WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW

Transcription

1 Title: Types of Conformity Specification: Types of conformity: internalisation, identification and compliance. Explanations for conformity: informational social influence and normative social influence, and variables affecting conformity including group size, unanimity and task difficulty as investigated by Asch. WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW 1. Describe the three types of conformity, including: a. Compliance b. Identification c. Internalisation 2. Outline and evaluate two explanations for conformity, including: a. Informational social influence b. Normative social influence 3. Outline and evaluate Asch s (1951) original research examining conformity 4. Outline and evaluate variations of Asch s research which examined how different variables affect conformity, including: a. Group size b. Unanimity c. Task difficulty Key Terms KEY TERM Asch Compliance Conformity Group Size Identification: Social Influence Informational Social Influence DEFINITION Solomon Asch was an American Social Psychologist who conducted a series of studies in the 1950s to examine the extent to which people would conform to the opinions of others in an unambiguous situation. Compliance is the lowest level of conformity. Here a person changes their public behaviour (the way they act) but not their private beliefs. This is usually a short-term change and often the result of normative social influence. Conformity occurs when someone changes their behaviour or beliefs due to real or imagined pressure from others. Asch identified group size as a variable that influences conformity. Asch found that as he increased the size of the majority, conformity levels increased. With two confederates, conformity occurred on 12.8% of trials, rising to 32% for trials with three confederates. However, after that group size did not make a significant difference to the rate of conformity. Identification is the middle level of conformity. Here a person changes their public behaviour (the way they act) and their private beliefs, but only while they are in the presence of the group they are identifying with. This is usually a short-term change and often the result of normative social influence. Informational Social Influence is where a person conforms to gain knowledge, or because they believe that someone else is

2 Internalisation: Social Influence Normative Social Influence 1. Types of Conformity right. Internalisation is the deepest level of conformity. Here a person changes both their public behaviour (the way they act) and their private beliefs. This is usually a long-term change and often the result of informational social influence. Normative Social Influence is where a person conforms in order to be accepted and belong to a group. They do this because it is socially rewarding and/or to avoid social rejection (e.g. ridicule for not fitting in ). Conformity is a type of social influence that describes how a person changes their attitude or behaviour in response to group pressure. There are many different situations where people conform and psychologists have categorised three main types of conformity, including: compliance, identification and internalisation. Compliance is the shallowest level of conformity. Here a person changes their public behaviour, the way they act, but not their private beliefs. This is usually a short-term change and is often the result of normative social influence (NSI). For example, you might say that you like dub-step music because many other people in your class like dub-step music, however privately you can t stand it. Identification is the middle level of conformity. Here a person changes their public behaviour and their private beliefs, but only while they are in the presence of the group. This is a usually a short-term change and normally the result of normative social influence (NSI). For example, a person may decide to become a vegetarian because all of their new flat mates are vegetarian. However, whenever they walk past a McDonald s they can t resist a Big Mac and when they are away from their flat mates they still eat meat. Identification takes place when we are surrounded by a particular group; we change our private beliefs while in the presence of the majority but not permanently. Internalisation is the deepest level of conformity. Here a person changes their public behaviour and their private beliefs. This is usually a long-term change and often the result of informational social influence (ISI). For example, if an individual is influenced by a group of Buddhists and converts to this faith, then their new religious way of life will continue without the presence of the group as they have internalised this belief as true and this religious way of life as the correct way to behave.

3 CHANGE IN PUBLIC BEHAVIOUR? CHANGE IN PRIVATE BELIEF? SHORT-TERM / LONG-TERM COMPLIANCE Yes No Short-term IDENTIFICATION Yes Yes (Only in the presence of the majority) Short-term INTERNALISATION Yes Yes Long-term

4 2. Explanations for Conformity In addition to the three types of conformity (compliance, identification and internalisation) which describe how people conform, there are also two explanations of why people conform, including: normative social influence (NSI) and informational social influence (ISI). Normative social influence (NSI) is when a person conforms to be accepted and to feel that they belong to the group. Here a person conforms because it is socially rewarding, or to avoid social rejection; for example, to avoid feeling that they don t fit in. Normative Social influence is usually associated with compliance and identification. With compliance, people change their public behaviour but not their private beliefs; with identification people change their public behaviour and their private beliefs, but only in the presence of the group. Therefore, this explanation of social influence leads to a short-term type of conformity, which is motivated by the desire to fit in with the majority Informational social influence (ISI) is when a person conforms to gain knowledge, or because they believe that someone else is right. Informational social influence is usually associated with internalisation, where a person changes both their public behaviour and their private beliefs, on a long-term basis. This semi-permanent change in behaviour and belief is the result of a person adopting a new belief system, because they genuinely believe that their new beliefs are right or that the majority are experts. For example, if a person changes their political ideology from Conservative to Liberal, then they have internalised these new beliefs on a semi-permanent basis and believe that voting Liberal is right for them. Exam Hint: It is important to ensure you understand the distinction between types of conformity (compliance, identification and internalisation) and the explanations for conformity (normative and informational social influence). 2. Evaluating Explanations for Conformity Asch s (1951) study into conformity (see below) provides research support for normative social influence. He found that many of the participants went along with the obviously wrong answers of the other group members. When asked by Asch in post-experimental interviews why they did this, participants said that they changed their answer to avoid disapproval from the rest of the group, which clearly shows compliance has occurred in order to fit in. Further to this, Asch

5 demonstrated in a later variation (1955) that when the pressure to publicly conform is removed by asking participants to write down their answers on a piece of paper, rather than say them aloud, the conformity rates fell to 12.5% as the fear of rejection became far less. Jenness (1932, see below) provides research support for the role of informational social influence. Participants were asked to initially make independent judgements about the number of beans contained in a jar and then discuss their estimates in a group. Participants then made a second, individual private estimate. Jenness found that this second private estimate moved closer to the group estimate and that females typically conformed more. This shows that internalisation of group beliefs will occur especially in unfamiliar, ambiguous situations. Individual differences may play a role in explaining social influence, which means that the processes will not affect everyone s behaviour in the same way. For example, Perrin and Spencer (1980) conducted an Asch-style experiment, but this time using engineering students in the UK. Only one conforming response was observed out of nearly 400 trials. This could be due to the fact that the students felt more confident in their ability to judge line lengths due to their experience in engineering and so felt less pressure to conform. Alternatively, it could be argued that this difference is due to a historical bias from comparing research conducted in a different era and almost 30 years apart where rapid social changes have emerged and norms have changed. There are real-world applications, which demonstrates that normative social influence also occurs beyond the artificial laboratory setting. For example, Schultz et al. (2008) gathered data from many hotels over a week where guests were allocated to rooms randomly as either control or experimental conditions. In the control rooms, there was a door hanger informing of the environmental benefits of reusing towels. In the experimental condition there was additional information stating that 75% of guests chose to reuse their towels each day. The results showed that in comparison to the control conditions, guests who received a message that contained normative information about other guests reduced their need for fresh towels by 25%, showing they had conformed in order to fit in with the perceived group behaviour. Psychology in Everyday Life Everyday examples of conformity are fairly common. For example, have you ever filled out a sponsorship form and seen that everyone has donated 10 and you feel compelled to also donate 10, despite the fact you originally only wanted to donate 5? Or have you ever been to a summer fayre and tried to guess how many sweets are in the jar? This surprising difficult task is ambiguous, as no one is ever certain. You may inspect the jar and think that it contains around 100 sweets and then you see that everyone else has written 500 or more; as a result, you change your answer to reflect

6 those that were written before you. These everyday examples of conformity have formed the basis of psychological research in this area.

7 Extension Key Study: Jenness (1932) Aim: To examine whether individuals will change their opinion in an ambiguous (unclear) situation, in response to group discussion. Method: Jenness used an ambiguous situation that involved a glass bottle filled with 811 white beans. His sample consisted of 26 students, who individually estimated how many beans the glass bottle contained. Participants were then divided into groups of three and asked to provide a group estimate through discussion. Following the discussion, the participants were provided with another opportunity to individually estimate the number of beans, to see if they changed their original answer. Results: Jenness found that nearly all participants changed their original answer when they were provided with another opportunity to estimate the number of beans in the glass bottle. On average, male participants changed their answers by 256 beans and female participants changed their answers by 382 beans. Furthermore, the range of the whole group went from 1875 before the discussion to 474 afterward, a decrease of 75 per cent, which demonstrates the converging opinions of the participants, after their discussions. MALES FEMALES AVERAGE ESTIMATE BEFORE AVERAGE ESTIMATE AFTER AVERAGE CHANGE Conclusion: These results suggest that individuals changed their initial estimate due to informational social influence, as they believed that the group estimates were more likely to be correct, in comparison to their own.

8 3. Key Study: Asch (1951) Aim: To examine the extent to which social pressure to conform from a unanimous majority affects conformity in an unambiguous situation. Method: Asch s sample consisted of 123 male undergraduate students from Swarthmore College in the USA, who believed they were taking part in a vision test. Asch used a line judgement task, where he placed one real (naïve participant in a room with six to eight confederates (actors working on behalf of the experimenter), who had agreed their answers in advance. The naïve participant was deceived and was led to believe that the other people were also real participants. The real participant was always seated second from last. In turn, each person had to say out loud which line (A, B or C) was most like the target line in length. Unlike Jenness experiment, the correct answer was always obvious. Each participant completed 18 trials and the confederates gave the same incorrect answer on 12 trials, called critical trials. Asch wanted to see if the real participant would conform to the majority view, even when the answer was unambiguously incorrect. Results: Asch measured the number of times each participant conformed to the majority view. On average, the real participants conformed to the incorrect answers on 32% of the critical trials. 74% of the participants conformed on at least one critical trial and 26% of the participants never conformed. Asch also used a control group, in which one real participant completed the same experiment without any confederates. He found that less than 1% of the participants gave an incorrect answer. Conclusion: Asch interviewed his participants after the experiment to find out why they conformed. Most of the participants said that they knew their answers were incorrect, but they went along with the group in order to fit in, or because they thought that they would be ridiculed. This confirms that participants complied due to normative social influence and the desire to fit in publicly without changing their private viewpoint. 3. Evaluating Asch Asch used a biased sample of 123 male students from Colleges in America. Therefore, we cannot generalise the results to other populations, for example female students, as we are unable to conclude if female students would have conformed in a similar way to male students. As a result, Asch s sample lacks population validity and further research is required to determine whether males and females conform differently. Furthermore, it could be argued that Asch s experiment has low levels of ecological validity. Asch s test of conformity, a line judgement task, is an artificial task, which does not reflect conformity in everyday life which means the task lacks mundane realism. Consequently, we are unable to generalise the results of Asch to other real

9 life situations, such as why people may start smoking or drinking around friends, and therefore these results are limited in their application to everyday life. Asch s research took place at a particular time in US history when conformity was arguably higher and has been criticised as being a child of its time. Since 1950, numerous psychologists have attempted to replicate the Asch s study, for example Perrin and Spencer (1980) using maths and engineering students, and found significantly lower levels of conformity. This suggests that Asch s experiment lacks historical validity and the conformity rates found in 1950 may not provide an accurate reflection of conformity in modern times. Asch s research is ethically questionable. He broke several ethical guidelines, including: deception and protection from harm. Asch deliberately deceived his participants, saying that they were taking part in a vision test and not an experiment on conformity. Although it is seen as unethical to deceive participants, Asch s experiment required deception in order to achieve valid results. If the participants were aware of the true aim they may have displayed demand characteristics and acted differently. In addition, Asch s participants were not protected from psychological harm and many of the participants reported feeling stressed when they disagreed with the majority. However, Asch interviewed all of his participants following the experiment to overcome this issue. Extension Evaluation Does Asch s study actually show conformity, as the average conformity rate was only 32%? A recent review of psychology textbooks (Griggs, 2015) has revealed that the majority of the textbooks sampled (16 out of 20) mentioned that 75% of the participants were influenced by the majority at least once (as we have also noted above). However, none of the books sampled, mentioned the fact that 95% of the participants rebelled at least once. Consequently, it would appear that the textbook coverage of Asch s classic line study is biased and that textbook authors and students are misrepresenting the findings and conclusions of Asch by playing down the incidences of independent behaviour.

10 4. Variations of Asch Following Asch s original research, numerous variations of his line judgement task were carried out in order to determine which factors influenced conformity levels. These variations include: group size, unanimity and task difficulty. 4a. Group Size Group Size: Asch carried out many variations to determine how the size of the majority affects the rate of conformity. These variations ranged from one confederate to 15 confederates, and the level of conformity varied dramatically. When there was one confederate, the real participants conformed on just 3% of the critical trials. When the group size increased to two confederates, the real participants conformed on 12.8% of the critical trials. Interestingly, when there were three confederates, the real participants conformed on 32% of the critical trials, the same percentage as Asch s original experiment, in which there were six to eight confederates. This demonstrates that conformity reaches its highest level with just three confederates, once a majority pressure is created. Asch continued investigating group size and in one condition he used 15 confederates. In this experiment the rate of conformity slightly dropped, although Asch didn t report the percentage. It is possible that the rate of conformity dropped because the real participants became suspicious of the experiment and not because the pressure to conform is necessarily less in larger groups. 4b. Unanimity Unanimity: In Asch s original experiment, the confederates all gave the same incorrect answer on the critical trials. In one variation of Asch s experiment, one of the confederates was instructed to give the correct answer throughout. In this variation the rate of conformity dropped to 5%. This demonstrates that if the real participant has support for their belief, then they are likely more likely to resist the pressure to conform. Furthermore, in another variation, one of the confederates gave a different incorrect answer to the majority. In this variation conformity still dropped significantly, by this time to 9%. This shows that if you break or disrupt the group s unanimous position, then conformity is reduced significantly, even if the answer provided by the supporter, is still incorrect. 4c. Task Difficulty Task Difficulty: In Asch s original experiment, the correct answer was always obvious. In one of his variations he made the task more difficult, by making the difference between the line lengths smaller and therefore appear closer together and more ambiguous. In this variation Asch found the rate of conformity increased, although he didn t report the percentage. This is likely to be the result of informational social influence, as individuals look to another for guidance when undertaking an ambiguous task, similar to the results found in Jenness experiment, in order to be right.

11 VARIATION Group Size: 1 Confederate Lower (3%) Group Size: 2 Confederates Lower (12.8%) CONFORMITY % (CRITICAL TRIALS) Group Size: 3 Confederates Remained the same (32%) Group Size: 15 Confederates Lower * Unanimity Where one of the confederates gave the correct answer throughout. Unanimity Where one of the confederates gave a different incorrect answer to the majority. Lower (5%) Lower (9%) Task Difficulty Where the task was made significantly more difficult, by Higher * making the difference between the line lengths significantly smaller. *The percentages were not published by Asch Extension Evaluation: Issues & Debates Social psychology acknowledges the role of situational factors, such as group pressure, in determining human behaviour such as conformity. However, it also suggests that individuals can exercise personal responsibility for their actions and demonstrate free will through showing independent behaviour. Explanations of conformity (NSI/ISI) adopt a nomothetic approach as they attempt provide general principles relating to human behaviour when observed under group pressure from a majority. Social psychology uses scientific methods, often in highly-controlled laboratory settings, to investigate key concepts which can be replicated, for example, Asch s original study. However, the fact that Asch only used male participants in his sample shows a beta bias, as his research may have ignored or minimised the differences between men and women in relation to conformity.

12 Possible Exam Questions 1. MCQ: Which of the following is an explanation of conformity: A) Compliance, B) Identification, C) Group size, D) Normative social influence? 2. SAQ: Describe the procedure of Asch s study into conformity. (4 marks) 3. RM: Asch s research was conducted in a laboratory. Outline one strength and one limitation of conducting research in a laboratory. (4 marks) 4. Application: Daniel is taking his AS Psychology exam and has answered a difficult multiple choice question where he believes the correct answer is D. He looks either side and notices that Mila, a very intelligent student, has answered A. He decides to change his answer accordingly. Using your knowledge of conformity, outline two reasons why Daniel changes his answer from D to A. (4 marks) 5. Essay: Outline and evaluate research into conformity. (12/16 marks) 6. Essay: Discuss factors that can affect conformity. Refer to variations of Asch s experiment in your answer (12/16 marks)

13 Title: Conformity to Social Roles Specification: Conformity to social roles as investigated by Zimbardo. WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW 1. Outline and evaluate Zimbardo s (1973) research investigating conformity to social roles: The Stanford Prison Experiment. Key Terms KEY TERM Conformity to Social Roles Zimbardo Introduction DEFINITION Social roles are the parts individuals play when they belong to social group, and conformity to social roles occurs when people behave in certain ways because they feel that is expected of them in that role. Zimbardo conducted the Stanford Prison Experiment. His aim was to examine whether people would conform to the social role of a prison guard or a prisoner, when placed in a mock prison environment. Conformity to social roles is when an individual adopts a particular behaviour and belief, while in a particular social situation. For example, whilst at school your teacher adopts the behaviour and beliefs of a teacher, which may be very different to the behaviour and beliefs they adopt with their friends at the weekend. This type of conformity represents identification, where a person changes their public behaviour and private beliefs, but only while they are in a particular social role. People learn how to behave in certain situations by observing the social roles of others and conforming to this behaviour. Therefore, a new teacher will quickly adopt the behaviours and beliefs of other teachers in their school, as they conform to this social role. 1. Zimbardo (1973) Zimbardo (1973) conducted an extremely controversial study on conformity to social roles, called the Stanford Prison Experiment. Aim: His aim was to examine whether people would conform to the social roles of a prison guard or prisoner, when placed in a mock prison environment. Furthermore, he also wanted to examine whether the behaviour displayed in prisons was due to internal dispositional factors, the people themselves, or external situational factors, the environment and conditions of the prison.

14 Method: Zimbardo s sample consisted of 21 male university students who volunteered in response to a newspaper advert. The participants were selected from 75 volunteers on the basis of their physical and mental stability and were each paid $15 a day to take part. Each participant was randomly assigned to one of two social roles, prisoner or guard. Zimbardo wanted to make the experience as realistic as possible, turning the basement of Stanford University into a mock prison. Furthermore, the prisoners were arrested by real local police and fingerprinted, stripped and given a numbered smocked to wear, with chains placed around their ankles. The guards were given uniforms, dark reflective sunglasses, handcuffs and a truncheon. The guards were instructed to run the prison without using physical violence. The experiment was set to run for two weeks. Results: Zimbardo found that both the prisoners and guards quickly identified with their social roles. Within days the prisoners rebelled, but this was quickly crushed by the guards, who then grew increasingly abusive towards the prisoners. The guards dehumanised the prisoners, waking them during the night and forcing them to clean toilets with their bare hands; the prisoners became increasingly submissive, identifying further with their subordinate role. Five of the prisoners were released from the experiment early, because of their adverse reactions to the physical and mental torment, for example, crying and extreme anxiety. Although the experiment was set to run for two weeks, it was terminated after just six days, when fellow postgraduate student Christina Maslach convinced Zimbardo that conditions in his experiment were inhumane. Conclusion: Zimbardo concluded that people quickly conform to social roles, even when the role goes against their moral principles. Furthermore, he concluded that situational factors were largely responsible for the behaviour found, as none of the participants had ever demonstrated these behaviours previously. Exam Hint: Although Zimbardo s research also demonstrates examples of obedience, (for example, the prisoners following the guards orders), it is important to only refer to the conformity to social roles element of the SPE as this is what the specification demands. Evaluation of Zimbardo A recent replication of the Stanford Prison Experiment, carried out by Reicher and Haslam (2006), contradicts the findings of Zimbardo. Reicher and Haslam replicated Zimbardo s research by randomly assigning 15 men to the role of prisoner or guard. In this replication, the participants did not conform to their social roles automatically. For example, the guards did not identify with their status and refused to impose their authority; the prisoners identified as a group to challenge the guard s authority, which resulted in a shift of power and a collapse of the prison system. These results clearly contradict the findings of Zimbardo and

15 suggest that conformity to social roles may not be automatic, as Zimbardo originally implied. Furthermore, individual differences and personality also determine the extent to which a person conforms to social roles. In Zimbardo s original experiment the behaviour of the guards varied dramatically, from extremely sadistic behaviour displayed by around one third of the participants in that role, to a few guards who actually helped the prisoners by offering support, sympathy, offering them cigarettes and reinstating any privileges lost. This suggests that situational factors are not the only cause of conformity to social roles, and dispositional factors such as personality also play a role, implying that Zimbardo s conclusion could have been over-stated. Zimbardo s experiment has been heavily criticised for breaking many ethical guidelines, in particular, protection from harm. Five of the prisoners left the experiment early because of their adverse reactions to the physical and mental torment. Furthermore, some of the guards reported feelings of anxiety and guilt, as a result of their actions during the Stanford Prison Experiment. Although Zimbardo followed the ethical guidelines of Stanford University and debriefed his participants afterwards, he acknowledged that the study should have been stopped earlier but it has been suggested that he was responding more in the role of superintendent of the prison rather than as the researcher with responsibility for his participants. An intended benefit of Zimbardo conducting his Stanford Prison Experiment was to provide real-world applications to improve the US prison system. Initially, there were some beneficial reforms in the way that some prisoners were treated, for example, juvenile detainees. However, Zimbardo considers his research to have been a failure in meeting this overall objective, since prison conditions in America are arguably worse now than when he conducted his study several decades ago. Psychology in Everyday Life In 2004 the news widely reported on the torturous treatment of Iraqi prisoners held at Abu Ghraib prison. US Army military police were accused of committing cruel acts of violence which seriously violated human rights. As a result, a number of soldiers and officers were disciplined or demoted. Zimbardo was called into the court martial process as an expert witness as a result of his observations in the Stanford Prison Experiment to testify that it was in fact situational factors, not dispositional ones, which were responsible for the abhorrent behaviour. Zimbardo then went on to write his famous book The Lucifer Effect - which discussed the remarkable similarities between his mock-prison research experiment and the Abu Ghraib scandal. Extension Evaluation: Issues & Debates Zimbardo s SPE acknowledges the role of situational factors such as the roles people play as members of certain social groups, in this case prisoner or guard, in determining human behaviour such as brutality or submission and withdrawal.

16 This research used scientific methods in a well-controlled artificial setting to investigate conformity to social roles which could therefore be replicated, for example, by Reicher and Haslam (2006) although reliability was low since their findings were very different from those of Zimbardo. The fact that Zimbardo only used male participants in his sample shows a beta bias, as his research may have ignored or minimised the differences between men and women in relation to conformity to social roles. Extension Evaluation Does Zimbardo s study really show conformity to social roles, or were the participants acting up to established stereotypes of how prisoners and guards are supposed to behave? For example, one guard reported afterwards that he had based his behaviour on the role of a character from a film called Cool Hand Luke, which stereotyped staff working in prisons as tough and aggressive. This could also explain prisoners behaviour, since rioting in prisons is often shown on television and in the cinema. Possible Exam Questions 1. MCQ: Zimbardo s Stanford Prison Experiment demonstrated: A) Obedience, B) Independent Behaviour, C) Normative Social Influence, D) Conformity to Social Roles? 2. SAQ: Define what is meant by conformity to social roles. (2 marks) 3. RM: The Stanford Prison Experiment used the participant observation method as Zimbardo played the role of Prison Superintendent. Evaluate the use of this observational technique. (4 marks) 4. Application: The most notorious guard in Zimbardo s Stanford Prison Experiment, whom the prisoners nicknamed John Wayne, explained afterwards that he was simply trying to emulate the behaviour of a character from the film Cool Hand Luke, which portrays the role of a prison guard as tough and aggressive. Using your knowledge of conformity to social roles as investigated by Zimbardo, explain how demand characteristics could be used to explain the behaviour of this guard. (4 marks) marks) 5. Essay: Outline and evaluate research into conformity to social roles. (12/16

17 Title: Explanations of Obedience Specification: Explanations for obedience: agentic state and legitimacy of authority, and situational variables affecting obedience including proximity, location and uniform, as investigated by Milgram. WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW 1. Outline and evaluate Milgram s (1963) research investigating obedience to authority 2. Outline social-psychological factors as explanations for obedience including: a. Agentic state b. Legitimacy of authority 3. Outline situational variables as explanations for obedience including: a. Proximity b. Location c. Uniform 4. Evaluate explanations for obedience Key Terms KEY TERM Agentic State Legitimacy of Authority Location Milgram Proximity Situational Explanations: DEFINITION The agentic state is an explanation of obedience offered by Milgram and is where an individual carries out the orders of an authority figure, acting as their agent. The shift from autonomy to agency is referred to as the agentic shift. Legitimacy of authority is an explanation of obedience offered by Milgram. Milgram suggested that we are more likely to obey a person who has a higher position or status in a social hierarchy. Milgram found that location affected the level of obedience in his research. When he conducted a variation in a run-down office block he found that the percentage of participants who went to 450 volts on the electric shock generator fell from 65% (at the prestigious Yale University) to 47.5%. Stanley Milgram was an American social psychologist who conducted research into obedience. Proximity is a situational variable affecting obedience and refers to how close you are to someone or something. In Milgram s experiment proximity worked on numerous levels: how close the teacher was to the learner, and how close the teacher was to the experimenter. Milgram found that proximity affected levels of obedience. When the teacher and learner were in the same room, the percentage of participants who administered the full 450-volt shock fell from 65% to 40%. He also found that when the experimenter left the room and gave the instructions over the telephone, obedience levels fell to 20.5%. Situational explanations for obedience focus on external factors that affect the likelihood that someone will obey orders.

18 Obedience Uniform Introduction Examples of situational factors in Milgram s research are proximity, location and uniform. Uniform is a situational variable affecting obedience. This is because authority figures often wear clothes that symbolise their position of authority. In Milgram s research, the percentage of participants who were fully obedient fell from 65% to 20% when the experimenter wore his own clothes, rather than the uniform of a white lab coat. In contrast to conformity, where pressure comes from the behaviour of the majority, obedience is a form of social influence that is in direct response to an order from another person. One of the most famous, and arguable infamous, research studies in psychology is that conducted by Stanley Milgram to investigate obedience to authority. 1. Milgram s (1963) research Aim: To investigate whether ordinary people would obey an order from an authority figure and inflict pain and injure an innocent person. Method: Milgram s sample consisted of 40 male American participants recruited through a newspaper advert. The participants were all volunteers who were paid $4.50 to take part. They were all invited to a laboratory at the prestigious Yale University, where they met the experimenter and another participant (who were both confederates). They drew lots to see who would be assigned to each role within the study but this was fixed so that the real participant was always assigned to the role of teacher and was instructed by the experimenter to administer an electric shock of increasing strength to the learner, Mr Wallace, every time he made a mistake when recalling a list of word pairs. The learner was strapped by the arms into a chair in the room next door and a shock was demonstrated to the teacher to make the shocks appear real. At 300 volts (intense shock) the learner would bang on the wall, and then gave no response to the next question. After the 315-volt shock was administered there were no further responses heard from the learner. The experiment continued until either the participant refused to continue, or the maximum level of 450 volts, labelled danger severe shock, was reached. If the teacher tried to stop the experiment, the experimenter would respond with a series of verbal prods, for example: The experiment requires that you continue.

19 Results: Milgram found that all of the participants went to at least 300 volts and 65% continued and administered the full 450 volts. In addition to this quantitative data, qualitative observations were also made which report that participants showed signs of distress and tension; for example, sweating, stuttering and trembling. Conclusion: Milgram concluded that, under the right situational circumstances, ordinary people will obey unjust orders from someone perceived to be a legitimate authority figure. Evaluating Milgram (1963) One criticism of Milgram s study is that it broke several ethical guidelines. Milgram deceived his participants as they believed that they were taking part in a study on how punishment affects learning, rather than on obedience. They were also deceived by the rigging of the role allocation that was in fact pre-determined. Due to the nature of the task Milgram did not protect the participants from psychological harm, since many of them showed signs of real distress during the experiment and may have continued to feel guilty following the experiment, knowing that they could have harmed another human being. Some critics of Milgram believed that these breaches could serve to damage the reputation of psychology and jeopardise future research. Another criticism of Milgram s study is that it lacks ecological validity. This is because Milgram conducted a laboratory study, which is very different from reallife situations of obedience. In everyday life we often obey far more harmless instructions, rather than giving people electric shocks. As a result, we are unable to generalise his findings to real life situations of obedience and cannot conclude that people would obey less severe instructions to the same degree. However, Milgram counters this claim, stating that the laboratory can reflect wider authority relationships seen in real-life situations. For example, Hofling et al. (1966) found that nurses were surprisingly obedient to unjustified instructions from a doctor in a hospital setting. Another methodological criticism of Milgram s study is that it lacks population validity. This is because Milgram used a biased sample of 40 male American volunteers from a broadly individualistic society. Therefore, we are unable to generalise the results to other populations, particularly collectivist cultures or to explain the behaviour of females since it cannot be concluded that those with other cultural experiences, or female participants, would respond in a similar way to that observed originally by Milgram. The internal validity of Milgram s study has also been criticised. Orne and Holland (1968) propose that so many of the participants went to the higher voltages because they did not believe the shocks to be real and they were not in fact fooled by the experimental set-up. This means that Milgram may not have been testing what he intended to investigate, thus lowering the internal validity. He later argued that up to 70% of the participants did in fact believe the shocks they were administering were real, although a recent review of the original tape recordings

20 reports that many more of the participants vocalise doubt about the genuine nature of the electric shocks. Exam Hint: Remember that the participants in Milgram s study did have a right to withdraw, as they were told before the study began that they could leave at any time. This, therefore, is not a suitable ethical criticism for the study. However, you could mention that due to the nature of the verbal prods given by the experimenter that they didn t think that they had the right to withdraw.

21 2a. Social-Psychological Factors: Agentic State Agency theory suggests that we are socialised from a very young age to follow the rules of society. But, in order for this to happen a person needs to surrender some of their free will. When a person is acting independently this is called the autonomous state. The opposite of this is being in an agentic state, which occurs when an individual carries out the orders of an authority figure and acts as their agent, with little personal responsibility and reduced moral strain for their actions. To shift from autonomy to agency is referred to as the agentic shift. In Milgram s original experiment, 65% of participants administered the full 450 volts and were arguably in an agentic state. However, in one variation of Milgram s experiment, an additional confederate administered the electric shocks on behalf of the teacher. In this variation the percentage of participants who administered the full 450 volts rose dramatically, from 65% to 92.5%, which highlights the power of shifting responsibility (agentic shift), to another person by having them act as the agent. Conversely, in another variation of his study in which the researcher was not in the same room but instead gave orders over the phone, obedience rates dropped to just over 20%, which suggests that the participants were more likely to be in an autonomous state. 2b. Legitimacy of authority Milgram believed that, by focusing on the procedure and following the instructions that were given by the experimenter, the participants were recognising the legitimate authority of the researcher. In Milgram s original research, which took place at the prestigious Yale University, the percentage of participants administering the full 450 volts was 65%. However, when the experiment was replicated in a rundown building in Bridgeport, Connecticut, obedience levels dropped to 47.5%. This change in location reduced the legitimacy of the authority, as participants were less likely to trust the experiment, and the power of the authority figure was diminished.

22 3a. Situational Variables: Proximity In Milgram s original research the teacher and the learner were in separate rooms. In order to test the power of proximity, Milgram conducted a variation where the teacher and learner were seated in the same room. In this variation the percentage of participants who administered the full 450 volts dropped from 65% to 40%. Here obedience levels fell, as the teacher was able to understand the learner s pain more directly. 3b. Location Milgram conducted his original research in a laboratory of Yale University. In order to test the power of the location, Milgram conducted a variation in a rundown building in Bridgeport, Connecticut. In this variation the percentage of participants who administered the full 450 volts dropped from 65% to 47.5%, highlighting the importance of location in creating a prestigious atmosphere generating respect and obedience. 3c. Uniform In most of Milgram s variations, the experimenter wore a white lab coat, indicating his status as a university professor or scientist. Milgram examined the power of uniform in a variation where the experimenter was called away and replaced by another participant in normal everyday clothes pretending to be an ordinary member of the public, who was in fact another confederate. In this variation, the man in ordinary clothes came up with the idea of increasing the voltage every time the learner made a mistake. The percentage of participants who administered the full 450 volts dropped from 65% to 20%, demonstrating the dramatic power that uniform can have on levels of obedience. MILGRAM S VARIATIONS VARIABLE % Someone else administered the shock. Agentic State 92.5% Milgram s Original Study 65% The experiment took place in a rundown building. i.e. less prestigious environment The teacher and learner were in the same room. The experimenter gave instructions to the teacher over the phone. Location & Legitimate Authority 47.5% The experimenter was replaced by another participant in ordinary clothes. Proximity (Learner) 40% Proximity Figure) (Authority Uniform & Legitimate Authority 21% 20%

23 Evaluating Explanations for Obedience There is research support for the role of the agentic state in explaining Milgram s high obedience rates. When Blass and Schmitt (2001) asked students to watch the original footage and suggest who was responsible for the harm caused to the learner they named the experimenter. It was thought that the experimenter, as a scientist wearing a white coat, was at the top of the social hierarchy and therefore had legitimate authority over the situation and outcomes. There are differences in the degree to which authority figures are seen and accepted as legitimate in some cultures. Kilman and Mann (1974) for example, replicated Milgram s original study procedures in Australia but found that only 16% of the participants shocked the learner at the maximum voltage level of 450V whereas Mantell (1971), on the other hand, showed that it was 85% when conducted in Germany. This cross-cultural comparison shows that different societies follow alternative hierarchical structures and children may be socialised differently from a young age to be more, or less, obedient towards figures who are viewed as legitimate within that specific culture. There is research support for the role of the situational variable of uniform affecting obedience rates. Bickman (1974) conducted a field experiment in New York City where confederates stood on the street and asked members of the public who were passing by to perform a small task such as picking up a piece of litter or providing a coin for the parking meter. The outfit that the confederate was wearing varied from a smart suit jacket and tie, a milkman s outfit or a security guard s uniform. It was found that in this final condition that members of the public were twice as likely to obey the order given by the security guard, which supports Milgram s idea that a uniform adds to the legitimacy of the authority figure and is a situational variable which increases obedience levels. Milgram s methodological approach to systematically changing one variable at a time in his experiments investigating the effect of variations on obedience can be praised for having high reliability. Since Milgram had high control over these variations it was possible to closely monitor the effect each was having on obedience rates. All of the procedures followed standardised methods, with variables being kept as consistent as possible. In total over 1000 participants took part across all studies, providing a weight of evidence not seen in other areas of social influence research. Psychology in Everyday Life In 1968, during the Vietnam War, American soldiers killed over 350 civilians, including children, in a small village called Mai Lai. It is reported that during this massacre that the soldiers shot people who were surrendering from their homes and even gangraped the women. Milgram s findings can be used to explain this horrific example of war crime since the soldiers were simply following orders from their legitimate authority figures and were therefore in the agentic state. In fact, only one soldier was found guilty and charged, due to the fact they were completing their duty.

24 Extension Evaluation: Issues and Debates Milgram s research acknowledges the role of environmental forces in the form of situational factors such as location, uniform and proximity to the authority figure, which determine human behaviour such as obedience to unjust orders. The agentic theory suggests that people do not take responsibility or admit to having free will over their obedient behaviour. Explanations of obedience adopt a nomothetic approach, as they attempt to provide general principles relating to human behaviour when people are observed responding to the direct order of a legitimate authority figure. This research used scientific methods, often in a well-controlled artificial, laboratory setting, to investigate obedience to authority and could therefore be replicated due to the standardised procedures. The fact that Milgram only used male participants in his original sample shows a beta bias, as his research may have ignored or minimised the differences between men and women in relation to the conclusions drawn regarding obedience to authority. It can also be criticised as being androcentric, since the results cannot be generalised to females. Extension Evaluation Do Milgram s research findings suggest that obedience can provide an alibi for evil behaviour? David Mandel (1998) heavily criticises Milgram s conclusions that obedience is due to situational factors, as this pardons the individual from having to take responsibility for their, often terrible, actions. Mandel believes it is offensive to the survivors and relatives of those affected by the Holocaust. To simply suggest that the Nazi soldiers were blindly following orders from their superiors implies that the Nazi soldiers were victims of the social situation they found themselves in, and at the mercy of situational factors and environmental pressures beyond their control. This provides an alibi or excuse for their evil actions. Possible Exam Questions 1. MCQ: Which of the following is not a situational variable know to affect rates of obedience: A) Locus of Control, B) Proximity, C) Uniform, D) Location? 2. SAQ: With reference to obedience, explain what is meant by the agentic state. (2 marks) 3. SAQ: Describe one study of obedience (4 marks) 4. RM: Milgram s study has been heavily criticised for lacking in validity. Evaluate the validity of Milgram s original research into obedience. (6 marks)

25 5. Application: When in class, Miss Williams asks all her students to listen without speaking when a story is being read aloud to the group. Her class of Year 6 students all obey and do not speak or interrupt. When Miss Williams hears some of her students at the weekend in her local cinema speaking loudly during a film she asks them to be quiet. They refuse to follow her order. Using your knowledge of Milgram s research variations, explain the difference in the children s behaviour. (4 marks) 6. Essay: Discuss research into obedience as investigated by Milgram. (12/16 marks) 7. Essay: Outline and evaluate how situational variables have been shown to affect obedience to authority. (12/16 marks) 8. Essay: Discuss one or more situational and/or dispositional explanations of obedience. (12/16 marks)

26 Title: Dispositional Explanations of Obedience Specification: Dispositional explanation for obedience: the Authoritarian Personality. WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW 1. Outline and evaluate one dispositional explanation for obedience: the Authoritarian Personality. Key Terms KEY TERM Authoritarian Personality Dispositional Explanations Introduction DEFINITION The authoritarian personality was first identified by Adorno et al. (1950) and refers to a person who has extreme respect for authority and is more likely to be obedient to those who hold power over them. Dispositional explanations of obedience focus on internal characteristics that lie within the individual (e.g. personality) that lead them to be more or less likely to follow the orders of an authority figure. In addition to situational variables psychologists have also examined dispositional (internal) factors that contribute to obedience. One particular characteristic is the authoritarian personality, which has been associated with higher levels of obedience. Adorno et al. (1950) believed that the foundations for an authoritarian personality were laid in early childhood as a result of harsh and strict parenting, which made the child feel that the love of their parents was conditional and dependent upon how they behaved. It is argued that this then creates resentment within the child as they grow up and, since they cannot express it at the time, the feelings are displaced onto others that are seen as weak or inferior, as a form of scapegoating. 1. Authoritarian Personality Aim: Adorno et al. (1950) conducted a study using over 2000 middle-class, Caucasian Americans to find out their unconscious views towards other racial groups. Method: To do this, Adorno and his colleagues developed a number of questionnaires including once called the F- scale, which measures fascist tendencies, as fascism (an extreme right-wing ideology) is thought to be at the core of the authoritarian personality. Examples of items from the F-Scale include:

27 Obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtues children should learn Homosexuals are hardly better than criminals and ought to be severely punished There is hardly anything lower than a person who does not feel great love, gratitude and respect for his parents. Findings: Individuals who scored highly on the F-scale and the other questionnaires self-reported identifying with strong people and showed disrespect towards the weak. In addition, those high on the F-scale were status-conscious regarding themselves and others, showing excessive respect to those in higher power. Adorno and colleagues also found that authoritarian people had a particular cognitive style, which categorised other people into specific stereotypical categories leading to a strong positive correlation between authoritarianism and prejudice. Conclusion: It was concluded that individuals with an authoritarian personality were more obedient to authority figures and showed an extreme submissiveness and respect. They are also uncomfortable with uncertainty, with everything being seen as either right or wrong with no grey areas in-between, demonstrating an inflexible attitude. They, therefore, believe that society requires strong leadership to enforce rigid, traditional values. Evaluating the Authoritarian Personality There is research support for the authoritarian personality as an explanation for obedience. Milgram and Elms (1966) conducted post-experimental interviews with participants who were fully obedient in Milgram s original study, to see if there was a link between high levels of obedience and an authoritarian personality. It was found that the obedient participants scored higher on the F- scale in comparison to the disobedient participants. Furthermore, the obedient participants were less close to their fathers during childhood and admired the experimenter in Milgram s study, which was quite the opposite for disobedient participants. It was concluded that the obedient participants in Milgram s original research displayed more characteristics of the authoritarian personality, although this is only a correlational link. There may be individual differences that contribute to the development of the authoritarian personality. Research by Middendorp and Meleon (1990) has found that less-educated people are more likely than well-educated people to display authoritarian personality characteristics. If these claims are correct, then it is possible to conclude that it is not authoritarian personality characteristics alone that lead to obedience, but also levels of education. There may be methodological criticisms associated with the measures used to determine authoritarian personality traits. It is possible that the F-scale suffers from response bias or social desirability, where participants provide answers that are socially acceptable. For example, participants may appear more authoritarian because they believe that their answers are the socially correct and consequently they are incorrectly classified as authoritarian when they are not. This, therefore,

28 reduces the internal validity of the questionnaire research method used in determining the degree of authoritarianism. It is argued that the F-scale may in fact represent a political bias. Christie and Jahoda (1954) highlight a weakness in the F-scale for only measuring extreme right-wing ideologies, thus ignoring the role that authoritarianism has also played historically in left-wing politics such as Chinese Maoism and Russian Bolshevism, for example. This identifies a bias in what is believed to be at the core of the authoritarian personality and therefore poses a limitation of Adorno s theory, since the F-scale cannot account for obedience to authority across the diverse political range. Extension Evaluation: Issues and Debates Adorno et al. came to believe that a high degree of authoritarianism was similar to suffering from a psychological disorder, with the cause lying within the personality of the individual (nature) but originally caused by the treatment they received from their parents at a young age (nurture). Obedient behaviour is, therefore, determined by our socialisation experiences and not a result of free will. The dispositional explanation uses a nomothetic approach to establish general laws of behaviour relating to authoritarian characteristics displayed by those scoring highly on the F-scale and other measures. Extension Evaluation Could the whole authoritarian personality explanation for obedience be based on flawed methodology? Greenstein (1969) delivers a severe blow to the F-scale validity by arguing that it is a comedy of methodological errors. One section of the scale was structured in such a way, for example, that it was possible to get a high score indicating authoritarianism simply by ticking all of the boxes down one side of the page in a line. This, therefore, does not measure an authoritarian personality at all, but rather the tendency to agree with every question, which is called acquiescence bias. Exam Hint: Remember that a correlation, such as those found by Adorno and his colleagues between authoritarianism and prejudice, only demonstrates a relationship not causation. Psychology in Everyday Life The Authoritarian Personality was a book published by Adorno and other social psychologists in 1950, in an attempt to explain the conditions which led to the Nazi regime securing a foothold in Europe some years before. It was over 1000 pages long and included contributions from many of the psychological scales used to explain the prejudiced attitudes people hold towards others. However, from the beginning The Authoritarian Personality caused huge controversy and was torn to pieces, metaphorically, by its many critics as lacking in scientific rigour. However, one part of

29 the book the F-scale has endured, partly due to its utility in measuring fascist tendencies. Possible Exam Questions 1. MCQ: Which of the following is not a characteristic of the authoritarian personality: A) an inflexible viewpoint, B) intolerance of others who are weak, C) contemptuousness towards people of lower social status, D) disobedience to authority? 2. SAQ: With reference to obedience, explain what is meant by the authoritarian personality. (2 marks) 3. SAQ: Briefly describe one dispositional explanation of obedience. (4 marks) 4. RM: Milgram s study has been heavily criticised for lacking in validity. Evaluate the validity of Milgram s original research into obedience. (6 marks) 5. Application: Adam s grandmother, Evelyn, holds very traditional views about how children should behave today. She feels that youngsters do as they please rather than as they are told and that this shows a lack of respect for their elders. Evelyn often says things to Adam like, It wasn t like that in my day and I would have done anything my parents asked me to. Using your knowledge and understanding of dispositional explanations of obedience, explain Eve s attitudes. (4 marks) 6. Essay: Outline and evaluate the authoritarian personality as a dispositional explanation for obedience. (12/16 marks)

30 Title: Resisting Social Influence Specification: Explanations of resistance to social influence, including social support and locus of control. WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW 1. Outline and evaluate two explanations of resistance to social influence, including: a. Social Support b. Locus of Control (LoC) Key Terms KEY TERM Locus of Control Social Support Introduction DEFINITION Rotter (1966) proposed the idea of locus of control (LoC), which is the extent to which people believe they have control over their lives. People with an internal locus of control believe that what happens in their life is largely the result of their own behaviour, and are more likely to resist pressure to conform or obey. One way in which people can resist the pressure to conform or obey is if they have an ally, someone supporting their point of view. Having an ally can build confidence and allow individuals to remain independent. Asch s (1951) research demonstrates the power of social influence through conformity and his variations provide an insight into how group size, unanimity and task difficulty can increase or decrease the influence of the majority. Milgram (1963), on the other hand, highlights our susceptibility to obeying orders, and his variations reveal the different variables that can increase or decrease our willingness to follow orders. Since Asch and Milgram s research, psychologists have examined explanations of resistance to social influence; our willingness to resist pressure to conform or obey, including social support and locus of control. 1a. Explanations of Resistance to Social Influence Social Support One reason that people can resist the pressure to conform or obey is if they have an ally - someone supporting their point of view. Having an ally can build confidence and allow individuals to remain independent. Individuals who have support for their point of view no longer fear being ridiculed, allowing them to avoid normative social influence. Although Asch reports that if this dissenter then returns to conform, then so does the naïve participant meaning that the effect may only be short-term.

31 Furthermore, individuals who have support for their point of view are less likely to obey orders and feel better able to resist the pressure if there is another person present who also does not obey. Evaluating Social Support There is research support for social support in reducing pressure to conform. In one of Asch s (1951) variations, one of the confederates was instructed to give the correct answer throughout. In this variation the rate of conformity dropped to 5%. This demonstrates that if the real participant has support for their belief (social support), then they are more likely to resist the pressure to conform. This suggests that social support lowers the pressure of the group making it easier to demonstrate independent behaviour. There is research support for social support in reducing pressure to obey which comes from Milgram (1974). In one of Milgram s variations, the real participant was paired with two additional confederates, who also played the role of teachers. In this variation, the two additional confederates refused to go on and withdrew from the experiment early. In this variation, the percentage of real participants who proceeded to the full 450 volts dropped from 65% (in the original) to 10%. This shows that if the real participant has support for their desire to disobey, then they are more likely to resist the pressure of an authority figure. 1b. Explanations of Resistance to Social Influence Locus of Control In some cases people can resist the pressure to conform or obey because of their personality. Rotter (1966) proposed the idea of locus of control, which is the extent to which people believe they have control over their own lives. People with an internal locus of control believe that what happens in their life is largely the result of their own behaviour and that they have control over their life. Individuals with an internal locus of control are, therefore, more independent and find it easier to resist pressure to conform or obey. Conversely, people with an external locus of control believe that what happens to them is controlled by external factors and that they do not have complete control over their life. This means they are more likely to succumb to pressure to conform or obey and are less likely to show independent behaviour. Evaluating Locus of Control There is research that supports the idea that individuals with an internal locus of control are less likely to conform. Spector (1983) used Rotter s locus of control scale to determine whether locus of control is associated with conformity. From 157 students, Spector found that individuals with a high internal locus of control were less likely to conform than those with a high external locus of control, but only in situations of normative social influence, where individuals conform to be accepted. There was no difference between the two groups for informational

32 social influence. This suggests that normative social influence, the desire to fit in, is more powerful than informational social influence, the desire to be right, when considering locus of control. Research supports the idea that individuals with an internal locus of control are more likely to resist the pressure to obey. Oliner & Oliner (1998) interviewed non- Jewish survivors of WWII and compared those who had resisted orders and protected Jewish people from the Nazis with those who had not. Oliner & Oliner found that the 406 rescuers, who had resisted orders, were more likely to have a high internal locus of control, in comparison wuth the 126 people who had simply followed orders. These results appear to support the idea that a high internal locus of control makes individuals less likely to follow orders, although there are many other factors that may have caused individuals to follow orders in WWII and it is difficult to conclude that locus of control is the only factor. However, there is contradictory evidence, since not all research supports the link between locus of control and resistance to social influence. Twenge et al. (1967) conducted a meta-analysis of studies spanning over four decades and found that, over time, people have become more external in their locus of control but also more resistant to obedience, which is incongruent to Rotter s original suggestions. This challenges the established link between internal locus of control and higher resistance. Extension Evaluation: Issues and Debates The locus of control explanation of resistance to social influence uses a nomothetic approach to establish general laws of behaviour relating to characteristics displayed by those scoring high or low on Rotter s internal/external scale. Extension Evaluation Could there be a link between moral disengagement and locus of control that could have real-world implications for criminal acts? Jones and Kavanagh (1996) investigated this and found that individuals with an external locus of control were more likely to obey, and thus less likely to resist the pressure from an unethical authority figure. This could go some way to explain cases of institutional fraud or reported instances of abuse of power from senior staff in an organisation when staff members fail to resist the immoral or illegal instructions given. Exam Hint: Always make sure to relate your answer on resistance back to conformity, obedience or both types of social influence to gain maximum credit for your response. Psychology in Everyday Life Rotter (1982) suggests that locus of control may only really have a role to play in novel situations rather than the mundane everyday occurrences and as such has minimal influence over our behaviour, with our prior experiences holding more importance. Therefore, the role of locus of control in influencing our independent behaviour and helping us to resist the pressures of social influence has been exaggerated.

33 Possible Exam Questions 1. MCQ: Social support can increase resistance to social influence. This was demonstrated in Asch s research studies when: A) The task difficulty was increased making the line task more ambiguous, B) the participants were asked to write down their answers instead of say them out loud, C) The confederates were unanimous in giving the wrong answers, D) a dissenter gave a different answer from the rest of the confederates and agreed with the naïve participant? 2. SAQ: With reference to resistance to social influence, explain what is meant by social support. (2 marks) 3. SAQ: Briefly describe locus of control as an explanation of resistance to social influence. (4 marks) 4. RM: Rotter used a questionnaire to measure locus of control. Identify one strength and one weakness of using this method. (4 marks) 5. Application: Hafsa likes to leave her shirt untucked when at school and notices that lots of other students do the same, including a girl in her class called Helen. However, when the new head teacher introduced strict uniform guidelines and punishment for not obeying, most students started to tuck their shirts in every day. However, Hafsa and her classmate Helen continued to leave theirs untucked. Using your knowledge of resistance to social influence, explain why Hafsa and Helen continued to resist the pressure to obey the school rules. (4 marks) 6. Essay: Discuss explanations of resistance to social influence. (12/16 marks) 7. Essay: Outline and evaluate two explanations of resistance to social influence. (12/16 marks)

34 Title: Minority Influence Specification: Explanations of resistance to social influence, including social support and locus of control. WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW 1. Outline and evaluate research examining minority influence, with reference to: a. Consistency b. Commitment c. Flexibility Key Terms KEY TERM Commitment: Social Influence Consistency Flexibility Minority Influence DEFINITION Commitment refers to the way that minority influence is more likely to occur if the minority shows dedication to their position. Commitment typically involves some form of personal sacrifice, which shows the majority that one is not just acting out of selfinterest. Consistency refers to the way in which minority influence is more likely to occur if the minority members share the same belief and retain it over time. This then draws the attention of the majority to the minority. Flexibility refers to the way in which minority influence is more likely to occur if the minority is willing to compromise. This means they cannot be viewed as dogmatic and unreasonable. Minority influence occurs when an individual or small group influences the attitudes and behaviour of a larger group. Introduction to Minority Influence So far, this chapter has examined research that focuses on the persuasive power of the majority and our willingness to obey an authority figure. However, social influence can occur when a minority (small group) changes the attitudes, beliefs and behaviours of a majority; this is known as minority influence. Psychologists have identified different factors that can enhance the effectiveness of a minority, including: consistency, commitment and flexibility. 1a. Consistency One of the most influential experiments investigating minority influence was conducted by Moscovici (1969). Aim: He wanted to see if a consistent minority could influence a majority to give an incorrect answer, in a colour perception task. Method: His sample consisted of 172 female participants who were told that they were taking part in a colour perception task. The participants were placed in groups of

35 six and shown 36 slides, which were all varying shades of blue. The participants had to state out loud the colour of each slide. Two of the six participants were confederates and in one condition (consistent) the two confederates said that all 36 slides were green; in the second condition (inconsistent) the confederates said that 24 of the slides were green and 12 were blue. Findings: Moscovici found that in the consistent condition, the real participants agreed on 8.2% of the trials, whereas in the inconsistent condition, the real participants only agreed on 1.25% of the trials. Conclusion: Moscovici s results show that a consistent minority is 6.95% more effective than an inconsistent minority and that consistency is an important factor in exerting minority influence. 1b. Commitment On occasion, minorities sometimes engage in very risky or extreme behaviour in order to draw attention to their views. In psychological terms, it is important that these behaviours place the minority at risk in order for them to demonstrate commitment to their cause. This is called the augmentation principle, as the majority then in turn pays more attention to the actions being taken and is therefore more likely to integrate it into their personal viewpoints, augmenting its importance, due to the personal sacrifice made by the minority. 1c. Flexibility Aim: Nemeth (1986) believed that consistency was not the most important factor in minority influence, suggesting that it can often be misinterpreted as a negative trait. She set about investigated the idea of flexibility as a key characteristic of successful minorities who exert pressure. Method: Participants, in groups of four, had to agree on the amount of compensation they would give to a victim of a ski-lift accident. One of the participants in each group was a confederate and there were two conditions: 1) When the minority argued for a low rate of compensation and refused to change their position (inflexible). 2) When the minority argued for a low rate of compensation but compromised by offering a slightly higher rate of compensation (flexible). Results: Nemeth found that in the inflexible condition, the minority had little or no effect on the majority, however in the flexible condition, the majority members were much more likely to also compromise and change their view.

36 Conclusion: Nemeth s research highlights the importance of flexibility, and questions the idea of consistency, suggesting that striking a balance between the two is the most successful strategy for a minority to adopt. Evaluating Minority Influence Moscovici used a biased sample of 172 female participants from America. As a result, we are unable to generalise the results to other populations, for example male participants, and we cannot conclude that male participants would respond to minority influence in the same way. Furthermore, research often suggests that females are more likely than males to conform and therefore further research is required to determine the effect of minority influence on male participants to improve the low population validity of this experiment. Moscovici has also been criticised for breaching ethical guidelines during his study. He deceived his participants, as they were told that they were taking part in a colour perception test when in fact it was an experiment on minority influence. This also means that Moscovici did not gain fully informed consent. Although it is seen as unethical to deceive participants, Moscovici s experiment required deception in order to achieve valid results, as if the participants were aware of the true aim, they might have displayed demand characteristics and acted differently. Thus, a cost-benefit analysis would deem that the insight gained from such research was worth the short-term cost to the participants which could be dealt with by means of a debrief following the study. There are methodological issues with research into minority influence. Judging the colour of a slide is an artificial task and therefore lacks mundane realism, since it is not something that occurs every day. Research conditions are criticised as being too far removed from cases of real-world minority influence such as political campaigning. The implications of real-world cases are also grossly disproportionate to those seen in a lab setting as they can for some people literally be cases of life or death and as such Moscovici s research lacks external validity. Moscovici s research into minority influence provides support for informational social influence. In one of his variations, participants were asked to write down their answers rather than say the colour of the slide out loud. This meant that their response was private and not shared with the other group members. Under these circumstances, it was found that agreement with the minority position was in fact higher, suggesting that they had internalised the viewpoint as true and correct. Moscovici suggests that the majority was convinced of the minority s argument but found it easier to confess this privately as being associated with a minority position may seem radical. Extension Evaluation: Issues & Debates Moscovici s research can be criticised as being gynocentric since the results cannot be generalised to males, as his research takes an exclusive focus on the conforming behaviour of female participants to a minority influence.

37 Does a minority viewpoint lead to a greater depth of processing of the message by the audience? Martin et al (2003) measured the support of participants towards a particular viewpoint. It was found that people who had heard support from a minority group were less likely to change their opinions when faced with a conflicting view than the group of people who had initially heard support for the viewpoint from a majority group. Exam Hint: When writing your answers in the exam, be sure to include as many key terms as possible as it provides the necessary detail that the Examiner is looking for. Psychology in Everyday Life Although research studies can make very clear distinctions between what is classed as a majority or a minority due to the high level of control exerted over the artificial situations, in a real-life setting this is not so clear cut. In more naturalistic settings it is often more complicated to determine, since there may be more involved than simply the number of people present, such as status. Possible Exam Questions 1. MCQ: Which of the following has the smallest impact on minority influence: A) consistency, B) flexibility, C) inconsistency, D) commitment? 2. SAQ: Define what is meant by minority influence. (2 marks) 3. SAQ: In relation to minority influence, explain what is meant by the terms consistency and flexibility. (4 marks) 4. RM: Moscovici had three conditions in his famous blue/green slide experiment. The first group of participants was exposed to a consistent minority, the second to an inconsistent minority and the third acted as a control group. Explain what is meant by the term control group. (2 marks) 5. Application: When Mariyah was a young girl, not many people on her estate used to return their glass milk bottles for recycling. Now, Mariyah s household has three bins that are collected each week by the council, which segregates all type of household waste for recycling including glass, tins, paper and cardboard. 6. With reference to consistency, commitment and flexibility, explain how the minority viewpoint of recycling being seen as an important activity has become so widely accepted by the majority. (6 marks) 7. Essay: Outline and evaluate research into minority influence. (12/16 marks)

38 Title: Social Change Specification: The role of social influence processes in social change. WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW 1. Outline and evaluate how social influence research has contributed to our understanding of social change Key Terms KEY TERM Social Change Introduction DEFINITION Social change refers to the ways in which a society (rather than an individual) develops over time to replace beliefs, attitudes and behaviour with new norms and expectations. The work of Moscovici (1969) and Nemeth (1986) concluded that a consistent, committed and flexible minority is most effective in influencing an individual. However, minority groups also play an important role in facilitating social change by influencing an entire society to change its attitude, behaviours and beliefs. Social change refers to the ways in which a society (rather than an individual) develops over time to replace beliefs, attitudes and behaviour with new norms and expectations. Psychology in Everyday Life History has provided many real life examples of circumstances in which consistent individuals have challenged and questioned the values and norms of society. Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela led civil rights movements and were consistent in their views against apartheid for many years, which helped bring about social change. When Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat to a white male passenger in the 1950s, she was arrested for violating US law. This event helped trigger the civil rights movement to end the racial segregation laws in America. The case of Rosa Parks demonstrates that people who are willing to make a sacrifice (in her case being arrested) to show their commitment to their cause and as a result are more influential in bringing about a social change. Another real-world example of social change is seen with the suffragettes who were consistent in their view and persistently used educational and political arguments to draw attention to female rights. They remained consistent for many years and despite opposition continued protesting and lobbying until they convinced society that women