1

Higher Psychology

Conformity &

Obedience

Exam Revision

2

This is the mandatory topic in the Social Behaviour

unit. This means it will probably come up in the exam.

What to revise:

- Types of conformity – Identification, Compliance,

Internalisation

- Factors affecting conformity – Normative influence,

Informational influence, Social influence, Individual

factors, Situational factors, Cultural factors

- Factors affecting obedience – Types of authority,

Perceived legitimate authority, Socialisation, Authoritarian

parenting, Autonomous and agentic levels of behaviour,

Situational factors

- Strategies for resisting social pressure/coercion –

responsibility for own actions, moral reasoning and

awareness of own values, questioning motives of others

including advertisers and peer groups, disobedient

models

- Studies – Mori & Arai (2010)

- Milgram (1963)

As a mandatory topic, you could be asked quite specific questions.

So, make sure you know about all of the above.

3

CONFORMITY

Definition: to act in accordance with accepted social standards

Factors involved in conformity:

Normative social influence – Asch (1951) discovered that, even

where the correct answer to a question was obvious, a majority of

participants would give a wrong answer on at least one occasion

This is because people will tend to conform to what they perceive

to be ‘normal’. Milgram (1974) found that participants were less

likely to obey an order if they saw someone else ‘refusing’ – where

there is no deviation from the ‘norm’, this is less likely to happen

Informational social influence – Kelman (1958) found that the

strongest influence on conformity was when the source of

influence was credible. We instinctively try to make sense of

situations and we can be influenced most effectively when

someone else appears to have knowledge that we don’t have. We

then internalise their view and make it our own. Sherif (1935)

found that a majority of participants could be influenced to provide

an answer to how far a dot had ‘moved’ even when it remained

stationary.

Majority influence – similar idea to Normative. Crutchfield (1954)

found that, even when asked to give answers in private, a majority

of participants would still conform to bogus information which they

had been told the majority believed was right.

Ability for minority to influence majority – it is very difficult for a

minority group to influence a majority group. According to

Moscovici (1969), the key factors here are: (i) the minority must

seem to be consistent in their beliefs, although not overbearing or

too rigid (ii) the minority must be able to influence the majority to

alter their style of thinking: if thinking remains at a superficial level,

4

the minority will not have influence. If they can persuade the

majority group to enter into debate, they have a much greater

chance of influencing them.(iii) If the minority is seen to be flexible

in their approach and willing to listen, they will have more

influence, (iv) people are more likely to be influenced by someone

with whom they can identify, eg someone of your own race talking

about equal for another racial group.

Power – Kelman found that participants were influenced by an

individual who appeared to wield power. However, this was a

relatively weak form of conformity which led to compliance, but

tended not to change the participant’s viewpoint. Zimbardo (1973)

in the Stanford Prison Experiment discovered that both ‘guards’

and ‘prisoners’ conformed to their roles. The ‘good guards’ never

challenged the behaviour of the ‘bad guards’: many prisoners

became depressed because of their perceived helplessness.

Individual differences – Gender, age and personality all play a part

in conformity.

Gender differences – Eagly & Carli (1981) found that women

conformed more than men. This effect was reduced when the

participants did not believe they were being observed. Eagly &

Carli concluded that this was because in society women are

expected to conform, whereas men are expected to be individual

and ‘leaders’. Mori & Arai (2010) also found that women

conformed more than men.

Age differences – Increased conformity to a peer group has been

observed in young people between 10 and 14, peaking at age 14,

with the ages between 14 and 18 being critical in developing

strategies to resist social pressure. Steinberg & Silverberg (1986)

suggest that this is because the young person is becoming

emotionally autonomous from their parents and depend on their

peer group as a stage in this process.

5

Personality differences – Stang (1973) found that people with

high self-esteem were less likely to conform, because they are less

dependent on others for emotional support.

Cultural differences in conformity

Hofstede (1980) identified differences between ‘individualistic’ cultures

such as Britain and the United States and ‘collectivist’ cultures such as

Taiwan or Japan. In the individualistic cultures, people are much less

likely to conform.

6

Researcher(s) Aims Method/Procedure Results Conclusions

Mori & Arai (2010)

Partial replication of the Asch study, but without confederates

Laboratory experiment – 40 male and 64 female participants divided into groups of four. Each was asked to identify which line out of three matched a comparison line. Each P wore glasses, similar to 3D glasses, but the third P in each group had different glasses to the others. The glasses looked identical and all Ps believed they had the same glasses as each other. They therefore perceived the lines differently.

Female Ps conformed to the group a mean of 4.41 times out of 12 (compared to 3.44 with Asch). Male Ps did not conform.

Ps knew each other, whereas in Asch they were strangers. Females may be particularly likely to conform to people they know Indicates that females are more likely to conform than males The failure of male Ps to conform may indicate social changes since the 1950s Direct comparison not possible, because different culture and Asch did not include females

7

Asch (1951)

To test whether Ps would conform to a group view when they knew the group was wrong

Participants are asked to state which line from a multiple choice matches the length of another line Confederates of the researcher deliberately give wrong answers

A large majority of participants conformed to a wrong answer at least once. A sizeable minority of participants gave repeated

wrong answers.

Participants reported that they conformed because they feared ridicule. A small number of participants doubted their own judgement and concluded that the group must be right

People will often conform to what others think even if they know it is wrong May explain why some young people can be influenced into destructive behaviour (eg drug use) even though they know it is harmful Lack of ecological validity, because the task was not one likely to be faced in real life Ethical problems – Asch deceived the participants about the nature of the experiment. He called it a ‘vision test’, which may have put pressure on some

8

Kelman (1958)

To test the strengths of different types of conformity

Black American students were told that black- only colleges were essential to support black culture (most of the students did not agree with this previously) Afterwards, they were asked whether they agreed with the speaker

It was found that the strongest form of influence was credibility. In this situation, the participant had internalised the belief and made it their own.

There are three factors in conformity: Power leads to compliance Credibility leads to internalisation Attractiveness leads to identification. The most powerful of these is credibility/internalisation, because this is the only factor which leads to the person changing their own viewpoint. It is also particularly powerful when the new information matches a prejudice already held Ethical issues – welfare of participants? Topic chosen could have been quite an emotive one for many

9

people Possibly high ecological validity, because it was within a college asking about opinions on colleges: also, a ‘live’ political issue at the time

10

OBEDIENCE

Definition: to act in response to a command from a perceived authority.

This authority is also perceived to be socially legitimate.

Factors involved in obedience:

Legitimate authority – the authority figure must be seen as acting

within their legitimate powers. For example, Bickman (1974) found

that far more people would obey the actor dressed as a security

guard – the uniform gave the impression of being legitimate. When

Milgram (1974)* repeated his experiment in a run-down office

block rather than Yale University, far fewer people obeyed. He

concluded that this was because the lower status of the building

implied less authority. Hofling (1966) found that nurses would

obey the instructions of a doctor which went against three hospital

rules: they did not know the ‘Dr Smith’ who had phoned them; they

had not received a written instruction, and the dosage they were

told to administer was twice the maximum indicated on the bottle.

Autonomous and agentic behaviour

Someone who is autonomous feels able to make their own

choices,even when confronted with an authority figure. They

make decisions based on their own beliefs and ideas.

The agentic state is when the person feels they have no control or choice. They give up their own free will to the authority figure and do as they are told. For example some of Milgram’s participants said, “I was only doing as I was told” this showing that participants gave up their responsibility and choice to obey the authority figure.

Milgram (1974) found that where people felt personal responsibility

(autonomy) they were less likely to obey commands to inflict violence.

Where they could tell someone else to press the switch to inflict the

electric shocks (using an agent), far more people obeyed. Hofling’s

11

research would support this: the nurses saw themselves as agents of

the doctor, so they did not have personal responsibility for their actions.

Buffers – where something separates the person giving the

command from the person receiving it, the command is less

effective. For example, Milgram (1974) discovered that

participants were less likely to obey if the person giving the

instruction was in another room. They were also more likely to

obey if the ‘victim’ was in the same room and could not be seen or

heard. On the other hand, Hofling’s experiment involved the

doctor telephoning instructions to the nurses, yet they almost all

obeyed him. This may be because this took place in a familiar

environment and the nurses were used to following the instructions

of a doctor.

Socialisation – where someone is isolated (Hofling’s nurses were

not given the opportunity to discuss the order with anyone) they

are more likely to obey because they have a lack of social support.

Rank & Jacobsen (1975) conducted similar research to Hofling’s,

but found that very few nurses obeyed the instructions. One

difference between the two studies is that Rank & Jacobsen

allowed each nurse to consult other nurses, so they could receive

social support. When Milgram used a confederate who

‘disobeyed’ the authority figure, participants were much more likely

to disobey.

NB – Milgram (1974) was a further study by Milgram to the original 1963 version. He varied several factors to see if they would alter the results.

12

RELEVANT STUDIES

Researcher(s) Aim Procedure Results Conclusions

Bickman (1974)

To test whether people would be more likely to follow instructions from someone with perceived authority (security guard); someone in a uniform (security guard and milkman) or someone in casual clothes

Actor dressed as (i)security guard, (ii)milkman (iii) civilian gave instructions to passer by

A large majority followed the instructions of the ‘security guard’: only a minority followed the other two, and there was no difference in reactions to the ‘civilian’ and the ‘milkman’.

The security guard was perceived to have a legitimate authority in a way that the civilian and milkman were not Wearing a uniform (milkman) is not enough to gain obedience if the uniform does not seem to denote authority High ecological validity, as field experiment in natural situation

None of the instructions asked people to break the law – would they still have obeyed?

13

Milgram (1963)

To find out how obedient Ps would be when asked by a figure in authority to give electric shocks to someone else

Laboratory experiment 40 male participants each took on the role of ‘teacher’ who was told by the experimenter to administer electric shocks to a ‘learner’ whenever they made mistakes They believed the ‘learner’ was another participant but was really a confederate of Milgram

All 40 participants obeyed up to 300 volts. 65% obeyed up to the maximum 450 volts. Ps showed signs of nervousness, including sweating, trembling and nervous laughter. Those who laughed were keen to explain that they didn’t mean it. Three participants had seizures. Milgram later varied the

Experiment very unethical - Ps were deceived - Ps were given four possible prompts: the first asked them to continue, but the next three all told them that they had to continue (no right to withdraw) - Ps suffered harm Sample not representative – only American men were Ps Lack of ecological validity – if people know they are participants in an experiment they may feel reassured that ‘it is not their fault’ in a way they wouldn’t if it were a real life situation Supports Milgram’s agentic state theory, that

14

experiment many times and found that obedience was reduced when:

There was peer support, ie a ‘participant’ who would argue with/disobey the experimenter The experimenter dressed in civilian clothes rather than a laboratory coat The experiment was moved to a less prestigious location The ‘learner’ was sitting close to/could be seen and heard by the ‘teacher’ The experimenter moved into another room

people are more likely to obey if they are simply agents who are obeying orders and/or if they in turn can delegate responsibility to someone else

15

Researcher(s) Procedure Results/Conclusions Evaluation

Hofling (1966)

Nurses were telephoned by a ‘Dr Smith’ and told to administer a drug to a patient

This broke hospital rules, because (i) the nurses should have questioned a ‘doctor’ they didn’t know (ii) the instruction should have been in writing (iii) the dosage they were told to give was double the maximum dose according to the bottle

21 of the 22 nurses obeyed the order. When another 22 nurses were asked if they would obey in a similar situation, 21 of the 22 said they would not.

The high status of the ‘doctor’ led the nurses to consider themselves as no more than agents

Where there is a hierarchy, such as in a hospital, there is social pressure to obey

The ‘drug’ was unfamiliar to the nurses – it was actually fake. They therefore had no personal experience of having administered it before

Challenges Milgram’s findings: even when a ‘buffer’ was used, with an order being given by telephone, almost all the nurses obeyed

High ecological validity, in that it was a real hospital with real nurses. However, would it apply to other situations? Does a doctor have a uniquely high status?

Nurses did not give consent to take part

16

Rank & Jacobsen (1975)

18 nurses were told by a fake doctor to administer three times the correct dosage of Valium to a patient

The nurses had the opportunity to discuss this with other nurses

16 of the 18 nurses refused. This may be because:

- The drug was familiar to them. They therefore had a level of autonomy in being able to refer to their own experience of it

- They had peer support from other nurses

Challenges findings of Hofling

Supports Milgram’s finding that peer support reduces levels of obedience to a ‘wrong’ command

Supports Milgram’s agency theory: where the person feels a level of control (using their own expertise in having administered valium before), they are less likely to obey someone who tells them otherwise

17

A study does not necessarily have ecological validity just because it is a real life situation. The results can be very specific to a situation and changing any variables slightly can make a very dramatic effect on results.

18

STRATEGIES FOR RESISTING SOCIAL PRESSURE OR COERCION Definition of Coercion: To force another person to do something by the pressure of your authority POSSIBLE STRATEGIES ARE: Moral reasoning: Kohlberg (1969) – people move through three levels (six stages) of moral reasoning: Preconventional is usually reached by age 9, by which time moral judgement is based on what you can be rewarded or punished for. Conventional is the level which most adults never get beyond. Here, moral judgement is based on what is best for the majority; conformity to social norms and obeying the law. Postconventional is a level reached by 10-15% of adults, who make moral judgements based on their own values, although they will tend to obey the law where there is a conflict between them. The highest stage of this level is where people live according to what they see as universal principles which they perceive as being more important than following the law. People at the postconventional level are most likely to be able to resist social pressure. Baumrind (1967) – identified four types of parenting: authoritarian, authoritative, permissive and non-involved. Out of these, she concluded that authoritative parenting is the most successful. An authoritative parent is one who sets out rules and guidelines, but is also willing to be flexible and to respond to their child, and whose discipline is corrective rather than punishing. This type of parenting is also likely to lead to the child being able to resist coercion because they are equipped to question what they are told and to be assertive.

19

Disobedient models: Milgram (1974) found that participants who saw others ‘disobeying’ orders were more likely to disobey also. Linked to this is Milgram’s agentic theory – if people see themselves as responsible for their own actions, they are less likely to blindly follow what someone else wants them to do. Questioning authority: Rank & Jacobsen (1975) – when the nurses had the opportunity of peer support, they were much less likely to obey the instructions of Dr Smith Bickman (1974) – participants were much less likely to follow instructions from someone who appeared to lack the authority to give them Moscovici (1969) – a minority is particularly able to resist pressure from a majority when they are able to engage in debate