondered if the presence of a non-conforming person would affect the naïve participant's conformity. He introduced a confederate who disagreed with the other confederates. In one variation of the study, this person gave the correct answer and in another variation, he gave a (different) wrong one. The genuine participant conformed less often in the presence of a dissenter. The rate decreased to less than a quarter of the level it was when the majority was unanimous. The presence of a dissenter appeared to free the naïve participant to behave more independently. This was true even when the dissenter disagreed with the genuine participant. This suggests that the influence of the majority depends to a large extent on it being unanimous. And that non-conformity is more likely when cracks are perceived in the majority's unanimous view. 3. **Task Difficulty**: Asch wanted to know whether making the task harder would affect the degree of conformity. He increased the difficulty of the line-judging task by making the stimulus line and the comparison lines more similar to each other in length. This meant it became harder for the genuine participants to see the differences between the lines. Asch found that conformity increased. It may be that the situation is more ambiguous when the task becomes harder - it is unclear to the participants what the right answer is. In these circumstances, it is natural to look to other people for guidance and to assume that they are right and you are wrong (this is called informational social influence (ISI), which is discussed on the next spread). ### Apply it **Methods**: Group Size Graph showing variation of Asch's baseline study: Group Size. **Questions** 1. The results from Asch's research on the effects of group size are shown above. What was the approximate conformity rate when there was one confederate? (1 mark) 2. What was the rate when there were three confederates? (1 mark) 3. What was the rate when there were nine confederates? (1 mark) 4. Asch used a volunteer sampling method to recruit his participants. Explain one strength and one limitation of this sampling method. (4 marks) 5. When the total group size was four, there would be only one naïve participant and the others were confederates. Express the number of confederates as a fraction and a percentage of the total group size. (2 marks) ### Check it 1. One variable that affects conformity is 'unanimity'. Explain what is meant by 'unanimity'. [2 marks] 2. Apart from unanimity, identify and briefly outline two variables that affect conformity. [6 marks] 3. Outline the procedure and findings of one study into conformity conducted by Asch. [6 marks] 4. Describe and evaluate Asch's research into conformity. [12 marks AS, 16 marks AL] ### Study tip Ethical evaluations are only relevant when considering a study. Such issues do not challenge the validity of the findings. ## Conformity to social roles The specification says... Conformity to social roles as investigated by Zimbardo. We turn our attention on this spread to a special type of conformity. Previously, we've looked at our tendency to conform to the behaviours or opinions of other people when they form the majority of a group. But to what extent do we conform to expectations that people have of us? These expectations arise out of the roles we play in society and are powerful influences on our behaviour. ### Key term * **Roles**: The 'parts' people play as members of social groups. Everyday examples include student, child, passenger, and so on. These are accompanied by expectations we and others have of what is appropriate behaviour in each role, for example caring, obedient, industrious, etc. ### Apply it **Concepts**: A psychiatric ward This scenario is based on an actual study by Norma Orlando (1973). The researcher decided to investigate how conformity to social roles can influence people to behave in extreme ways. She selected staff at a psychiatric hospital to play the roles of patients on a ward for one week. After two days, several mock patients experienced symptoms of psychological disturbance, some cried uncontrollably, others became extremely withdrawn, and a few tried to escape. As time went on, most of the participants became more anxious and depressed, and felt very strongly that they were trapped and isolated. The study had to be ended early because some 'patients' were losing their sense of identity. **Question**: Use your knowledge of Zimbardo's research into conformity to social roles to explain why the mock patients behaved as they did. ## Zimbardo's research In the 1970s Philip Zimbardo and colleagues conducted one of the most memorable studies in psychology. There had been many prison riots in America and Zimbardo wanted to know why prison guards behave brutally - was it because they have sadistic personalities or was it their social role (as a prison guard) that created such behaviour? ### The Stanford prison experiment (SPE) Zimbardo et al. (1973) set up a mock prison in the basement of the psychology department at Stanford University. They selected 21 male student volunteers who tested as 'emotionally stable'. The students were randomly assigned to play the role of prison guard or prisoner. ### Prisoners and Guards Prisoners and guards were encouraged to conform to social roles both through the uniforms they wore and also instructions about their behaviour. **Uniforms**: The prisoners were given a loose smock to wear and a cap to cover their hair, and they were identified by number (their names were never used). The guards had their own uniform reflecting the status of their role, with a wooden club, handcuffs, and mirror shades. These uniforms created a loss of personal identity (called de-individuation), and meant they would be more likely to conform to the perceived social role. **Instructions about Behaviour**: The prisoners were further encouraged to identify with their role by several procedures. For example, rather than leaving the study early, prisoners could 'apply for parole'. The guards were encouraged to play their role by being reminded that they had complete power over the prisoners. ### Findings Related to Social Roles * The guards took up their roles with enthusiasm, treating the prisoners harshly. Within two days, the prisoners rebelled. They ripped their uniforms and shouted and swore at the guards, who retaliated with fire extinguishers. * The guards used 'divide-and-rule' tactics by playing the prisoners off against each other. * They harassed the prisoners constantly, to remind them of the powerlessness of their role. For example, they conducted frequent headcounts, sometimes at night, when the prisoners would stand in line and call out their numbers. * The guards highlighted the differences in social roles by creating opportunities to enforce the rules and administer punishments. * After their rebellion was put down, the prisoners became subdued, depressed, and anxious. * One was released because he showed symptoms of psychological disturbance. Two more were released on the fourth day. * One prisoner went on a hunger strike. The guards tried to force-feed him and then punished him by putting him in 'the hole', a tiny dark closet. * The guards identified more and more closely with their role. Their behaviour became increasingly brutal and aggressive, with some of them appearing to enjoy the power they had over the prisoners. * Zimbardo ended the study after six days instead of the intended 14. ### Conclusions Related to Social Roles * Social roles appear to have a strong influence on individuals' behavior. The guards became brutal and the prisoners became submissive. * Such roles were very easily taken on by all participants. Even volunteers who came in to perform specific functions (such as the 'prison chaplain') found themselves behaving as if they were in a prison rather than in a psychological study. ### Apply it **Concepts**: Abu Ghraib From 2003 to 2004, United States Army Military Police personnel committed serious human rights violations against Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad. The prisoners were tortured, physically and sexually abused, routinely humiliated, and some were murdered. Zimbardo noticed some remarkable similarities between the behavior of the personnel at Abu Ghraib and the guards in the Stanford prison experiment. **Question**: Using your knowledge of Zimbardo's research, explain what happened at Abu Ghraib in terms of conformity to social roles. ## Obedience The specification says... Obedience, as investigated by Milgram. Stanley Milgram sought an answer to the question of why such a high proportion of the German population obeyed Hitler's commands to murder over 6 million Jews in the Holocaust as well as 5 million Romani, homosexuals, Poles, and members of other social groups during the Second World War. He thought one possible explanation was that Germans were different from people from other countries - perhaps they were more obedient. In order to determine this, he needed a procedure which could assess how obedient people are. ### Key term * **Obedience**: A form of social influence in which an individual follows a direct order. The person issuing the order is usually a source of authority, who has the power to punish when obedient behaviour is not forthcoming. ### Apply it **Concepts**: Ethical guidance Milgram was not breaking any official ethical guidance at the time because none existed. It was because of his research (and that of Zimbardo a few years later) that ethical issues became an urgent priority for psychology. Professional psychological associations publish and frequently revise ethical guidance for practicing psychologists and researchers. In Britain, the British Psychological Society (BPS) produces a Code of Ethics and Conduct that is described and revised on pages 178-179. It addresses several issues, including: * Participant's right to withdraw from the research. * The need to get fully informed consent from the participants. * The use of deception. * The importance of protecting participants from the risk of psychological and physical harm. **Questions**: For each of these ethical issues, identify how they arose in Milgram's study. What steps did Milgram take to address these issues? To what extent do you think he was successful? ## Milgram's research ### Procedural Detail of Milgram's Research Milgram's participants were males (aged 20-50 years) who came from the area around New Haven, Connecticut, USA. They were volunteers recruited through a newspaper advert or mailshot, and were paid $4.50 for participating. The Learner (called 'Mr Wallace') was strapped into a chair and wired up with electrodes. The Teacher (the real participant) was given a small shock to convince themselves. This was the only genuine shock in the procedure. The Learner had to remember pairs of words. Each time he made an error, the electric shock became stronger and therefore more painful. The Teacher administered the shocks by pressing switches on a 'shock machine' in a different room. The switches were labelled from 'slight shock' through 'intense shock' to 'XXX-severe shock'. When the Teacher got to 300 volts, the Learner pounded on the wall and then gave no response to the next question. At 315 volts he again pounded on the wall but was then silent for the rest of the procedure. ### Baseline Procedure * 40 American men volunteered to take part in a study at Yale University in the USA, supposedly on memory. * When each volunteer arrived at Milgram's lab, he was introduced to another participant (who was actually a confederate of Milgram's). * They drew lots to see who would be the 'Teacher' (T) and who would be the 'Learner' (L). The draw was fixed so that the participant was always the Teacher. * An 'Experimenter' (E) was also involved (he was also a confederate dressed in a grey lab coat. * The baseline procedure was arranged as shown in the diagram below. The Teacher could not see the Learner but could hear him. * The Teacher had to give the Learner an electric shock every time the Learner made a mistake on a memory task. * The shocks increased with each mistake in 15-volt steps up to 450 volts. * In fact, the shocks were fake but labelled to suggest that they were increasingly dangerous. The four standard 'prods' the Experimenter used to order the Teacher to continue were: * 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.' ### Baseline findings * Every participant delivered all the shocks up to 300 volts. * 12.5% (five participants) stopped at 300 volts ('intense shock') and 65% continued to the highest level of 450 volts, i.e. they were fully obedient. * Milgram also collected qualitative data including observations such as the participants showed signs of extreme tension; many of them were seen to 'sweat, tremble, stutter, bite their lips, groan and dig their fingernails into their hands'; three even had 'full-blown uncontrollable seizures'. ### Other Data * Before the study, Milgram asked 14 psychology students to predict the participants' behaviour. The students estimated that no more than 3% of the participants would continue to 450 volts. This shows that the findings were unexpected - the students underestimated how obedient people actually are. * All participants in the baseline study were debriefed and assured that their behaviour was entirely normal. They were also sent a follow-up questionnaire - 84% said they were glad to have participated. ### Conclusions Milgram concluded that German people are not 'different'. The American participants in his study were willing to obey orders even when they might harm another person. He suspected there were certain factors in the situation that encouraged obedience, so decided to conduct further studies to investigate these (see next spread). ## Obedience: Situational variables The specification says... Explanations for obedience: situational variables affecting obedience including proximity and location, investigated by Milgram, and uniform. Milgram's 'baseline study,' described on the previous spread, established a method he could repeat and vary, and use to assign a numerical value on obedience. Milgram began his research with the belief that obedience might be due to personality - were the Germans different? However, he found that situational factors might explain obedience better. He continued to explore this in further studies. ### Key terms * **Situational Variables**: Features of the immediate physical and social environment which may influence a person's behaviour (such as proximity, location, and uniform). The alternative is dispositional variables, where behaviour is explained in terms of personality. * **Proximity**: The physical closeness or distance of an authority figure to the person they are giving an order to. Also refers to the physical closeness of the Teacher to the victim (Learner) in Milgram's studies. * **Location**: The place where an order is issued. The relevant factor that influences obedience is the status or prestige associated with the location. * **Uniform**: People in positions of authority often have a specific outfit that is symbolic of their authority, for example, police officers and judges. This indicates that they are entitled to our obedience. ### Apply it **Concepts**: The power of a uniform A psychologist conducted an investigation into obedience. He used two confederates - one was dressed as a firefighter and the other was dressed in everyday smart-but-casual clothes. The confederates stood on different streets and instructed people to pick up a piece of litter and put it into a bin. A record was kept of how many people obeyed the instruction. **Questions**: 1. From what you know about obedience research, what is the likely outcome of this study? Explain your answer. 2. Are there any ethical issues that might arise in this study? ### Situational Variables After Stanley Milgram conducted his first study on obedience (described on the previous spread), he carried out a large number of variations in order to consider the situational variables that might lead to more or less obedience. ### Proximity In Milgram's baseline study, the Teacher could hear the Learner, but not see him. In the proximity variation, Teacher and Learner were in the same room. The obedience rate dropped from the original 65% to 40% (see graph below). In the touch proximity variation, the Teacher had to force the Learner's hand onto an 'electroshock plate' when he refused to answer a question. Obedience dropped further to 30%. In the remote instruction variation, the Experimenter left the room and gave instructions to the Teacher by telephone. Obedience reduced to 20.5%. The participants also frequently pretended to give shocks. **Explanation**: Decreased proximity allows people to psychologically distance themselves from the consequences of their actions. For example, when the Teacher and Learner were physically separated (as in the baseline study), the Teacher was less aware of the harm they were causing to another person, so they were more obedient. ### Location Milgram conducted a variation in a run-down office block rather than in the prestigious Yale University setting of the baseline study. In this location, obedience fell to 47.5%. **Explanation**: The prestigious university environment gave Milgram's study legitimacy and authority. Participants were more obedient in this location because they perceived that the Experimenter shared this legitimacy and that obedience was expected. However, obedience was still quite high in the office block because the participants perceived the 'scientific' nature of the procedure. ### Uniform In the baseline study, the Experimenter wore a grey lab coat as a symbol of his authority (a kind of uniform). In one variation, the Experimenter was called away because of an inconvenient telephone call at the start of the procedure. The role of the Experimenter was taken over by an 'ordinary member of the public' (a confederate) in everyday clothes rather than a lab coat. The obedience rate dropped to 20%, the lowest of these variations. **Explanation**: Uniforms 'encourage' obedience because they are widely recognised symbols of authority. We accept that someone in a uniform is entitled to expect obedience because their authority is legitimate (i.e. it is granted by society). Someone without a uniform has less right to expect our obedience. ### Evaluation * **Research Support**: One strength is that other studies have demonstrated the influence of situational variables on obedience. In a field experiment in New York City, Leonard Bickman (1974) had three confederates dress in different outfits - jacket and tie, a milkman's outfit, and a security guard's uniform. The confederates individually stood in the street and asked passers-by to perform tasks such as picking up litter or handing over a coin for the parking meter. People were twice as likely to obey the assistant dressed as a security guard than the one dressed in a jacket and tie. This supports the view that a situational variable, such as a uniform, does have a powerful effect on obedience. * **Cross-cultural Replications**: Another strength of Milgram's research is that his findings have been replicated in other cultures. For instance, Wim Meeus and Quintin Raaijmakers (1986) used a more realistic procedure than Milgram's to study obedience in Dutch participants. The participants were ordered to say stressful things in an interview to someone (a confederate) desperate for a job. 90% of the participants obeyed. The researchers also replicated Milgram's findings concerning proximity. When the person giving the orders was not present, obedience decreased dramatically. This suggests that Milgram's findings about obedience are not just limited to Americans or males, but are valid across cultures and apply to females too. * **Counterpoint**: However, replications of Milgram's research are not very 'cross-cultural'. Peter Smith and Michael Bond (1998) identified just two replications between 1968 and 1985 that took place in 'non-Western' countries (India and Jordan). Other countries involved (e.g. Spain, Australia, Scotland) are not that culturally different from the United States. For example, they have similar notions about the role of authority. Therefore, it may not be appropriate to conclude that Milgram's findings (including those about proximity, location and uniform) apply to people in all or most cultures. * **Low Internal Validity**: One limitation is that participants may have been aware that the procedure was faked. Martin Orne and Charles Holland (1968) made this criticism of Milgram's baseline study. They point out that it is even more likely in his variations because of the extra manipulation of variables. 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. Therefore, in all of Milgram's studies, it is unclear whether the findings are genuinely due to the operation of obedience or because the participants saw through the deception and just 'play-acted' (i.e. responded to demand characteristics). ### Evaluation extra * **The Danger of the Situational Perspective**: Milgram's research findings support a situational explanation of obedience (proximity, location and uniform are all aspects of the situation). But this perspective has been criticised by David Mandel (1998) who argues that it offers an excuse or 'alibi' for evil behaviour. In his view, it is offensive to survivors of the Holocaust to suggest that the Nazis were simply obeying orders. Milgram's explanation also ignores the role of dispositional factors (such as personality), implying that the Nazis were victims of situational factors beyond their control. Consider: Is the situational perspective justified? ## Obedience: Situational explanations The specification says... Explanations for obedience: agentic state and legitimacy of authority. On the previous spread, we explored situational variables that influence levels of obedience - proximity, location, and uniform. This is one way to explain why people obey - because of the characteristics of people around you. Now we turn to two further explanations which are situational but this time concern the dynamics of social hierarchies. ### Key terms * **Agentic State**: A mental state where we feel no personal responsibility for our behavior because he believe ourselves to be acting for an authority figure, i.e. as their agent. This frees us from the demands of our consciences and allows us to obey even a destructive authority figure. * **Legitimacy of Authority**: An 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 individual's position of power within a social hierarchy. ### Apply it **Concepts**: I will obey Max's younger Sister finds out that he has a bag of sweets. 'Give me one of those sweets,' she demands, trying to snatch the bag from his hand. But Max refuses. Just then, Max's dad comes into the room. He has finally had enough, so he tells Max: 'Your room is a complete disgrace, go and tidy it up immediately. And when you've done that, you can go to the shops and get me a loaf of bread.' Max replies 'Certainly dad, I'll go and do that right now.' **Question**: Use your knowledge of why people obey to explain Max's behavior. Refer to both the agentic state and legitimacy of authority explanations. ### Agentic State Stanley Milgram's initial interest in obedience was sparked by the trial of Adolf Eichmann in 1961 for war crimes. Eichmann had been in charge of the Nazi death camps and his defence was that he was only obeying orders. This led Milgram to propose that obedience to destructive authority occurs because a person does not take responsibility. Instead, they believe they are acting for someone else, i.e. that they are an 'agent.' An 'agent' is someone who acts for or in place of another. An agent is not an unfeeling puppet - they experience high anxiety ('moral strain') when they realise that what they are doing is wrong, but feel powerless to disobey. ### Autonomous State The opposite of being in an agentic state is being in an autonomous state. 'Autonomy' means to be independent or free. So a person in an autonomous state is free to behave according to their own principles and feels a sense of responsibility for their own actions. The shift from autonomy to 'agency' is called the agentic shift. Milgram (1974) suggested that this occurs when a person perceives someone else as an authority figure. The authority figure has greater power because they have a higher position in a social hierarchy. In most social groups, when one person is in charge, others defer to the legitimate authority (see below) of this person and shift from autonomy to agency. ### Binding Factors Milgram observed that many of his participants said they wanted to stop, but seemed powerless to do so. He wondered why they remained in an agentic state. The answer is binding factors - aspects of the situation that allow the person to ignore or minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour and thus reduce the 'moral strain' they are feeling. Milgram proposed a number of strategies that the individual uses, such as shifting the responsibility to the victim ('he was foolish to volunteer') or denying the damage they were doing to the victims. ### Legitimacy of Authority Most societies are structured in a hierarchical way. This means that people in certain positions hold authority over the rest of us. For example, parents, teachers, police officers, nightclub bouncers... all have authority over us at times. The authority they wield is legitimate in the sense that it is agreed by society. Most of us accept that authority figures have to be allowed to exercise social power over others because this allows society to function smoothly. One of the consequences of this legitimacy of authority is that some people are granted the power to punish others. We generally agree that the police and courts have the power to punish wrongdoers. So we are willing to give up some of our independence and to hand control of our behaviour over to people we trust to exercise their authority appropriately. We learn acceptance of legitimate authority from childhood, from parents initially and then teachers and adults generally. ### Destructive Authority Problems arise when legitimate authority becomes destructive. History has too often shown that charismatic and powerful leaders (such as Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot) can use their legitimate powers for destructive purposes, ordering people to behave in ways that are cruel and dangerous. Destructive authority was obvious in Milgram's study, when the Experimenter used prods to order participants to behave in ways that went against their consciences. ### Apply it **Concepts**: Massacre at My Lai Milgram's findings have been used to explain the notorious war crime at My Lai in 1968 during the Vietnam War. As many as 504 unarmed civilians were killed by American soldiers. Women were gang-raped and people were shot down as they emerged from their homes with their hands in the air. The soldiers blew up buildings, burned the village to the ground, and killed all the animals. Only one soldier faced charges and was found guilty, Lt William Calley. His defence was the same as the Nazi officers at the Nuremberg trials, that he was only doing his duty by following orders. **Question**: Explain the behaviour of the soldiers in terms of agentic state and legitimacy of authority. ## Obedience: Dispositional explanation The specification says... Dispositional explanation for obedience: the Authoritarian Personality. Not all psychologists accept that obedience can be fully explained by factors in the situation or the social structure. They reason that there must be at least some role for the personality or disposition of the individual. After all, not all of Milgram's participants fully obeyed, and some actively rebelled, despite them experiencing identical situational and social pressures. There are several dispositional explanations for obedience, but the most influential concerns the Authoritarian Personality. ### Key terms * **Dispositional Explanation**: Any explanation of behaviour that highlights the importance of the individual's personality (i.e. their disposition). Such explanations are often contrasted with situational explanations. * **Authoritarian Personality (AP)**: A type of personality that Adorno argued was especially susceptible to obeying people in authority. Such individuals are also thought to be submissive to those of higher status and dismissive of inferiors. ### Apply it **Concepts**: Workplace bully Leon works in the Head Office of a big national company. His boss has a reputation as a bully because he is always shouting at people and telling them what to do in no uncertain terms. The floor Leon works on is open-plan so his boss can easily see what everyone is doing. Leon has noticed that his boss is always sucking up to the senior managers at every opportunity. **Question**: Explain the behavior of Leon's boss in terms of (a) situational variables, (b) social structures/hierarchies, (c) dispositional factors. ### The Authoritarian Personality Like Milgram, Theodor Adorno and his colleagues wanted to understand the anti-Semitism of the Holocaust. Their research led them to draw very different conclusions from Milgram's. They believed that a high level of obedience was basically a psychological disorder (i.e. pathological). They believed that the causes of such a disorder lie in the personality of the individual rather than in the situation, i.e. it is a dispositional explanation. ### Authoritarian Personality and Obedience Adorno et al. argued that people with an Authoritarian Personality (AP) first of all show an extreme respect for (and submissiveness to) authority. Second, such people view society as 'weaker' than it once was, so believe we need strong and powerful leaders to enforce traditional values such as love of country and family. Both of these characteristics make people with an Authoritarian Personality more likely to obey orders from a source of authority. People with Authoritarian Personalities also show contempt for those of inferior social status. This is fuelled by their inflexible outlook on the world - for them there are no 'grey areas.' Everything is either right or wrong, and they are very uncomfortable with uncertainty. Therefore, people who are 'other' (e.g. belong to a different ethnic group) are responsible for the ills of society. 'Other' people are a convenient target for authoritarians who are likely to obey orders from authority figures even when such orders are destructive (as in Nazi Germany). ### Origins of the Authoritarian Personality Adorno et al. believed that the Authoritarian Personality type forms in childhood, mostly as a result of harsh parenting. This parenting style typically features extremely strict discipline, an expectation of absolute loyalty, impossibly high standards, and severe criticism of perceived failings. Parents give conditional love - that is, their love and affection for their child depends entirely on how he or she behaves ('I will love you if...). Adorno et al. argued that these childhood experiences create resentment and hostility in a child. But the child cannot express these feelings directly against their parents because they fear punishment. So their fears are displaced onto others who they perceive to be weaker, in a process known as scapegoating. This explains the hatred towards people considered to be socially inferior or who belong to other social groups, a central feature of obedience to a higher authority. This is a psychodynamic explanation. ### Adorno et al.'s research Adorno et al. (1950) based their theory on research data. * **Procedure**: Adorno et al. (1950) studied more than 2000 middle-class, white Americans and their unconscious attitudes towards other racial groups. The researchers developed several measurement scales, including the potential-for-fascism scale (F-scale). This scale is still used to measure Authoritarian Personality. Two examples of items from the F-scale are: 'Obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtues for children to learn', and 'There is hardly anything lower than a person who does not feel great love, gratitude and respect for his parents.' Other examples are given on the facing page. * **Findings**: People with authoritarian leanings (i.e. those who scored high on the F-scale and other measures) identified with 'strong' people and were generally contemptuous of the 'weak'. They were very conscious of status (their own and others') and showed extreme respect, deference, and servility to those of higher status - these traits are the basis of obedience. Adorno et al. also found that authoritarian people had a certain cognitive style (way of perceiving others) in which there was no 'fuzziness' between categories of people (i.e. 'black and white' thinking). They had fixed and distinctive stereotypes about other groups. Adorno et al. found a strong positive correlation between authoritarianism and prejudice. ### Apply it **Concepts**: Caleb's grandad Caleb's grandad is the old-fashioned type. As far as he's concerned, there are good Zombies and there are bad Zombies and that's all there is to it. He thinks the youth of today are a bunch of wasters and what they all need is a spell in the Zombie Army. He longs for the days when we had strong leaders who knew how to get things done. Caleb has also noticed that his grandad talks with a lot of respect about his old bosses from work: 'They don't make them like that anymore - you'd do anything for them.' Caleb often wonders why his grandad thinks like this. **Question**: From what you know about obedience, how would you explain to Caleb why his grand