Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Authority and Aggression
• social influence
• social norms• learned, socially based rules• reciprocity norm• not universal nor unchanging
Conformity
• Conformity: behavior or beliefs changed to match group.• unspoken group pressure, real or imagined• Public conformity (cf. compliance= grant
request)• socially desirable, behavior
• Private acceptance• group is right, beliefs and behavior
Conformity
• Behavior changes because of a request• Sherif’s (1937) study of norm formation, and
the autokinetic effect• Asch’s (1956) study of conformity to an
incorrect norm
Sherif (1936)
Establishment of Group Norms
All Trials = 33%Some Trials = 75%
Asch Conformity
When Did People Conform?
• More ambiguity
• size of the majority (3+)
• consistent minority (single correct dissenter 5% conformity)
• collectivistic > individualistic
• less so when others can’t hear answers
• minimal gender differences
0
20
40
0 2 4 6 8 10
Group Size
Confo
rmit
y re
sponse
s %
Group Size
Minority
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Control Inconsistent minority Consistent minority
Experimental Condition
nu
mb
er o
f n
on
-co
nfo
rmin
gre
spo
nse
s
Obedience
• How far will people go to obey authority?
Obedience
• Response to a demand from an authority figure• Milgram’s obedience experiments (direct
commands)• Stanford Prison (“roles” as authority)
Studying Obedience
in the Laboratory
Results of Milgram’s Initial Obedience Experiment
How far will people go?
0
10
2030
40
50
60
7080
90
100
15-60
75-120
135-180
195-240
255-300
315-350
375-420
435-450
Level of Shock (Volts)
Actual
Predicted
Factors Affecting Obedience
• experimenter status and prestige• behavior of other people (model quits)• personality characteristics
• authoritarianism• proximity to subject
Elements of Authoritarianism
• Acceptance of conservative values
• Unquestioningly follow authority
• Act aggressively
Back
CONFORMITY VARIES
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%P
ER
CE
NT
FU
LL
Y C
ON
FO
RM
ING
POUND
YELL
SEE
TOUCH
65%
62.5%
40%
30%
Next
Evaluating Obedience Research
• How relevant today?
• Were his experiments ethical?
• What do Milgram’s dramatic results mean?
Milgram Replication (2009)
Willing participants?
Within 20 minutes he was reduced to a twitching, shuddering wreck, who was rapidly approaching nervous collapse. He constantly pulled on his ear lobe, and twisted his hands. At one point he pushed his fist into his forehead and muttered ‘Oh God, lets stop it’. An yet he continued to respond to every word of the experimenter, and obeyed to the end.
How did you feel about your participation in this experiment?
Defiant Obedient
Very glad
Glad
Neither
Sorry
Very sorry
40 48
44 36
15 15
1 1
0 1
Milgram’s Conclusion
• “Human nature cannot be counted on to insulate man from brutality at the hands of his fellow man when orders come from what is perceived as a legitimate authority”
Groups and Deindividuation
• Characteristics:• “submerged in the group”• loss the sense of individuality• not personally accountable for one’s actions• attention diverted from internal thoughts• Examples, Jim Jones and the “Peoples
Temple”, 900 dead
Stanford Prison
• Zimbardo’s Study• assigned roles as guards or prisoner• prisoners arrested at home, strip searched,
and finger printed by real officers• guards enforce rules• rebellion quashed• discontinued after few days
• Prisoner #8612 began suffering from acute emotional disturbance, disorganized thinking, uncontrollable crying, and rage
Helping and Altruism
• Any act intended to benefit another (help)
• Unselfish concern/action (altruism)
Why?
• learning to be helpful• young children need reward• adults gain social approval• role of cultural norms• reciprocity
Arousal: Cost-Reward Theory
• unpleasant arousal from suffering victim is reduced• helping costs• not helping costs
Arousal Theory
• clarity of the need for help
• presence of others• Bystander effect• Diffusion of responsibility
• personality of helper
Murder of Kitty Genovese (1964)
• 38 witnesses• none helped• 35 minute attack• slow to report• some watched• others closed
windows• relevant today?
Other Approaches
• Empathy-Altruism Theory: feel empathy toward the person in need
• Evolutionary: helping others is adaptive (not at all altruistic)• helping relative• help group
Group Processes
• Cooperation: work together to attain a goal
• Competition: winner gets goal, loser gets nothing
• Conflict: Other agent interferes with the attainment of a goal
Social Dilemmas
• Best action best for each individual will, if adopted by others, create a loss for all
• Reflects conflicts between:• individual versus group• short-term and long-term interests
Prisoner’s Dilemma
Effects of Group
• Social Facilitation: improvement
• Social Impairment: reduction
• Social Loafing: less effort
• Presence of Others
• Well-Learned Responses
• Physiological Arousal
• Improved Improved PerformancePerformance
• Impaired Impaired PerformancePerformance
• On well-On well-learned learned or simple or simple tasks,tasks, thethe dominant dominant response response is correctis correct
• On new or On new or complex complex
tasks, the tasks, the dominant dominant response response
is often is often wrongwrong
• Well-Learned ResponsesWell-Learned Responses• Well-Learned ResponsesWell-Learned Responses
Leadership Styles
• Task-Oriented: close supervision, gives orders, no discussion.
• Person-Oriented: loose supervision, responds to group members’ ideas feelings.
• One style is not better than the other.
Groupthink
Groupthink
• group makes more drastic choices
• Particularly likely:• group is isolated• time pressure• limited evaluation of alternative solutions• strong leader with agenda
Groupthink (cont’d)
• Consequences• closed-minded• alternatives quickly dismissed• suppression of dissent• infallibility
• Ways of avoiding groupthink• member plays the “devil’s advocate”• encourage diverse opinions
