Social Psychology Revision Guide 2024-5 PDF

**Social Psychology Revision Guide 2024-5** **Specification 2021 update** - Types of conformity: internalisation, identification and compliance. - Explanations for conformity: informational social influence and normative social influence, - Variables affecting conformity including grou...

**Social Psychology Revision Guide 2024-5** **Specification 2021 update** - Types of conformity: internalisation, identification and compliance. - Explanations for conformity: informational social influence and normative social influence, - Variables affecting conformity including group size, unanimity and task difficulty as investigated by Asch. - Conformity to social roles as investigated by Zimbardo. - Explanations for obedience: agentic state and legitimacy of authority, and situational variables affecting obedience including proximity and location, as investigated by Milgram, and uniform. - Dispositional explanation for obedience: the Authoritarian Personality. - Explanations of resistance to social influence, including social support and locus of control. - Minority influence including reference to consistency, commitment and flexibility. - The role of social influence processes in social change. **TYPES OF CONFORMITY: INTERNALISATION, IDENTIFICATION AND COMPLIANCE.** There are different types of conformity, and it is important that you can define and give examples for each type. Conformity can be thought of as going along with others in the sense that you yield to group pressure. It only occurs when you conform with a majority, and it can also be called "majority influence." Conformity is one of the key factors that helps society to function in a smooth and reliable way: because everyone does the same thing and there is a lower chance of conflict. **Kelman (1958)** identified three types of conformity: compliance, identification, and internalisation. ***Compliance***: when you change your behaviour to "fit in" with the majority even though you do not believe that they are correct. This might be to gain the majority's approval. At a basic level, your internal beliefs do not match your public behaviour. It is a temporary form of conformity because you stop conforming as soon as you are not with the majority. For example, in public, you say that you support one football team, but you really support a different team. **Research support: Asch (1951 and 1952)** is a good research example of compliance, as in public (giving answers out loud) the conformity to the majority was 36.8%, and in a later study (**Asch, 1955**) participants were allowed to give a private response (writing their answers on paper) conformity dropped to 12.5%. ***Identification***: occurs when you adjust both your behaviour and opinions to those of the majority because being part of the group is desirable. This means that you value the majority view and publicly agree with it. While you are in the group, there is congruence (agreement) between your internal beliefs and external behaviours. However, this type of conformity can be temporary and when you leave the group your beliefs change. For example, you start a relationship with a vegan and adopt a vegan diet shared with them and their friends (majority). While you are in that relationship you agree with the principles behind the diet, but this is mostly due to the influence of your partner. When the relationship ends you return to your original eating habits which means that the conformity was not permanent. ***Internalisation***: this is also known as "true conformity" because it is when the individual genuinely adjusts their beliefs, opinions, and behaviours to match the majority. You internalise (learn) the theories and belief systems of the majority and maintain those beliefs and behaviours even when you are no longer with the majority. This means that you are no longer conforming because of the majority but instead, you are conforming because you really believe that it is the right thing to do. A good example is converting to a religious faith where you must follow the rules and expectations of the group. Then, even when you are no longer with the group, you continue to follow the rules and expectations. **Research support: Moscovici** is a good example of internalisation as agreement with a minority is usually because you agree with what the minority is saying (there is no group pressure). **EXPLANATIONS OF CONFORMITY** **Deutsch and Gerard (1955)** developed an explanation with two parts for why people conform. They are based on two central human needs: the need to be right (**informational social influence**) and the need to be liked (**normative social influence**). **INFORMATIONAL SOCIAL INFLUENCE** **(ISI)** is based on the desire to be right in terms of what you say and do. The majority view is more likely to be right, so you are influenced by it. is where you go along with a group because you agree with what they are doing. ISI is a cognitive process where we think about what the majority view is and then we internalise it. This is called '**internalisation'** (you have internally accepted the information/beliefs of others). When you have internalised the majority view, you have congruence between your internal beliefs and your external behaviour. This is a more **permanent** form of behaviour change. ISI is more common when you are in a situation that is new to you as you do not know what is right. It is also common when it is not clear what the correct behaviour or belief is. Therefore, the more ambiguous a situation is, the more ISI there will be. Finally, it is also more likely in a crisis, where responses are needed quickly, in this case the majority is often followed as the group is more likely to be correct. **Research on ISI** **Lucas et al. (2006)** asked ppts to solve 'easy' and 'hard' maths problems. Ppts were given the answers from three other students that were not correct (not actually real answers) that the ppts could use to answer the questions. The ppts were more likely to conform to the three students when the questions were harder. The ppts with the lowest self-belief in their maths skill (self-efficacy) were the most likely to conform to the incorrect answers. A study that demonstrates informational social influence is **Moscovici et al.**'s study. In Moscovici's study, there is no pressure to conform because the confederates only form a minority. While, in Moscovici's study the participants only conform a small amount, they are conforming because they really believe that the slides were green. This suggests that informational social influence occurs when you believe the answer is correct because of someone else's influence -- you are not conforming because you fear rejection. In support of informational social influence, **Fein et al**. found that people watching US presidential candidates were influenced by knowledge of the beliefs of the majority. The participants were watching the candidates and the majority's beliefs on a TV screen. Each participant was on their own and was able to give a private response. This should mean that there was no fear of rejection (normative social influence). When the participants changed their minds to agree with the majority it was because they agreed with what the majority was saying. **NORMATIVE SOCIAL INFLUENCE (NSI)** is based on a fear of social rejection (compliance). People do not like appearing to be the odd one out and so agree with the majority to fit in. NSI is an emotional rather than a cognitive process. The changes in behaviour are only temporary and do not last once the majority is no longer present. NSI might be more likely in stressful situations where there is a greater need for social support. **Research on NSI** A study that demonstrates normative social influence is **Asch**'s original (1951) study because the participants complied with the majority, even though they knew that the majority were wrong. An additional study that demonstrates conformity and NSI is **Garandeau and Cillessen's** bully study. In this study, the researchers found that the members of a bully's group did whatever the bully wanted because they feared being rejected by the rest of the group. This study supports the concept of normative social influence where a 'fear of rejection' has a considerable influence on behaviour. **Schultz et al. (2008)​** investigated the role of NSI in encouraging people to be more environmentally friendly when staying in hotels. They put up signs that told guests that "75% of guests reuse their towels each day, rather than asking for fresh". This increased the number of guests who also decided to reuse their towels. This saved the hotel money and reduced the energy needed to clean the towels. Because the guests were following the majority 'norm', this is an example of normative social influence. Although, you could also explain this study in terms of ISI, as the ppt has used the information provided to change their behaviour and it is a private response which should not be influenced by NSI in the same way. **Evaluation of NSI and ISI** It can be extremely hard to know if it is NSI or ISI that is influencing a situation. In **Asch's (1955)** study he found that conformity is reduced (to 5%) when there is one dissenting ppt. The dissenter might be reducing the normative social influence because they provide social support, OR they might be providing a different source of social information which reduces the power of the informational social influence from the majority. Both explanations are possible and in most real-world situations both NSI and ISI are operating together. Research now focuses on the amount that NSI and ISI play a role in different situations. Additionally, as mentioned in the Lucas study, the amount of self-efficacy that a person feels in any given situation is going to affect how much they are influenced by NSI and ISI. **The Schultz et al. (2008)** study above is another example where it is not clear if the behaviour change is due to NSI or ISI. **VARIABLES AFFECTING CONFORMITY INCLUDING GROUP SIZE, UNANIMITY AND TASK DIFFICULTY AS INVESTIGATED BY ASCH.** **Asch's original study (1951) (this was the baseline or first study) - aka. the line study** Asch investigated how likely it is that a ppt would conform to a majority who were clearly wrong. He deceived his ppts so that he could collect their true responses as he knew that they would not act in a natural way if they were aware of the true purpose of his study. Each ppt was tested individually but they thought that they were part of a group of 6 ppts. The other five people were confederates (accomplices) of the researcher and had been instructed to give the same wrong answer in many of the trials. **Method**: The ppt and the five confederates sat in a line with ppt in the 5^th^ position. The participant had been deceived about the purpose of the study and had been told that it was a study on vision. The group were shown cards with three lines on and another card with a single line. The individuals were asked to determine which of the three lines the single line matched. Asch recorded how frequently the ppts conformed with the confederates when the confederates gave the same wrong answer. Asch tested 123 ppts in total -- remember each ppt was tested separately.  Figure 1: ppts were instructed to say which of the three lines on the right (a, b, or c) was the same as the single line on the left. **Results**: 36.8% of the time the participants conformed with the confederates. This suggests that people will conform to a majority when the majority all say the same thing. Note: the percentage 32% is also reported in Asch's papers and is also marked as correct by the exam board. 75% of the participants in Asch's study conformed at least once. 25% of the participants never conformed which suggests that some individuals show independent behaviour and are less influenced by a majority. **Evaluation of Asch's original study**: This was a lab experiment, and the task was artificial which means that it lacks ecological validity, and it is hard to generalise the results of the study to the real world. The study did have high control and was replicated by Asch at the time which suggests that it had internal validity. However, **Perrin and Spencer (1980)** replicated Asch's study but could not reach the same levels of conformity Asch had found. They concluded that the elevated levels of conformity Asch found were due to the fact the research took place in the 1950s in the US. This period was during a time where there were fears about a war with Russia and people were scared to be different. This suggests that Asch's study may only be valid during the 1950s in the US and that it has less validity today. In support of Asch's study, **Lucas et al. (2006)** asked ppts to solve 'easy' and 'hard' maths problems. Ppts were given the answers from three other students that were not correct (not actually real answers) that the ppts could use to answer the questions. The ppts were more likely to conform to the three students when the questions were harder. The ppts with the lowest self-belief in their maths skill (self-efficacy) were the most likely to conform to the incorrect answers. **Fiske (2014)** suggested that Asch's study also lacks ecological validity because the groups used in the study do not resemble the sort of groups that we experience in the real world. Asch had put volunteers together as confederates and had not considered if they would resemble a real group of people, for example, a group of friends or work colleagues. **Smith and Bond** investigated the level of conformity across 17 different countries. They found that, on average, collectivist cultures had higher levels of conformity than individualistic cultures. This suggests that there is a cultural part to the level of conformity shown, which supports the findings of **Perrin and Spencer (1980)** who found that cultural beliefs had played a role in Asch's original study. **Smith and Bond** also found that there had been a steady drop in conformity levels over time. In a correlational analysis they compared the date of the study with level of conformity. They found a negative correlation, which showed that as the year increases the level of conformity decreases. This also suggests that Asch's study may not have generalisability to the 21st century. The participants were all male college students which means that it is extremely hard to **generalise** (compare) the results to the general population, for example, it is not clear that the results would be true of 50-year-old females who left school at age 16. There are ethical issues in these studies as Asch broke the ethical rules of informed consent and no deception because he lied about the aim of the experiment. Asch did debrief his participants, which makes up for the deception. A positive point is that no lasting psychological damage was caused, although some participants did report that they had been embarrassed, about their conforming behaviour, when they found out the truth. **Variables affecting conformity (investigated by Asch).** **Group size** Asch ran several variations where he changed the numbers of confederates to see how much influence larger groups can have on an individual's frequency of conformity. Asch (1956) found that when there was one ppt and one confederate conformity was low, this rose to 13% with two confederates and 32% with three confederates. Asch found that after three confederates, adding more, up to a maximum of 15, did not have a significant effect. **Bond and Smith (1996)** conducted a meta-analysis of 133 studies from 17 countries and found that conformity peaks with 4-5 confederates, supporting Asch's original finding. **Unanimity versus the partner experiment** Asch replicated his original study and included two conditions. In the first condition the confederates gave the same wrong answer (Unanimous). In the second condition he gave the ppt a partner who gave the correct answer. The partner was always positioned before the ppt in the order of giving answers, so the ppt heard someone give a correct answer before they were asked to give their own. In the partner condition, the ppt conformity dropped from 32% in the unanimous condition to **5% in the partner condition**. This suggests that having a partner helps you to resist the majority and that when the majority is not unanimous it is easier to not conform. **Task difficulty** Asch also investigated what happens when you change the difficulty of the task by creating a variation where the three lines were more like each other in terms of their length. This made it harder for the ppt to determine which of the lines was the same as the line they had to match. Asch found that conformity levels increased in this study which suggests that we are more likely to conform when it is not obvious what the correct answer is (which is informational social influence). **Lucas (2006)** found that increasing the task difficulty in similar study to Asch's study was influenced by the self-efficacy of the ppt. Instead of a line judgement, the ppts had to complete a maths task. Ppts who were more confident in their maths ability showed greater levels of independent behaviour and were less likely to conform. **Note: Asch also included a private response variation.** In this variation, Asch asked the ppts to make private responses, instead of reporting their answer aloud. The private response was made by writing their response on paper. This way the ppt could make an answer and the majority would not know what their answer was. The conformity dropped by two-thirds (37% down to 12%). This supports the idea that the ppts in the original study were conforming because they wanted to fit in with the majority. **CONFORMITY TO SOCIAL ROLES AS INVESTIGATED BY ZIMBARDO** **Zimbardo (1973)** conducted a study investigating the impact that social roles have on ppt behaviour. This study is often called The Stanford Prison Experiment, but it is not an experiment and should be referred to as a study or observation. Note: the study was organised by Zimbardo, but it was not written by him which is why the first author on the paper is Haney (**Haney et al., 197**3). **Method**: 24 of the most stable male students were selected from a large group of volunteers. The participants were randomly allocated to be either a guard OR a prisoner. The prisoners were put into a prison uniform (smock), given an ID number, and made to wear a hair net. The guards were given guard uniforms, clubs, whistles, and reflective sunglasses. The clothes the ppts had to wear were designed to deindividuate the individuals so that they felt like they were part of a group and conform to the social roles they were playing (prisoner or guard). Zimbardo was the prison superintendent and took the role of making decisions about prisoners and punishments and advising the guards. The study was meant to last two weeks; however, it had to be stopped after just 6 days because the experience was very damaging for the ppts who. The participants playing the role of the guards created an environment of fear and abuse. Five of the prisoners had to be released early because of the psychological harm they were experiencing. **Results**: There was a clear difference between the responses shown by the ppts who played prisoners and those who were guards. The guards took up their roles with enthusiasm and treated the prisoners harshly. The prisoners rebelled within two days, they ripped their uniforms and shouted and swore at the guards. The guards played the prisoners off against each other (divide-and-conquer) and used harassment tactics to remind the prisoners that they were powerless. The guards created opportunities to enforce the rules and exert power over the prisoners. One prisoner was released after the rebellion because he was showing psychological disturbance, two more were released on day four. One prisoner went on hunger strike and the guards tried to force feed him and put him in "the hole", a small, dark broom closet. On the Sixth day the study was ended by Zimbardo as he finally realised that it had gone too far. Zimbardo suggested that the study showed that ppts do conform to social roles and that social roles play a large part in the behaviour that we show. Zimbardo suggested that conformity to social roles is automatic and that as soon as you put on the outfit and adopt the role you are acting in an automatic way. If you do something bad you cannot help it. **Evaluation of the SPS** Zimbardo and colleagues had good control of the variables and were able to manipulate the events effectively. This indicates that the study has good internal validity. In addition, the prison environment they had created was as realistic as it could be because volunteers, like a local priest who visited to be the prison chaplain, quickly found themselves behaving as they would in a real prison. There are many criticisms of the study, not least the ethical issues that were caused by the psychological harm the prisoners experienced. There were also issues with the right to withdraw as Zimbardo had prevented ppts from leaving when they first asked to. Another issue is that Zimbardo was too involved with the study and was unable to remain objective. If Zimbardo had been more objective, it is likely that the study would have been stopped as soon as the first indications of psychological harm appeared. Zimbardo believed that conformity to social roles was the best explanation of the ppts behaviour; however, **Haslam and Reicher (2012)** state that some of the guards became 'good guy' guards instead of 'mean guy' guards, there must be some form of choice and that conformity to social roles is not automatic. A criticism was raised by **Banuazizi and Movahedi (1975)** who suggest that the SPS is heavily influenced by demand characteristics and that the ppt were only playing the roles. One of the guards in Zimbardo's study had stated that he was acting like a guard in the movie Cool Hand Luke. This also explains why the prisoners rioted as this is what they thought real prisoners would do. These issues suggest that the SPS lacks validity. However, **McDermott (2019)** suggests that the ppts did act as if the study was real because 90% of the prisoner conversations were about prison life. They discussed not being able to leave until their sentences were up. Prisoner 416 later explained that he thought it was a real prison run by psychologists instead of the government. McDermott's analysis suggests that the prisoners had conformed to the social roles that they had taken on. A real-world example of the impact of social roles can be seen in the Iraq war where several soldiers were accused of treating prisoners poorly in the **Abu Ghraib** prison, for example, US soldier **Lynndie England** was found guilty of abusing prisoners in the prison. The abuse that happened can be explained through the adoption of social roles and the failure of authority figures to intervene, which is what Zimbardo suggested happened in the SPE. The BBC copy of the SPE (**Reicher and Haslam, 2006**) failed to replicate the results of the SPE. In this study, the prisoners worked together as a group and rejected the authority of the guards. The prisoners set up a fairer and more equal system despite what the guards tried to do. The guards also failed to identify with the role and did not impose their authority on the prisoners. This suggests that conforming to social roles is not automatic and that there is choice. **Le Texier (2019)** conducted a review of the Stanford Prison Experiment, including interviewing 15 of the original participants and analysing files from the study. Le Texier found that the data collection had been poor; that the study had been discussed and planned by Zimbardo's students three months earlier, the guards had been given precise instructions on how to act and their behaviour was not a natural result of social roles. **Haslam et al. (2020)** were also given access to the archives for the SPS and concluded that the guards were not showing natural behaviour and that they were encouraged to act in the way they did by Zimbardo. This is problematic as it undermines Zimbardo's claim that the ppts were automatically conforming to the social roles. **Zimbardo and Haney (2020)** reject the claims of Le Texier and Haslam as being unscientific which suggests that there is disagreement over the validity of the original study. However, as multiple researchers have drawn the same conclusions about the lack of validity in Zimbardo's study, it is harder to agree with Zimbardo's point of view. **SITUATIONAL VARIABLES AFFECTING OBEDIENCE INCLUDING PROXIMITY AND LOCATION, AS INVESTIGATED BY MILGRAM, AND UNIFORM**. **Obedience --** to obey (carry out) an order/command of someone in a position of authority **Milgram's (1963) original study** Milgram wished to investigate whether it would be possible for the holocaust to happen in America in the 1960s and why so many people obeyed Hitler's commands to murder over 6 million Jews during the holocaust. **Method**: Milgram advertised in the local paper and 40 participants (aged 20-50 years) volunteered to come to an experimental laboratory at Yale University. When the participants arrived, they were told that the study was investigating learning and punishment. However, the study was really investigating the participant's obedience to the experimenter. The participant was introduced to a confederate and told that the confederate was another participant. They drew straws and the participant was told that they would be the 'teacher', who would be teaching the confederate word pairs. The ppt watched as the confederate was strapped to a chair and a shock device attached to their arm. From the room next door, each time the confederate got an answer incorrect, the participant had to press a button on a "shock box" to give the confederate an electric shock to punish them for giving a wrong answer. The electric shock was increased by 15 volts each time the learner (confederate) got an answer wrong, from 15 volts all the way up to 450 volts. Above 450 volts were the letters "xxx", which indicates a danger to life. When the ppt had reached the 330 volts switch, the confederate screamed "let me out of here, you have no right to hold me here". When a ppt asked to stop the experimenter used four standard prompts. 1. 'Please continue' or 'please go on.' 2. The experiment requires that you continue. 3. 'It is absolutely essential that you continue.' 4. 'You have no other choice; you must go on.' The confederate was only an actor and was not harmed during the study. At the end, the ppts were introduced to the confederate, who to the ppt's relief was unhurt. **Results**: All the ppts went as far as 300 volts and five ppts (12.5%) stopped at this point. 26 of the 40 ppts (65%) went the whole way to 450 volts, even though psychiatrists had predicted only 1% of the participants would go that far. This suggests that most people are obedient and would hurt someone if an authority figure told them to do so. Milgram also collected observational data about the ppts behaviour and reported that the ppts showed extreme tension, many of them were seen to sweat, tremble, bite their lips, groan, and dig their fingernails into their hands. Several of the ppts had laughing fits resembling anxiety induced hysterical laughing and three ppts had seizures, one of which had such severe convulsions that the study had to be stopped. **\ ** **Evaluation of Milgram's study** A strength of Milgram's study is that he used a range of men from outside of the university. They had normal jobs, and the age range was 20-50 years of age. This makes the study more generalisable compared to Asch and Zimbardo who had only used male college students. Milgram is sometimes criticised for only including male ppts, but he went on to run the study with female ppts and had only restricted the original study to male ppts to prevent gender from being a confounding variable. **Ethical issues**: Milgram deceived his ppts about the true purpose of the study and the use of the confederate learner. Milgram may also have caused psychological harm to his participants, as some of the participants felt guilt over hurting someone else -- even though the learner had been a confederate. During the debrief the ppts were assured that behaviour was completely normal and that they had not acted in a way that was negative or worrying. In a follow up questionnaire, 84% of the ppts said that they were glad that they had taken part in the study. **Baumrind** claims that Milgram had placed his participants under great emotional strain and anxiety. The level of strain caused psychological damage that cannot be justified. Milgram has counter argued that in his post-study interviews, he found no evidence of the 'psychological damage.' In support of Milgram's study, a replication by a French TV company found a similar result to Milgram's original study. The ppts in the 'game' believed they were contestants in a pilot for a new show called **The Game of Death**. The ppt were paid to give false shocks to other ppts (who were confederates) in front of a studio audience. 80% of the ppts delivered the maximum shock of 460 volts. The ppt showed similar anxiety behaviour to Milgram's original ppts. **Criticisms of Milgram's research** **Orne and Holland** (1968) claim that the public have learnt to mistrust psychologists because they know we often lie to set experiments up. Orne and Holland claim that Milgram's participants would have known that the experiment was false and that the learners were not really being shocked. This would mean that Milgram's study lacks validity, as Milgram was no longer measuring what he intended to measure. **Perry (2013)** listened to the recordings from Milgram's study and reported that only half of the ppts seemed to believe that the shocks were real. Of the ppts who thought the shocks were real, 66% of them disobeyed. This is in stark contrast to the 35% Milgram found. **Haslam et al. (2014)** reviewed the recordings from Milgram's study and discovered that ppts obeyed the researcher in Milgram's study for the first three prompts that they had to continue with the study (e.g. the experiment requires that you continue) but that all of the ppts who were given the fourth prompt ("you have no other choice, you must go on), stopped immediately. This suggests that the ppts were willing to continue when it was in the name of the experiment (science) but would not blindly follow the researcher. Haslam et al. suggested that their "social identity theory" is a better explanation of the results than Milgram's own explanations. **VARIATIONS OF MILGRAM'S ORIGINAL** **STUDY: PROXIMITY, LOCATION AND UNIFORM** Milgram identified several situational variables that might explain the elevated level of obedience in his original study: proximity, the location of the study, and the uniform of the research. Milgram set up additional studies to assess the impact of each of these variables on obedience. **Proximity of the victim** Milgram moved the 'learner' (confederate pretending to be shocked) into the same room as the participant. This meant that the participant could see the learner receiving shocks. This reduced the level of obedience to 40% (from 65%). This is explained through the participants now being able to see the **consequences of their actions**. Milgram took a further step and asked the participant to physically shock the learner. In this 'touch' condition obedience dropped to 30%. In this variation, Milgram had made the consequences of the participant's actions even clearer. These two variations suggest that being aware of the consequences of your actions reduces the desire to obey an authority. Milgram also changed the proximity of the researcher (authority figure) by having them in the same room as the ppt and in a different room and giving instructions over the phone. The rate of obedience significantly dropped in the phone condition to 20.5%. **Location of the study** Milgram also conducted the study in a downtown office so that he could compare this to the original study which took place in a Yale University laboratory. Because Yale is one of the top US universities, it would have been a place where the ppts would have felt the staff were authority figures. Milgram set up the experiment in a run-down office in Bridgeport, Connecticut. The variable was to test if the location would make a difference. The original ppts had said that they would not have obeyed if the location had not been Yale University. Obedience rates of ppts to reach the 450v level dropped to 47.5%, which was not a significant difference. **Uniform** Milgram\'s original study had the researcher dressed in a lab coat which is a type of uniform. This may have influenced the authority of the researcher and increased the obedience of the ppts. In the downtown variation, the researcher wore a cheap suit and looked less like an authority figure. This might explain the drop in obedience, although as the difference was not significant it is difficult to know if uniform was an important variable in Milgram's study. Other researchers have found an effect of uniform, for example, **Bickman (1974)** dressed his research assistant in either civilian clothes, a milkman uniform or in security guard uniform and got him to order strangers on a New York street to either pick up rubbish, loan a coin or move away from a bus stop. ​ The results showed the following levels of obedience: 19% obeyed civilian clothes​ 14% Milkman​ 38% Security guard uniform.​ **A final variation conducted by Milgram was the presence of** **Allies, which is also known as social support (useful for resisting obedience).** When Milgram gave the participant an ally (a confederate who would side with the participant) the level of obedience dropped to 10%. It is easier to disobey an authority figure if you have someone on your side. This is a significant drop in obedience and shows the importance of having social support. A real-world example would be a trade union. A union is a group of low-level workers who create a group so that they can work against the management (authority). The union exists to prevent unjust demands from being made by the management and to protect the rights of individual workers. **Orne and Holland (1968)** suggest that the ppts had seen through the deceptions, especially in the variations as the situations are so contrived. Therefore, the ppts are play-acting in response to the demand characteristics in the study. The more contrived the variation was, the more likely it is that demand characteristics played a role. This is a problem because it means that the studies lost validity and that they may not truly show obedience in a natural way. Milgram's studies support a situational explanation of obedience where factors in the environment drive the obedience shown. For example, proximity, location, and uniform are all aspects of the situation and influence the level of obedience shown. **Mandel (1998**) criticises the explanation of obedience using situational variables when it is applied to the holocaust because it offers a way for perpetrators to deny their responsibility for their crimes. Instead, Mandel suggests that a better explanation of the holocaust was racism and that to suggest that there could be an alibi for the crimes committed is offensive to the victims. **EXPLANATIONS FOR OBEDIENCE: AGENTIC STATE AND LEGITIMACY OF AUTHORITY** **THE AGENTIC STATE** **Milgram's** initial interest in studying obedience was triggered by **Adolf Eichmann's** trial in 1961 for his war crimes associated with overseeing the Nazi death camps. Eichmann's defence was that he was only obeying orders. Milgram hypothesised that one reason a person might obey a command to hurt others is because they believe that they are acting on behalf of an authority figure and therefore no longer feel responsible for their own actions. Therefore, we should see different behaviours between people who feel that they are an agent for someone else (agentic state) and those who feel that they are independent (autonomous state). **Milgram (1974)** suggests that people shift between agentic and autonomous states depending on the situation they are in, and he called the change from an autonomous state into an agentic state the agentic shift. Milgram believed than when people are in a social hierarchy, those people who are higher in the hierarchy have greater power and authority and people lower in the hierarchy will shift from autonomous to agentic states. Milgram also proposed binding factors that describe why a person continues to act in an agentic state even though they do not want to and express that they want to stop (like in his experiments). These binding factors include, shifting the responsibility to the victim for volunteering or to the authority because they are in charge. Another reason that people stay in the agentic state is that they feel that they have entered a "social contract" and that they will feel rude or look arrogant if they break the social contract. This helps to bind the person to the authority figure. An example of the agentic state is the **Mai Lai massacre** that took place during the Vietnam War. A platoon of soldiers killed over 500 innocent people, most of whom were children or old people because they had been ordered to do so. The platoon was led by Lt William Calley who used the defence of "I was obeying orders." Calley spent 6 months in prison. This suggests that the court found it an acceptable defence. Another real-world example is Eichmann who masterminded the holocaust. **Staub (1989)** disagreed with the agentic state explanation as he found that the reason the holocaust doctors carried out atrocious crimes was through carrying out increasingly evil acts over an extended period. Each step becomes the new normal and very bad things then become possible. This fits with the gradual steps that were used in Milgram's study as the ppts had taken a lot of little steps to reach the point of "killing" the learner. **Rank and Jacobson (1977)** found that 16 out of 18 nurses disobeyed orders from a doctor to administer an excessive drug dose to a patient. The doctor was an obvious authority figure, but almost all the nurses remained autonomous. This suggests the agentic shift can only explain some situations where obedience occurs. Some social scientists have suggested that Milgram's agentic state explanation fails to explain the aggression that can be seen in other research and the real world. In the Stanford Prison Study, several of the ppts seemed to display cruel and sadistic impulses and the experiment had just given these ppts the chance to show their cruel natures. Therefore, for some people, their behaviour might be because they have entered an agentic state and for others, they can use the situation to show their natural cruel desire to inflict harm on others. **Mandel (1998)** criticises the agentic shift theory as he says that it gives an excuse to people who have committed a crime while they are employed by an authority figure. He also cites the example of Reserve Police Battalion 101 who shot many civilians in a small town in Poland even though they had no orders to do so -- they had committed the crimes while in an autonomous state. **LEGITIMACY OF AUTHORITY** Most people would obey a police officer in uniform if he asked us to do something because we perceive the police officer to be a legitimate authority. We would obey a nurse in a hospital or GPs surgery; however, if we saw a nurse in a supermarket and she told us to do something we would be much less likely to obey as we would not perceive her to be an authority in that situation. In **Milgram's** research, the ppts partly obeyed because they are at Yale University, and they are expecting an academic to be in charge. The experimenter fits the mental image the ppt has of a university authority figure and therefore they obey them in that situation. The experimenter reassures the ppt that the learner will come to no harm and therefore the ppt does as they are told and continues with the study. In **Milgram's** studies, the ppts obeyed the researcher because they were a legitimate authority in that situation. When the study was moved to a downtown office and the researcher was played by a member of the public wearing ordinary clothes, the obedience dropped to 20%. **Tarnow (2000)** demonstrated that the legitimacy of authority is a good explanation when he studied the data from the US National Transportation Safety Board. He found that on US flights the cabin crew accepted the decisions of the captain and in a substantial number of crashes the captain had been wrong, and this contributed to the crash. This suggests that people accept authority figures as legitimate and trust what they say. **Rank and Jacobson (1977)** found that 16 out of 18 nurses disobeyed orders from a doctor to administer an excessive drug dose to a patient. The doctor was a legitimate authority figure, but the nurses did not obey. This means that legitimacy of authority cannot be the only explanation for obedience. **DISPOSITIONAL EXPLANATION FOR OBEDIENCE: THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY.** Adorno and his colleagues were, like Milgram, interested in understanding the antisemitism of the holocaust. They found a quite different result to Milgram and instead of situational factors leading to the killings during the holocaust found that an innate dispositional personality type was responsible. **Adorno et al.** created the California F scale (the f stands for fascist). This scale was designed to measure the varied factors that make up the authoritarian personality. The F scale was a questionnaire with statements that participants responded to. **Adorno et al.'s (1950)** investigated the views of 2000 middle class, white Americans for their unconscious attitudes towards other racial groups. They developed several scales as part of this process, including the potential-for-fascism scale (F-scale) which is still used today. An example statement from the F scale: 'Obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtues children should learn.' People who scored highly on the F scale had the following characteristics: - Extreme respect for (and a submission to) authority - Society is weaker than it once was and we need strong leaders to enforce traditional values, such as love of country and family. - Contempt is shown for people of inferior social status - Identify with strong people and have contempt for the weak - Very conscious of their own status - The world is viewed in a very black and white/right or wrong way Adorno believed that the authoritarian personality was formed during childhood and was due to harsh parenting where the parents use extremely strict discipline, an expectation of absolute loyalty, impossibly high standards and severe criticism of failings. The parents are more likely to use physical punishment. The family views this way of behaving as the norm in society. The concept of Authoritarian personality was refined by **Altemeyer,** who identified that there are three main aspects to the authoritarian personality. Altemeyer created a scale that measured the three aspects of **right-wing authoritarianism (RWA):** 1. **Conventionalism** -- a belief that traditional social norms are the best 2. **Authoritarian aggression** -- feelings of aggression towards people who break the traditional norms 3. **Authoritarian submission** -- doing whatever an authority tells you to do and not questioning what a legitimate authority requests. In support, **Elms and Milgram** carried out a follow-up study to Milgram's 1963 obedience study. They interviewed the 20 most obedient participants (those who went the whole way to 450 volts) and 20 defiant participants. The participants were asked to complete the MMPI (which is a personality questionnaire) and the California F scale. Elms and Milgram found that obedient participants scored higher for authoritarianism. The obedient participants also saw the authority figure in Milgram's study as a good person while the learner was less likely to be seen as a good person. However, Elms and Milgram found that the most obedient ppts had characteristics that did not fit with the authoritarian personality, e.g. they did not glorify their fathers and did not experience unusual levels of punishment during their childhoods. This suggests that the authoritarian personality explanation might not work for the ppts in Milgram's study and subsequently it might not be a good explanation in general. **Dambrun and Vatine** recreated Milgram's study within a virtual reality world, where the participants knew that the shocks were not real. In support of the concept of Authoritarianism, those participants who gave the highest shocks in the virtual reality world also scored highest on the RWA. This suggests that Milgram's study was accurate and that RWA is a crucial factor in explaining obedience in fake and real-life situations. **Middendorp and Meloen (1990)** found that the level of education influences authoritarianism and obedience. The more educated a person is the less likely they will have an authoritarian personality (a negative correlation). An issue with the Authoritarian personality explanation is that while it might explain people who have an AP, this does not explain why millions of people in Germany displayed obedient, racist, and antisemitic behaviour. With the numbers involved it is highly unlikely that they all had authoritarian personalities. It is more likely that the German people identified with the antisemitic Nazi state and scapegoated the 'outgroup' of Jews which is a social identity theory approach. Therefore, Adorno's explanation is limited because there are better explanations of the holocaust that explain more of the issues. **Greenstein (1969)** identifies a methodological issue with the F-scale in that it is biased to people who select agree to the statements. Therefore, if someone has a natural tendency to select "agree" on questionnaires (and a significant minority of people do), then they would be assessed as having an authoritarian personality. **EXPLANATIONS OF RESISTANCE TO SOCIAL INFLUENCE: INCLUDING SOCIAL SUPPORT** Independent behaviour occurs when you can resist feeling the pressure to conform and obey. You need to be able to answer questions on both resisting conformity and obedience and you could be given a 16-mark essay combining the two together. 8-mark essays are possible on each part of resisting social influence. **RESISTING CONFORMITY** A powerful way to resist conformity is to have social support (an ally). Social support breaks the unanimity of the majority which makes it easier to resist the pressure to conform. **Asch** found that conformity decreased to 5% when participants had a **partner**. In Asch's original study, the independent behaviour rate was 63% (remember 37% of the trials were conformed to). Some people are innately less likely to conform, and Asch found that 25% of his participants never conformed to the majority. This suggests that a significant minority of people are happy to resist conformity. **Albrecht et al. (2006)** investigated an anti-smoking smoking campaign that was part of the Teen Fresh Start USA programme for pregnant 14--19-year-olds. Those ppts who were set up with a buddy were significantly more likely to resist peer pressure to smoke. This supports the role that social support plays in resisting social influence. **Moral considerations** -- Asch ran his original study again but changed the task from the line judgement to a moral judgement (what would you do if?). Asch found that conformity dropped when the task was a moral judgement. This suggests that we are more likely to resist the pressure to conform when our decision is something that we feel strongly about or feel that it would be morally wrong to conform. **Michael Bernhardt** was a sergeant in the Mai Lai massacre who had refused to take part in the killings and was court-martialled for disobeying an order during wartime. Bernhardt had discussed whether he would be willing to kill innocent people with his wife and decided that he would not kill innocent women and children. This shows the importance of considering your morals for resisting social pressure. Michael Bernhardt also probably had an internal locus of control and felt able to resist the order to obey because he had already thought about how he would respond to this type of order and felt able to say no. **Griskevicius et al.** **(2006)** found that there are gender differences in non-conformity (independent behaviour). Males are more likely to resist conformity behaviour than females. Griskevicius found that males show independent behaviour when looking for a girlfriend while females show more conformity when looking for a boyfriend. **RESISTING OBEDIENCE - DISOBEYING** In his original study, Milgram found that 35% did not obey and continued to 450 volts. This suggests that there are many people who are willing to disobey an authority figure. **Ally condition** - Milgram found that obedience dropped to 10% when his participants had social support. This suggests that having an ally helps an individual to show disobedience to an authority figure. **Kohlberg** interviewed several of Milgram's participants to see why they have obeyed or disobeyed. Kohlberg found that those participants who had previously considered their moral code (what they thought of as right or wrong) were more likely to disobey. This suggests that **moral considerations** (thinking about your behaviour and beliefs in terms of right and wrong) is an important part of disobeying unjust authority figures. A real-world example of a person using his moral considerations to disobey is **Michael Bernhardt** who refused to take part in the **Mai Lai massacre** because he had previously decided that he would not kill women and children. The rest of his platoon had not thought about their moral codes and obeyed the order to kill women and children. **EXPLANATIONS OF RESISTANCE TO SOCIAL INFLUENCE: LOCUS OF CONTROL.** A key factor in independent behaviour is the **locus of control** an individual has (note: Locus = location). If an individual has an **internal** locus of control, they are more likely to show independent behaviour. If an individual has an **external** locus of control, they are more likely to conform and obey because they do not have faith in their own ability to make the right decision. **Internal** **locus** = you feel in control of yourself and feel confident to make decisions. You are more likely to show independent behaviour. **External locus** = you do not feel in control of your life and do not feel confident to make decisions. You would be more likely to conform and obey. You believe that luck and fate play an influential role in your life. **Measuring locus of control** **Rotter** created a two-choice statement questionnaire to measure if you have an internal or external locus of control. Example question (participants choose the statement they agreed with the most): **a. Many of the unhappy things in people\'s lives are partly due to bad luck.** **b. People\'s misfortunes result from the mistakes they make.** To work out your level of internal/external you count the number of internal and external statements you have agreed with. **Research on locus of control (LOC)** **Rotter (1966)** claimed that high internal locus of control individuals are more successful and more independent. In 1982, Rotter refined his theory to suggest that LOC is most influential in new situations and is influenced by the amount of resistance to social influence you have shown in the past in similar situations. **Holland (1967)** replicated Milgram's original study and measured whether the ppts were internals or externals. 37% of the internals did not continue to the highest shock level. Only 23% of the externals did not continue to the end. Ppts with internal LOC were the most likely to resist social influence. **Twenge et al. (2004)** found that the number of internal locus individuals has decreased over time in young people, in the US. This is not a good thing as having an external locus of control is linked to lower school achievement and depression. Young people may be feeling more out of control because of changes in society, for example, a significant rise in the divorce rate and increases in suicide rates. **Spector (1983**)​ in a follow-up study gave Rotter's questionnaire to 157 university students​ and found that students with high external LOC conformed more than internal LOC students in situations of normative social pressure.​ **Anderson (1977)** found that LOC types can change over time and that people tend to become more internal LOC as they gain more expertise. **Avtgis (1998)** conducted a meta-analysis of LoC & conformity. He found Individuals with internal LoC were less easily persuaded, and less likely to conform. ​As this is a meta-analysis of several studies it is likely to show a trend or pattern if one exists. Therefore, there is good evidence for Locus of Control affecting the likelihood of resting social influence. **Linz and Semykina (2005)** found that there was a gender difference in employees. Males were more likely to show an internal locus while females were more likely to show an external locus. Those females who did show an internal locus of control tended to earn more money than females who did not have an internal locus of control.  **MINORITY INFLUENCE (INCLUDING REFERENCE TO CONSISTENCY, COMMITMENT AND FLEXIBILITY).** Minority influence occurs when a smaller group (or an individual) influences the majority. This is different from conformity, which is when a minority follows the majority. Minority influence has become increasingly important as social media influencers have become a common part of society. When minority influence occurs, it is most likely to lead to internalisation (where public behaviour matches internal belief). **CONSISTENCY (Key researcher: Moscovici)** Consistency in a minority can be either synchronic or diachronic. Synchronic occurs when all the minority members say the same thing (which is more influential) and diachronic occurs when a minority group is consistent over time (which is also more influential). **Moscovici (1969**) tested female ppts in his experiment where a group of six people was composed of 2 confederates and 4 ppts. Moscovici showed the group different blue-green slides and asked the individuals to publicly identify the colour of the slides. Moscovici included three different conditions (independent groups design) 1. Consistent minority group (two confederates and four participants) -- the confederates always said the slides were green 2. Inconsistent minority group (two confederates and four participants) -- the confederates said the slides were green 2/3 of the time 3. Control group (six participants and no confederates) **Results**: Moscovic et al. found that the consistent minority was the most influential, where participants were influenced by the confederates **8.42**% of the time. The inconsistent minority only influenced the participants in their group **1.25**% of the time. The control group got the colour wrong on 0.25% of the trials Conclusion: **consistent** minorities are more influential in bringing about social change. If a minority is inconsistent, they will have negligible impact on the majority. In support of Moscovici, **Wood et al. (1994)** found in a meta-analysis of 100 similar studies that consistent minorities were much more persuasive than inconsistent minorities. **Issue**: Moscovici had chosen to use female students because he thought that they would be more familiar with colours than male students and there are multiple studies indicating that females are better at distinguishing between blue and green colours. This means that Moscovici's study **cannot be generalised to males**, as not only did he not test male ppts, but males also have different innate abilities for colour identification. This would be a case of **beta bias** (treating the two genders as the same when there is in fact a real difference). **COMMITMENT** It is easier to agree with a minority when they appear committed to their beliefs. Commitment shows certainty, confidence, and courage. This is important because joining a minority is often more costly than joining a majority. Therefore, a person considering joining a minority will only do so if they think the minority is right and this is more likely if the minority is confident in their belief. A minority can show their commitment to their beliefs by undertaking something risky. They will appear more committed the riskier the activity is. For example, F**athers 4 justice** campaigns for the rights of fathers to see their children (when the father has done nothing wrong). They have previously attracted attention by climbing Buckingham Palace and displaying a **Fathers 4 Justice** banner. This was risky as they were caught and arrested and could have fallen while climbing. The event attracted the newspapers and the majority's attention and increased the chance the message would be processed. This is an example of the **augmentation principle** -- where the message can be made more powerful by attracting attention and showing that you are committed to the message. **Xie et al. (2011)** gave ppts a task of interacting on a copy of a social network. The researcher manipulated the messages so that they could assess how large and how consistent a minority on the network needed to be to influence the majority. They found that when 10% of the minority show the same committed beliefs this is enough to change the majority position. Similar effects have been found in the real world for social media and suggest that minorities can have a larger than expected effect on viewpoints that then influence the real world. **Nemeth (2010)** found that being in the presence of a minority dissenter can have a considerable influence as it encourages people to open their minds and consider alternative points of view. People might then search for more information, and this might lead to internalising the minority view. **Kruglanski** states that commitment may be one reason people are willing to commit acts of terrorism. If someone is willing to kill themselves, to get attention for their message, it makes some members of the majority consider the message. If you consider the message the terrorists are trying to share, you may end up agreeing with it (internalisation). However, **Nemeth** has stated that the majority is rarely going to accept such extreme acts and that the terrorist is most likely to make sure that people in the majority do not listen. Extreme acts tend to show a lack of flexibility which is another important part of minority influence. **FLEXIBILITY** **Nemeth (1986)** has argued that consistency can be off putting when it is taken to the extreme. Instead, a minority that is both consistent and flexible is more likely to be listened to. For example, a minority who stick to their point of view for the major points in their argument but are willing to compromise on other parts, are more likely to be influential. **Nemeth** suggests that a balance must be made between flexibility and consistency. **Nemeth and Brilmayer (1987)** found that in simulated jury studies the ability to be flexible was important in persuading others to the minority point of view. In this study when a confederate put forward an opposing point of view and refused to be flexible, they were ignored by the majority. However, if the confederate was willing to compromise, they were able to influence the rest of the group. However, the researchers also found that it was important to hold out and show that you were consistent first before compromising. If you compromise too early you can be seen as weak and therefore less likely to have an influence. **Papastamou (1982)** -- Support for the role of flexibility in minority influence. ​Asked participants to respond to questions on responsibility for pollution. They were then exposed to extreme views of the minority on how to control pollution. ​When the minority refused to budge on their opinion, they were not persuasive. However, when they started to compromise and be flexible, they seemed less extreme and were more persuasive and this altered the opinion of the majority. This suggests that flexibility may be more important than consistency to enable minority influence.​ **THE ROLE OF SOCIAL INFLUENCE PROCESSES IN SOCIAL CHANGE.** Society can be influenced by majorities and minorities. Understanding how change can be brought about is important as it allows you to predict what might happen and to bring about positive change where it is needed. **MINORITY INFLUENCE** The suffragettes are a good example of a minority that brought about social change. Suffrage is the right to vote and at the start of the 20^th^ century women did not have the right to vote. The following five points are ways that a minority can bring about influence on the majority and all of them were used by the Suffragettes. 1. **Draw attention** To convert members of the majority, the minority needs to get the **attention** of the majority. Minorities often do this by using the **media**. A minority may choose to hold a protest or a rally to get the majority to listen to the minority's message. The minority will be hoping that if the majority listens, they may begin to agree with the message and then **internalise** the minority's point of view. **Burgoon (1995)** suggests it is the deviant and unexpected behaviours of minorities that grabs attention to the ideas and behaviours, which leads to deeper thinking about them. **Nemeth (2009)** suggests it is the "dissent" of minorities to established social norms that encourages individuals to think and search out information about the minority view, which might then be internalised by some members of the majority. However, **Mackie (1987)** suggests that it is the majority which is most likely to lead to processing of viewpoints and that majorities rarely listen to minority groups. This is because most people feel that they hold the most important viewpoint and that this must be of the majority. When a majority viewpoint occurs that does not fit with our own, we are driven to understand it because it is uncomfortable not fitting with the majority. 2. **Create cognitive conflict** By creating a "thought conflict" in the thoughts of the majority, the minority can encourage them to be open to the viewpoint of the minority. The Suffragettes encouraged the 3. **Be consistent** (as in the Moscovici's minority influence study -- blue/green slide) If you want to bring about change it is helpful to stick to your point of view and not keep changing your mind. For example, politicians who constantly change their points of view are less influential than those who are consistent in their approach. However, you must be flexible in your approach, or you risk being viewed as extreme. 4. **The augmentation principle** If the minority appears willing to suffer for their beliefs it can make them seem more committed to their cause. This means that others will look seriously at what they are saying and consider that it might have truth to it. The majority is more likely to think about the minority view and they might start to agree. The Suffragettes were willing to be put in prison or take part in hunger strikes (risking death) which meant that they would be seen as more committed and their argument more powerful (i.e. to be augmented). 5. **The Snowball effect** It is called the snowball effect because you pick up more people as you go along, much like rolling a snowball to turn it into a big enough snowball to build a snowman. The **snowball effect** explains how over time a few members of the majority join the minority, then a few more join, then more join in larger numbers and slowly the process accelerates until the minority becomes the majority. A key thing to include in any plans for social change is that minority influence tends to be gradual and takes a significant amount of time. **MAJORITY INFLUENCE** The government has found that society can be changed using social norms interventions. If a person thinks that most people act in a certain way, then that person is more likely to copy the behaviour of the majority. In some cases, a person can have a misconception about what most people do. If this misconception is corrected, then the person's behaviour will change. The UK government has been using "**nudges**" to change the eating and drinking habits of English people over the last few years. The idea of a "Nudge" is based upon conformity research like that of Asch, where if you can subtly create a "story" where a made-up majority do something in a certain way you can get the population of a country to change their behaviour. The **Behavioural Insights Team** (BIT) work for the UK government and have been involved in creating many social norm interventions. A key example is that this group introduced a 'nudge' to encourage people to pay their income tax which resulted in a substantial increase in the number of people paying their income tax. Other countries also use social nudges to alter behaviour. In the **US state of Montana** there was a concern that young people aged 21-34 were at substantial risk of drink driving. The state created an advert and media message that "MOST Montana Young Adults (4 out of 5) Don't Drink and Drive". The number of young people drinking and driving dropped by13.7% compared to counties in the US that did not run the campaign. **DeJong et al. (2009)** tested the effectiveness of social norms interventions to influence alcohol consumption across different sites in the US and they found that over all the sites there had been no effect in lowering alcohol consumption. This suggests that not all social norms are open to change via "nudges." A similar result was found in the UK where interventions to improve healthy eating have failed across the UK with body mass indexes increasing and the amount of healthy food being consumed barely changing despite repeated "nudges" being used by several different governments (e.g. the five a day campaign). **Martin et al. (2003)** ran a study to see if minority or majority opinions are more resistant to conflicting opinions. 48 British students were given messages on voluntary euthanasia that were identified as coming from either minority or majority groups. Then they were given a second set of messages to determine how much influence these would have on the first messages. Martin et al. found that the minority group messages were the most resistant to the influence of the second set of messages. This suggests that minority messages can lead to more processing and internalisation than majority messages.