Social Psychology — Checklist

Obedience @
Q What is obedience? f WA ,
Q Explanations for obedience
oO Agentic state 2A
oO. _Legitimate authority
Q_ Situational variables affecting obedience as investigated by Milgram including:
Oo Proximity
© Location
o Uniform
Q_ Dispositional explanation of why people obey
. o Authoritarian personality (Adorno)
Q_ Ethical guidelines and ethical issues with obedience research

Conformity

Q Types of conformity
o Internalisation
o Identification
o Compliance
Q Explanations for conformity
o Informational social influence (including Sherif)
o Normative social influence (including Asch)
Q Variables affecting conformity
o Group size
o Unanimity
o. Task difficulty
Q Conformity to Social Roles as investigated by Zimbardo

Resisting Social Influence

Q How people resist pressures to obey authority

o Locus of control
o Social support
Q How people resist pressures to conform
o Locus of control
o Social support

Minority Influence

o Consistency
o Commitment
o. Flexibility

Social Change

Q_ The role ofsocial influence processesin social change

 PSYCHOLOGY HOMEWORK SHEET~ PRACTICAL ACTIVITY

Trainee Psychologists name

Task: Remember thatcollege students thought that 4% of Milgram’s participants would go to 300volts
and less than 1% would go to 450 volts. (Do nottell your participants this until the end of the study!)
You're goingto replicate this study to see ifit is reliable (if we will find the same thing again). Please
makesure your study is ethical byfollowing the ethical check points.

1. Find 6 participants aged 16 or over (or we need parental permission). Use Opportunity
Sampling (this means you ask people who areavaliable to participate). Ask if they would mind
taking part in a questionnaire.
(ETHICS CHECK- makesure youtell them they don’t have to and can leave at anytime).
2. Explain Milgram’s procedure to them and ask them:
“What percentageof participants do you think pressed ‘very severe’ shock button and
continued to 450 volts because the experimenter asked them to?”
3. Put the results in the table below.
4, ETHICS CHECK-Thankparticipants for their time andtell them whatcollege students thought and
why you have donethis study. (This is called debriefing)

Participant number (ETHICS CHECK- no name % of participants they think are going to go to 450
should be written downto protect identity) volts
1
2
3
4
5
6

Points to consider; would the following affect your experiment?

Are your participants Psychology students?
Are they male or female?
How old are they?

Almost the LAST TASK:

Work out the mean of your scores. Add all 6 percentages together and then divide by 6 (because you havesix
scores)
— t+ ttt = 6 = (mean)

; For two lessonstime: visit http://www.anesi.com/fscale.htm to find out more about the F scale
SZ and completeit yourself.
 Obedience

“A type of social influence whereby someone acts in responseto a direct orderfrom a perceived
authority figure “
RESEARCH STUDY

Name of experimenter
Date

AIM: (whydid they carry out the research? What was the purpose?)

Milgram wanted to see if people would obey someone who appeared to be a legitimate authority
figure.

He haa seew what had happened in Nazi Germany during the Second World War. A popular
belief among people at the time was that the Holocaust happened because Germans had evolved
to have a “killing gene.” Milgram was convinced that it was not true. He believed that all
people would do terrible things tf instructed by someone in authority.

PROCEDURE: (what exactly did they do?)

Method:

Sampling method:

Number ofparticipants:

Outline of procedure:
. Milgram placed an advert in a asking for people to participate in a study
ow the effect of punishment on . Participants were paid . The
participants drew Lots for their vole. Milgram employed two - these were an
expertmenter and someone to play the part of the ‘Learner,’ called Mr . The
Ww participant was always the teacher. He was told to administer an
every time the learner got a question
Wee wrong. These shocks started at__Vand went up to Vv. The
hoe
learner gave mainly wrong answers. At 300v he pounded on the wall
and gave wo response to the next question. The experimenter urged the
participant to continue giving shocks with prods such as ‘please continue’
ath or ‘You have wo other choice you must go on.’ The teacher was wot
actually administering electric shocks.
FINDINGS: (what statistics were found or what did they observe happening?)

QUANTITATIVE DATA:

QUALITATIVE DATA: (OBSERVATIONS)

Interesting fact:- Prior to the study Milgram asked 14 Psychology students to predict the result?
They estimated that wo more than 3% would go to 450v!

CONCLUSIONS: (Can we explain what we havefound in the findings box?)

For next lesson:

Reminder:visit http://www.anesi.com/fscale.htm to find out more about the F scale and completeit
yourself.
 Situational Variables Affecting Obedience

Sometimes Psychologists do more mini experiments after their original study. They change slight things
and see whateffect these can have on the results. Milgram did the following:

Variable Variation Result: What doesthis tell us?

PROXIMITY: Proximity of victim: Teacher is in same
Milgram noticed that room and can hear and see Mr Wallace
proximity of the teacher Touch proximity: Teacher forces Mr
to the learner seemed Wallace’s arms onto the shock plate to
to affect obedience. receive the shock
Remoteinstruction (proximity of
experimenter): The
experimenter left the room
and gave the instructions on
phone.
LOCATION: Experimentis carried out in a run-down
Milgram believed that office above a shop and Milgram called
location may have himself ‘Research Associates Ltd.’
affected obedience - he
thought the prestigious
Yale University setting
may have caused
people to obey:
UNIFORM: In one variation the experimenter was
Milgram established the called away because of an inconvenient
authority of the phone call right at the start of the
experimenter through procedure. The role of the experimenter
the use of the lab coat. was taken over by an ‘ordinary member of
Question: If you’d been a participant, do you think you
the public’ in casual clothes. would have believed the ‘inconvenient’call?!
OTHER VARIABLES: Presenceofallies: There are three
teachers (two confederates and
one naive participant) the two
confederate teachers refuse to
continue with the experiment

Peer administers shock: The teacher asks

the questions but a confederate gives the
shocks

Situational explanations of obedience focus on environmental factors affecting obedience:
Description of reason
LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY:
AGENCY THEORY
Normally people are in an
autonomous state. This
means that...
In Milgram’s study, people
werein an agentic state.
This means that...
Situational Explanations of Obedience to Authority
Evidence to supportthis idea?
Bickman (1974):
Evidence from Milgram’svariations which supportsthis...
Real life: Kelman and Hamilton (1989) suggested that the My Lai Masaccre
(Vietnam War) can be explained by hierarchy in the US Army, supporting the
idea thatlegitimate authority can lead to destructive obedience.
Evidence from Milgram’s variations which supportsthis is...
Blass and Schmidt (2001) showed studentsa film of Milgram’s study and
asked who was responsible for the harm to the learner. The students
‘blamed’ the experimenter rather than the participant, supporting the idea of
agentic state — they saw the teacher as responsible. Similarly, Adolf Eichmann
(the Nazi responsible for the extermination of millions during the Second
World War) and hesaid he was ‘only following orders.’ It is therefore the
authority figure who is seen as responsible for the person’s actions. Adolf
Eichman claimed he became deindividuated(he lost his sense of identity).
The change from an autonomous state to an agentic state is called an agentic
shift.
However:
Some people do not obey. If humans are social animals in hierarchies then all
should obey — therefore agentic state cannot accountfor all obedience.
 A Dispositional Explanation for Obedience: The Authoritarian Personality

“A person who has extreme respectfor authorityand who 1s very obedient to those who have power over
them. Theymaybe hostile to those oflowerrank.’

The Fascist Scale (Adorno et al, 1950)

Adorno studied over 2000 American students from mainly white, middle class backgrounds. He
interviewed them about their early childhood experiences and political views.

From his research, he developed a number ofscales to measure aspects of behaivour and attitudes
including the Fascist Scale to measure Authoritarian Personality.

Obedience and respect for Authority are the most important virtues children should learn
Agree/Disagree

Rules are there for people to follow, not change Agree/Disagree

If people would talk less and work more, everybody would be better off. Agree/Disagree

Science has its place, but there are many important things that can never be understood by the human
mind. Agree/Disagree

Every person should have complete faith in some supernatural power whose decisions he obeys without
question Agree/Disagree

A few of you will... visit http://www.anesi.com/fscale.htm to find out more about the F scale and
complete it yourself.

Those with Authoritarian personalities have very beliefs, they stick to the rules and social
hierarchies and are morelikely to authority. Children who grow up with authoritarian
parents often acquire these attitudes through a process of and imitation.
 Elms and Milgram (1966)

Aim:

Procedure: Carried outa follow up study with participants who had participated in one of Milgram’s
experiments two months before.

Independentvariable: Whether participants had been obedient(gone all the way to v)

Or defiant (at some point they had refused to continue the experiment).

Dependentvariables:
The participants score on the MMPI Scale (measuring a range of personality variables)
The participants score on the F scale

Findings:
Therewas little difference between obedient and defiant participants on the MMPI scale. On the F
Scale, they found higher levels of in those who were obedient compared to those
who werenot. This supports the idea that thereis a link between authoritarian personality type and
obedience.

© Zillmer et al (1995) reported that 16 Nazi war criminals scored highly on 3 of the F-scale dimensions,
but notall 9, giving limited support for the concept.

Right-wing Authoritarianism

Altemeyer (1981) refined the concept of the Authoritarian Personality by identifying a cluster of three
original personality variables that he referred to as Right-wing Authoritarianism (RWA).

When a psychologist investigates a relationship

2. (rather than an experiment involving an IV anda
DV, wecall this a ‘correlation.’

© Altemeyer tested the relationship between RWA and obedience.

Participants were ordered to give themselves electric shocks when they
got an answer wrong on learning task. There was significant positive
correlation between the RWAscoresand the level of shocks that
participants werewilling to give themselves.
Matching activity: Match the reason for obedience with the description:

The person sees himself as an agent

for the authority figure and does not
Legitimate Authority think that he is responsible for his
own actions.

Initially a small request is given and

Agentic state then this leads to obeying more
serious orders that you would not do
if this order had been given first.

Some people have been called

Gradual commitment authoritarian and they morelikely to
obey than non authoritarian people.

We assume that the person has some

Personality expert knowledgeor position that
makes it acceptable to follow their
request- they know best.

XS? Now highlight which of the above are situational reasons and then in a different colour
which is dispositional.

¥ Read the article ‘A Hoax most cruel’ about a reallife example of obedience. Can you use
some of the reasons above to explain why the people obeyed?
 “A Hoax Most Cruel”- The Courier Journal October 2005
A Real Life Example of Obedience

She wasa high school senior who hadjust turned 18 — a churchgoing former Girl Scout who
hadn’t received a single admonition in her four months working at the McDonald’s in Mount
Washington.

But when a man whocalled himself “Officer Scott” phoned the store on April 9, 2004, and said
an employee had beenaccused ofstealing a purse, Louise Ogborn became the suspect.

“He gave mea description ofthe girl, and Louise was the one whofit it to the T,”assistant
manager Donna Jean Summerssaid.

Identifying himself as a police officer, the caller issued an ultimatum: Louise Ogborn could be
searchedatthe store or be arrested, taken to jail and searchedthere.

The manager Donna Summers, 51, concededlater that she had never known Louise Ogborn to
do a thing dishonest. But she nonetheless led Louise Ogborn to the restaurant’s small office,
locked the door, and — followingthe caller’s instructions — ordered her to remove one item
of clothing at a time, until she was naked.

“She was crying,” recalled Kim Dockery, 40, another assistant manager, who stood by watching.
“A little younggirl standing there naked wasn’t a pretty sight.”

Summers (manager) said later that “Officer Scott,” who stayed on the telephone, giving his
orders, sounded authentic. He said he had “McDonald’s corporate” on the line, as well as the
store manager, whom he mentioned by name. And she thought she could hear police radios in the
background.

Summers shookeach garment, placedit in a bag and took the bag away. “I did exactly what he
said to do,” Summerssaid ofhercaller.

At the caller’s instructions, she refused to tell Dockery, the otherassistant manager, what was
going on.

Dockery hugged Ogbornandtried to console her, and Jason Bradley, 27, a cook who Summers
at one point called in to watch Ogborn, refused to go along with the caller’s instructions to
removeher apron and describe her. But neither of them called the police, nor demanded the
search be aborted.

By now, Ogborn had been detainedfor an hour. Her car keys had beentaken away, and she was
naked, except for the apron. She wouldlatertestify that she thought she couldn’t leave.

Summersthen told the caller that she had to get back to the counter, andthe caller asked if she
had a husband whocould watch Ogborn.
“She said no, I’m not married yet, but I intend to be,” Bradley recalled in his deposition, adding
that Summers “startedlaughing like she wastalking to a friend.” The caller told Summersto
bring in her fiance, and at about 6 p.m., she called Walter Wes Nix Jr., at home.

“T asked if he would help,” Summerssaid. “I said I had situation.”

Nix, 42, a father of two and an exterminator by trade, attended church regularly and had coached
youth baseball teams in Mount Washington. Heis a “great, super guy, a great community guy,”
his best friend, Terry Grigsby, said later in a deposition. “He was a great role modelforkids. I
don’t think he’d everhada ticket.”

Summers handed Nix the phoneandleft the office. The caller told Nix he was a detective. For
the next two hours, Nix later told police, “He told me whatto do.”

Hepulled the apron away from Ogborn, leaving her nude again, and describedherto the caller.
Heordered her to dance with her arms aboveherhead, to see, the caller said, if anything “would
shake out.” He made her do jumping jacks, deep knee bends, stand on a swivel chair, then a
desk.

He madehersit on his lap and kiss him; the caller said that would allow Nix to smell anything
that might be on her breath.

When Ogborn refused to obey the caller’s instructions, Nix slapped her on the buttocks, until
they were red — just as the caller told him to do, Ogborn testified later.

Like the rest of herordeal, it was captured on a surveillance camera, recorded on to a DVD. And
it continued until Summersreturned to the office to get somegift certificates, and Nix had
Ogborn coverherself again. The caller told Nix then that he could leave but that Summers
neededto find another manto replace him. She called in Thomas Simms, a 58-year-old
maintenance man whodid odd jobsat the store. It was Simms, the Mount Washington store’s
maintenance man and a ninth-grade dropout, whorefusedto play the caller’s game.

Hehad stopped bythe restaurant for dessert and coffee when Summers pulled him into the office
and handed him the phone. Thecaller told Simms to have Ogborn drop the apron andto describe
her. Simmsrefused. “He said, ‘Somethingis not right aboutthis,’” Summersrecalled in her
deposition. And finally, she realized the same. She called her manager Lisa Siddons whom the
caller had said was onthe other line. Summers discovered Siddons had been home, sleeping.

“T knew then I had been had,” Summerssaid. “I lostit.

 MATCH THE PSYCHOLOGY TERM WITH THE DEFINITION

Where someone followsa direct

Confederate
instructions from a legitimate
authority figure.

Naive participant
Small orders are given until the
participants feel they cannot disobey
when larger, more serious requests
are made of them.
Agentic state
A study that is conducted in a real life
setting. The experimenter controls
some ofthe variables.
Obedience

The experimenter controls all of the

variables including the environment
in which the study is done.
Volunteer Sampling
We act as an agent for someone we
believe is in authority. We believe
they will take the blame.

Lab Study
A person wefeel we should respect
and obey as they have expertise.

Field study A person who doesnot know the aims

of the experiment.

Someone who pretends to be a naive

Legitimate authority participant but whoin fact works for
the experimenter.

People who haverigid attitudes and

Gradual commitment
are intolerant to minorities. These
people are morelikely to obey.

Authoritarian personality Participants are selected through an

advert.
 e &
ER TLETA
Remember to
Be an examiner...
highlight the key
words in the
“9° .
" ‘ uestion...
Outline one explanation for why we obey (4 marks) & 4

Answer A:
“One reason people obey ts when they perceive the person giving the orders as a Legitimate
authority.”

Answer B:
One reason why people obey was a psychological factor tdentified by Milgram and is Rnoww
as the agentic shit, where people move from an autonomousstate to aw agentic state. This is
wherethe person giving the shocks doesw't see themselves as responsible for their actions,
because they belteve that they are acting as an agent for the experimenter who gives the
commands. This means that people are more likely to administer shocks as instructed, and
accounts for why 65% of men administered 450v in Milgram’s experiment.

Whena teachergives an order most students will obey their instructions. Using
your knowledgeoffactors that may affect obedience explain why you might obey a
teacher. (6 marks)

Reasons why we obey include assuming that the person giving orders has a right to do so
because they are an expert at what they do. Also gradual commitment where we tnittally obey
a small request someone makes and then gradually we begin to obey bigger requests as we
feel we have started and therefore should carry on even if it is unreasonable. Also that if we
are removed from an autonomous state into an agentic state where we act as an agent for
someone we belteve to be a Legitimate authority figure. we often assumethat they will take
responsibility for our behaviour

Examiner’s comments:
 Evaluating Milgram’s Study — Methodology

Orne and Hollandcriticised Milgram...

1) Demand Characteristics:
When you putpeople in situation where they know theyare being investigated, they often try to work
out the experimental aim. If they do this, one of three things can happen:
e They maydeliberately try to produce the outcome that the researcher was expecting (the ‘please
you’ effect)
e They may deliberately try to ruin the experiment (Abraham Maslowcalled this the ‘screw you’
effect)
e They maysimply reflect more than usual on their behaviour, and consequently act in ways other
than they usually would.

Any of these outcomes results in uncharacteristic behaviour. If the participants behave uncharacteristically,
then the research has no internal validity. Participants typically look for clues that will help them work out
the research aim. Theseclues are called the demand characteristics of the research situation. They reduce
the INTERNALVALIDITY of a study.

2) Experimental realism:

Participants might not have believed the experimental set-up they found themselves in and knewthe learner wasn’t
really receiving electric shocks. Gina Perry (2013) analysed Milgram’s archiveof tape recordings. She said
that participants often voiced their suspicions about the shocks. Perry concludes that most of Milgram’s
participants realized that the shocks were fake.

| disagree with Orne and Holland too, because... my

participants shook and sweated and % of
participants said they believed the set-up was real.
 3) Ecological validity:
Lab experiments lack ecological validity this meansthat...

It has been argued that a lab is artificial and people would not behave that
way ina real situation.
This reduces the EXTERNAL VALIDITYof a study.

Think; Which experiment showsthat people will still be obedient to legitimate authority
ina real
life situation?

4) Sampling bias

att
uf
if @ 6
e Milgram used a sampling method because he
advertised in a newspaper and asked people to respond. This may be biased
because only a
certain type of person is likely to respond to an advert in a newspaper. Therefore
the
sample may be of the general population.

e Only participants were used. Wetherefore can’t Eeneralise to female participants this
is called ci . ®

e Milgram only used people from one culturethis is called

However, in a French documentary, contestants in a reality TV show werepaid

to give
electric shocks to other ‘participants’ (actors) when instructed by the presenter.
80% gave
450v and they showedsigns of anxiety like Milgram’s participants. Miranda et
al (1981)
found over 90% obediencein Spanish students. Therefore we could argue that the
findings
are not limited to Americans.
oo
However, Smith and Bond (1998) note that most replications have
taken part in western societies which are not
that culturally different from the USA. Therefore...

5) Investigator effects (sometimescalled investigatorbias):

This includes anything that an investigator does which has an effect on the performance
of
the participant in a study, other than what was intended. This includes direct effects
of the
investigator interacting with the participant, and indirect effects (as a conseque
nce ofthe
investigator designing the study).

4 Se
Care Flanagan
How often have you usedjust this sentence asa critical point in
an essay? Didyou take the trouble to explain why the study lacks
ecologicalvalidity? In fact, are you sure thatit did lack ecological
validity, or didyoujust use thesentence without thinking too
much aboutit, a sort of knee-jerk comment?
—=Jhe problem is that many people
(psychologists as well as students)
use the phrase ‘this study lacks
ecologicalvalidity’ without (a) really
understanding whatit means and (b) being
right. Why do even psychologists get it
wrong? Knowledge keeps moving on —
whatyoureadin a bookpublished 10 years
ago may no longerbe the accepted view.
This is tough on you but comeon, you have
to keep up with psychologyjust as you keep
up withthe latest in music andfashion. We
know ecological or external validity is not
as interesting as music and fashion, but
bear with us and read on becausetheissue
is really more interesting than you might
think, and it gets .to the core of what
psychological researchis all about.
Once upon timein a far away land —
actually sometimebackin the first half of
the twentieth century — psychologists had
a love affair with the laboratory experi-
ment, thinking the more tightly they
controlled everything, the better their
science would be. Soon, though, there was
discontent. Some cognitive psychologists,
especially Ulric Neisser, argued that you
cannot find out about memory just by
testing whether someone recalls some
wordsbetter than others. Testing wordsis
only one aspect of memory and,further-
more, just reading a list of words for a
psychological experimentis not the same
28, Psychology Review
as trying to remember thingsinreallife,
such as for an exam.It was time to make
what was studied in the laboratory more
useful in its application to real-life
behaviour. Neisser (1978) commented, ‘The
results of 100 years of the psychological
study of memory are somewhatdiscour-
aging. We haveestablished firm empirical
generalisations but most of them are so
obviousthat every 10-year-old knows them
anyway... lf X is an interesting or socially
significant aspect of memory,then psychol-
ogists have hardly everstudied X.’
Internal and external validity
The problem arises because of a tension
betweenthe needfor control and the need
to preserve the essence of the phenom-
enon underinvestigation. The need for-
controlis the issue of internalvalidity. If we
are conducting an experiment, we need to
be sure that the changes observed in the
dependent variable were dueto the inde-
pendent variable.rather than anythingelse
(extraneousvariables). If the changes were
due to something else, then any conclu-
sionsare hardly justified. And the whole
point of conducting any researchstudy is to
be able to draw some conclusion.
The opposing force — the need to
preserve the phenomenonunderinvestiga-
tion — relates to externalvalidity. An exper-
imentis a particular situation;it involves a
+ nstOns ayaa mums td
. agy tal? iietnsiions,
> AOA(A) AS Module3, Option 12.1 —
Social psychology
DB» AQA(A) A2 Module 6 — Coursework .
PB AQA(B) AS Module 1, Option 10.3 —
Methodsofresearch
vojsnyoyoya/syany yds
> AQA (8) AS Module 3, Option 12 —
Practical investigation =
& AOA (B) A2 Module 6 — Coursework 1 more natural materials, have low ecological whichinvolve participants being asked to validity, but in reality it had low mundane
& Edexcel AS Unit 3 — Coursework i validity. How do they knowthis? The way remember to carry out simple tasks at. realism. Even thoughit was conducted in a
D Edexcel A2 Unit 5(b) —-Research
to demonstrate ecological validity is pre-arranged times/dates (such as making naturalsetting, the tasks were quite artifi-
methods oo .
& OCRAS Module 2541—Themesand : throughreplication.If the same findings a telephorie call or sending a postcard) cial. Rank and Jacobsen's study used more
perspectives are produced by another study in a in the courseoftheir everydaylives. The real-life tasks — the nurses dealt with a
> OCR AS Module 2542 — Psychological different setting, then this increases the results of such studies may be compro- familiar drug and wereallowed to consult
investigations : ecologicalvalidity of the original study. mised by lack of control over confounding with each other. The findings of the study
variables, such as whethera participantsets by Hofling et al. were not replicated when
Demonstrating ecological an alarm as a reminder. If a study has low the tasks were made more natural, thusit
particular set of people, doing a particular
task, in a particular setting. Psychologists
validity : internalvalidity, this will necessarily affect does not have ecologicalvalidity.
Kvavilashvili and Ellis give various examples its, generalisability, and this bririgs the Furthermore, the doctor—nurse authority
use the findings to make general state-
to illustrate this. ecological validity of such research into relationship is a special one and thereforeit
ments about all people in all settings.
First, consider research conducted with question. is not reasonable to generalise from this to
External validity is about being able to
artificial materials or tasks in a laboratory Furthermore, Kvavilashvili and Ellis point all other kinds of obedience:It is part of a
generalise. Ecologicalvalidity is one aspect
suchas Ebbinghaus's research on relearning outthat one cannot necessarily equate ‘arti- - nurse'sjob to obey the orders of doctors, as
of externalvalidity: the setting and being
able to generalise from the setting of the
savings (1885): if you learn a list of ficiality’ (of a situation) with all laboratory the nursesin Hoflingetal.'s study argued in
nonsense syllables most of them are experiments and ‘naturalness’ with everyday their defence. Milgram's study concerned
study to as manyothersettings as possible.
forgotten, but if you relearnthelist, your contexts. Some laboratory experiments, obedienceof ordinary people to a perceived
Ecologicalvalidity is often confused with
recall is better, indicating that something for example, appear to employ natural authority.
mundane realism. Mundane realism refers
waslearnedthefirst time evenif it could materials in a context that simulates a natu- The ecological validity of Milgram's
to the extent to which theset-upof a study
notberecalled. Precisely the same results rally-occurring situation, whereas some study has been demonstrated through
mirrorsreallife —the representativeness of
were obtained by Bahrick and Phelps field studies (natural context) investigate various replications of this study and
the study. Ecological validity includes
(1988), using such highly representative tasks that appear to bear’only a passing others in a variety of different settings.
representativeness and generalisability.
material as the forgotten namesof previ- resemblanceto naturally-occurring ones. These replications show that obedience
This is the view of Lia Kvavilashvili and Judi
ously knowncelebrities. Thus Ebbinghaus's levels are affected by situational factors,
Ellis (2004), who wrote a very enlightening
original findings, despite the fact that they Obedience studies ratherthan being dueto a person's dispos-
article called ‘Ecological validity and the
were artificial (unrepresentative), have Manypsychological textbooks use obedi- ition. Milgram's findings were further
real-life/laboratory controversy in memory
been demonstrated to have ecological ence research by Milgram and Hofling to supportedbya real-life stuidy. Dicks (1972)
research:a critical (and historical) review’.
validity and to be representative because illustrate the laboratory versusfield exper- interviewed former Germansoldiers and
In their article, they suggest that many
the same findings occur in different iment issue. These are described in Box 1 found that they displayed the same-
areas of research that were once consid-
settings. on page 26, You might thinkthat the study psychological mechanismsof obedience as
ered to be lacking ecological validity, such
Second,considerstudies conducted in a of nurses by Hofling et al. had high shownbyparticipants in laboratory-based
as memory experiments, have more
naturalistic setting such as memory studies; ~ftundane realism and high ecological obedienceresearch.
recently been shownactually to have high .
ecological validity, whereas somestudies
conducted in everyday contexts, using February2005 2&
am
 Before we leave our-discussion of the
validity of Milgram's obedience research,
you should consider one final piece of
evidence. In an infamous Second World
War encounter: between Reserve Police
Battalion 101 of the German order police
(Ordnungspolizei) andcivilians, the German
commander, Major Wilhelm Trapp, had
orderstokill all the Jews in Jozefow,a small
Polish town. Trapp told his menthatif they
did not wish to obey orders he would assign
them to other duties. Nevertheless most of
the men did obey, despite the fact that the
task involved many of thesituational factors
that Milgram found led to reduced obedi-
ence.(face-to-face contact, some disobe-
dient peers, absence of pressure from
authority figure).
The moral of the story
Do not assume that any study has ecolog-
ical validity — search for confirming
~~ evidence. All research conductedin the real
world is not automatically ecologically valid
andall laboratory studies are not automat-
ically ecologically invalid. Every study has
some ecological validity — some are just
more ecologically valid than others.
Ecological validity is established through
both representiveness and generalisability,
whereas people often relate it only to
representativeness. Representativeness can
aid ecological validity but pure mundane
realism is not a guarantee of ecological
* Germansoldiers in
-) the Second World
| War sometimes
u) preferred to obey
orders despite
beitig given a
choice--:.
Box 1 Obedience research
Moststudents are familiar with Milgram’s 1963 study of obedience to unjust authority where a
‘teacher’ was required to administer shocksofincreasing strengthtoa ‘learner’. Theoriginal
study was conductedin a laboratory atYale University. Milgram argued that even though this
wasacontrived situation, the relationship betweenparticipant(‘teacher’) and experimenter
was a real-life one of obedience — weare socialised to obey people in certain situations, such
as this one.
Hofling et al. (1966) conducteda field study of obedience. Nursesin a US hospital were given
instructions over the telephone bya ‘Dr Smith’. Thisorder contravened hospital regulationsin a
numberof ways:
> nurses had beentold not to accept instructions over the telephone
2 nurses had beentold notto acceptinstructions from an unknown doctor
© nurses had been told not to accept requests for doses in excess of the safe amount(the
:. dosage was twice that advised on thebottle), particularly for an unknown drug
Nevertheless, 21 out of 22 (95%) nurses did as requested. Whenthe nurses involved in the
study wereinterviewed afterwards theysaid,in their defence, that they had obeyed because .
that is what doctors expect nurses to do. They behavedas nursesdoin real life — or did they?
Various features ofthis study were highlyartificial. It is very unlikely that nurses would be
required to take instructions about an unknowndrugand, most importantly, they would
normally have the opportunity to consult with colleagues, which they were prevented from
- doing in the Hofling study.
- Ina replication ofthis study by Rank and Jacobsen (1975), Australian nurses were also asked to
carry out an irregular order. This time 16 out of 18 (89%) refused. There were importantdiffer-
ences: the drug was familiar (Valium) and the nurses could consult with peers.
validity. We can study sornething real but historical review’, History ofPhilosophy and
not usefulin terms of general psychological Psychology, Vol. 6, pp. 59-80.
effects — for example, someone whojust Milgram, S. (1963) ‘Behavioural study of
loves examsyetgenerally the stress of exams obedience’, Journal ofAbnormal and Social
leads to worse performance. Generalis- Psychology, Vol. 67, pp. 371-78.
ability can be established by confirming ‘Rank, S. G. and Jacobsen, C. KX. (1977)
original findings through replication, ‘Hospital nurses’ compliance with
thoughthe setting-and materials may be medication overdoseorders:A failure to
different. replicate’, Journal of Health and Social
Kvavilashvili and Ellis conclude that, ‘By Behaviour, Vol. 18, pp. 188-93.
defining ecological validity in the above
manner, webelieve that it is possible to HughCoolicanis Principal Lecturer at
avoid the potential error of automatically Coventry University andis well knownfor his
classifyingall research conductedin thereal books on research methods, most recently the
world as ecologically valid and all tradi- fourth edition of Research Methods and
tional laboratory studies as ecologically Statistics in Psychology. Cara Flanagan has
written many booksfor A-level students,
invalid’ © ,
including Nelson Thornes’ Complete
References Companion seriesforAQA (A) AS and A2
Bahrick, H. P. and Phelps, E. (1988) ‘The exams with Mike Cardwell. Her series ofbooks
maintenance of marginal knowledge’, on research methodsfor AQA(A), Edexcel and
in U. Neisser and E. Winograd (eds) OCRwill be published by Nelson Thornesin
Remembering Reconsidered: Ecological and the summerof2005.
- Traditional Approaches to the Study of
Memory, Cambridge University Press.
> Ecological va ity .
Dicks, H. V. (1972) Licensed Mass Murder: A
> Thelaboratory experiment o,f
Socio-psychological Study ofSome S.S. Killers,
Basic Books. > Needfor control , i
Hofling, K. C. et al. (1966) ‘An experimental (>Artificiality
study in the nurse—physician relationship’, > Need to preserve the phenomenon::. .
Journal of Mental and Nervous Disorders, > Internal and external validity ~*~
Vol. 43, pp. 171-78. Bb Representativeness ‘ :
Kvavilashvili, L. and Ellis, J. (2004) ‘Ecological > Generalisability ‘
validity andreal-life/laboratory contro-
> Mundanerealism
versy in mernory research:A critical and
 TASK: Research Hoffling et al (1966) and Sheriden and King (1972) and fill in the boxes:

Hofling et al (1966) — a field experiment with less chance of demand characteristics

in the real world

Procedure:

Findings:

G
Conclusions: i
Hi

Although... the study wasstill artificial in places.

1) The nurses were alone on the ward, which is highly unusual.
2) The drug ‘astroten’ is made up. A replication (wherethe study is repeated) was done using valium.
This time only out of 18 nurses obeyed.
 Sheriden and King (1972) - lab study with more experimental realism (people wereless likely
to think it was a set
up)

Procedure:

Findings:

Conclusions:
 Have you highlighted
the key words?

Discuss the methodology of research into obedience to authority. (12 marks) ey

Milgram’'s study has been criticised by and for two

reasons. Firstly, they suggest that since participants had been to take
part tw the study, they were wot actually obeatent, butjust going along with what the
wanted ( ).
Ate ta) This meant that his findings (100% of people administered shocks of
on a6 awd @ of people administered shocksof.
were not valid. Hofling et al attempted to remove demand characteristics by conducting
a study tw a hospital setting. He found that out of wurses
obeyed an instruction from an unknown doctor, administering the amount
of dosage, and not obtaining his signature first. This experiment cannotbe criticised
for having , as the nurses ata wot know
they were taking part, and therefore supports Milgram’s findings about obedience.

Orne and Holland also suggested that Milgram’s study can be criticised because the
participants aia wot believe they were actually administering e
S . However, when questioned, © of Milgram’s participants ata
not believe the experiment was a set up. Furthermore, Sherioen ana found that
© of people would administer a high shock to a which they could
see being shocked. Even when the puppy was seen to fall unconscious (because
RS a colourless, odourless gas wasreleased) they still carried on administering
"shocks, supporting Milgram’s theory that people will be obedtent to a
authority figure tw certatw situations.

Milgram’'s study has also been criticized for Lacking ec valiatty,

since people have suggested the results may wot apply outside of a Lab in Yale University.
However, contrary to this, Hofling’s study found obedtence in a more watural setting,
although tt could be argued that aspects of Hofling’s study lacked
validity — tnaeed, the drug * ‘was made up. Iw support of this idea, a
r of the study found that when was used, only ___ out of
18 wurses obeyed, suggesting that maybe the results cannot be applied to real Life.
Lastly, obedience stuates have been criticised for sample bias, indeed Milgram’s study
 was using only male participants, and therefore findings
canunot apply to women. In additton, his study Was
being conducted
America, meaning the findings cannotbe applied to other cultures. However, several
replicationstw several countries with both genders have inolicated the findings are
reliable.

MATCH THE KEY TERMS

Androcentric In an artificial setting (often a lab study)

participants work out the aims of the
experiment

Ethonocentric
How much we can generalise the results that
have been found to situations outside of the
research setting

Demand characteristics

The participants are from one gender and

Ecological validity therefore the findings cannot be applied to the

The participants are from one culture and so the

result cannot be applied to other cultures

TASK — ACTIVE READING:

Read the following article ‘Obedience to Authority.’ Use the information in

the article, and your
knowledge of Milgram’s study to think about statement ‘The ends justified
the means.’ i.e. the findings
from Milgram’s studyjustified the procedures he used.
 aS
Mike C well
The ethical concerns surrounding
Milgram's research are well
documented, yet there remains the
enduring defence that it was‘all
worthwhile’ because it gave us such
invaluable insights into the power
of authority and perhaps even an
explanation for the horrors of the
Holocaust. However, critics such as
David Mandel (1998) have begun
to cast doubt over whether
Milgram’s findings offer anything .
more than an ‘obediencealibi’.
14 PSYCHOLOGYReview
he Nazi extermination policy
toward the Jews (known
euphemistically as “the ‘final
solution’) began in 1941
“when special mobile killing
units operating along the eastern front
began lining up and shooting Jews in mass
graves (which they were often forced to dig
for themselves). In 1942, battalions of
German Order Police were added to the
extermination force and carried out mass
shootings and deportationsin Poland.
Toincreasethe efficiency with whichthis
“annihilation ofJews could be achieved, Jews
were later forced into freight trains that
ferried them withoutfood or waterto labour-' ° described. at his trial. how he had
death camps such as Majdanek, Treblinka
byinflicting harm on other people.If. it was
assumed. an experimenter could get a
majorityof volunteers to administer agonising Milgranr’s lab. where they were toldthat they
shocks to another volunteer in the benign Were part of2 studyto find out whether the
conditions of a psychologylaboratory. then use of punishment might enhance leaming
cemainlythe mighty Nazi regime could have and memory. Oneparticipant was to play the
made Germansoldiers do anything in the role ofteacherin this process. and the other
name of duty, even kill innocent. unarmed the role of the leamer. Allocation to onerole
people (Mandel 1998), But was such brutality or the other was. of course. fixed. so that the
simply a product of evil and sadistic minds. real participant always played the role of
or was this extraordinary behaviour teacher and the other person (actually a
performed byordinarypeople? confederate of the experimenter) always
In 1960, just as Milgram was beginning played the role of leamer.
his studies. Adolf Eichmann. who had been The teacher's task in the’ basic studies
in charge of implementing the ‘final solu- wasto test the leamer’s ability to recognise
The Nazi extermination of lion’, was captured in Argentina by the a series of word pairs. Each time the leamer
ACUee Cn Israeli secret service. His demeanour during made an error, the teacher was required to
“extreme instance of - the ensuing trial was hardly that of the administer a shock to the learner by
vicious war criminal manyhad expected, as pressing a switch on a shock panel. With
abhorrent immoralacts . documented by Hannah Arendr(1965) in each subsequent mistake, the teacher was
carried out by thousands the ‘Angelof. Death’: > her book. Eichmann inJerusalem: A Report to increase the shockintensity by 15 volts.
of people in the nameof onthe Banality ofEvil. starting with 15 volts and going as high as
hundred a day and then, as methods were It would have been comforting indeed to 450 volts. In fact, participants were using a
ROTula perfected. rising to 1200. By mid-1942, believe that Eichmann was a monster...The dummygenerator. so no shocks werereally
facilities had been sufficiently enlarged to trouble with Eichmannwaspreciselythat so being given.
dispatch 1500 people over a 24-hour period many were like him, and that the many
Signposts Unable to defy the authority of the experi-
for the smaller ovens. and up to 2500 for the were neither perverted nor sadistic. that
menter, [participants] attribute all responsi-
larger ones. By 1943. a newdaily peak of theywere, andstill are, terribly and terrify-
@ AQAlegacy A Level Module 4 bility to him.It is the old storyof ‘just doing
12000 was achieved. (Hoess was tried in ingly normal. :
— Social Psychology one’s dury”. that was heard time and again in
Warsaw. in March 1947, and condemned to Thedisturbing implication wasthat‘in certain the defence statement of the accused at
@ AQA (A) AS Module 3-— death. He was hanged on April 16 1947. at Nuremberg...a fundamental mode of
circumstances the most ordinary decent
Social Psychology Auschwitz.) thinking for a great manypeople once they
person can becomea criminal’ (Arendt 1965),
e@ AQA(B) AS Module 2 — Auschwitz was the most efficient camp and it is exactly this proposition that are locked into a subordinate position in a
Social Psychology established bythe Nazi regime for carrying Milgram’s studies attempt to address. structure of authority. (Milgram 1967)
@ Edexcel AS Module 1 — out the ‘final solution’. The total numberof Eichmann’s own excuse for his crimes was Milgram found that the majority of partici-
Social Processes Jewish dead in Auschwitz-Birkenau will the familiar claim that he was acting on pants administered the shocks up to the
as s
a never be known for certain for most were orders. Milgram’s studies provided,at least in maximum level despite: the presence of
@ OCRASCore Studies —
not registered. Estimates vary berween 1 part. a test of the viability of such an several factors that one might expect to
Social Interaction
Avani
and 2.5 million. As well as those murdered explanation. have prevented suchblind obedience. First, 7
at Auschwitz-Birkenau. others were
8
subjected to horrific ‘medical’ experiments. Members ofa ‘mobilekilling unit’ relax over a drink after a hard day’s work.
wey
One group, mostly twins and dwarfs.
underwent experiments at the hands of*
hi doctors such as Josef Mengele. the ‘Angel of
Death’. Mengele subjected his victims to
clinical examinations, blood tests, X-rays,
and Auschwitz-Birkenau. Some camps were
and various forms of measurement. He then
specifically equipped for mass killing by
killed them himself byinjecting chloroform
meansof gas chambers and crematoria for
into their hearts. so as to carry out compar-
disposing of the remains. Several methods
ative pathological examinations of their
were used. In the earlier camps, exhaust
internal organs. The purpose of these
fumes fromtruck engines, or tank engines,
‘experiments’ was to establish the genetic
-were pumpedinto sealed gassing vans or
cause for the birth of twins, in order to
specially constructed gas chambers. TA some
develop a programme for doubling the birth
of the later camps. Zyklon-B (prussic acid)
rate of the ‘Aryan’ race.
pellets were used. Those who were not
gassed immediately were forced to live on a
starvation diet and to endure harsh physical
Milgram’s study of obedience
labour and unending brutality.
Oneofthe goals of Milgram’s research into
Rudolf Hoess. SS (Hitler's elite force),
obedience to authority was to explore the
Kommandant of Auschwitz-Birkenau
gradually circumstances under which people might
SBAIHDYV AUVYBIT YIN3IM-
be induced to act against their conscience
steppedup executions. beginningwith a few

that sometimes quite subtle situational
forces can exert on behaviour. Theyalso
exposed the tendencyto underestimate the
powerofthe situation and instead attribute
a person's behaviour to his dispositions or
character (known as the ftidamental
attribution error). Philip Zimbardo. whose
Stanford Prison Study(Zimbardo et al. 1973)
also has had an impact on Holocaust
theorising. claimed that ‘evil deeds are
rarely the product of evil people acting
fromevil motives. but are the product of
Stanley good bureaucrats simply doing their job’
opportunity for lucrative person
plundering Jews and their corpses
guards made extensive use of Jewi
oners called Sonderkammandos
work units. They marched the victims to the
gas chambers. helped to undress them.
removed the corpses after the gassing.
extracted gold from their teeth and rings
from their fingers. searched the orifices of
their bodies for hidden jewellery. cut off the
hair of the women. and then carted the
bodiesto the crematoria
The gathering of these properties also
factor in determining obedience in this
agentic state and an autonomous state. the ‘obedience alibi’. Hoioes
setting. Death camp guards too were often perpetrators
latter referring to the state 2 Person is in asserted the obedience
faced with conditions of minimal supervi-
when he‘sees himself acting on his own’. of their innocence. Soci
sion. Howdid they react under such condi-
Milgram’s suggestion ofrapidly fluctuating asserted the obedience
tions? Did they disobey orders or at least alib as an oster
Personal states appears at odds with the wpe situationist explanation of the Holoeay
uy. as did Milgram’s pantcipants. to lessen
of gradual and irreversible conversion Most frequent defence of the individual who
the burden of their victims? Among the
Process thatLifton (1986) discovered in his has performed avile act under command of
‘death squads’, whose role was the mass
analysis of German doctors ‘stationed at authorityis that he has simply done his duty.
murder ofJews. obedience was very high.
Auschwitz-Birkenau. This process’ trans- Milgram’s conclusions ignore the
despite the presence of manyfactors that
formed relatively ordinary medical profes- Possibility that some of the accused —
might be expected to inhibit obedience. At
sionals such as Josef Mengele into perhaps manyof them — mayactually have
the 1942 Jézefow massacre for example.
autonomously evil individuals. Lifton’s been doing more that Just following orders.
carried outbyReserve Police Battalion 101,
account emphasises a social-developmental Instead. Milgram accepted his maximum

WVUDTIH AZINVLST1IOUN D3
Milgram
the ‘leamer’ respondedto the moreintense
shocks with agonising screams and pleaded
with the teacher to stop. Second.the labels
on the shock generator indicated that the
higher-level shocks were dangerous. The
last switches were ominously labelled
‘Intense Shock’. ‘Extreme Intensity Shock’.
“Danger: Severe Shock’. and ‘XXX’ at 450
volts. Third. the experimenter had no
meansof enforcing continuation other than
simply telling a dissenting participant
‘please continue’ or ‘you must continue. the
experiment requires that you go on.
Despite the presence of these factors, as
many as 65% of participants obeyed the
experimenter and administered the entire
series of 30 shocks. Thesestartling findings
had not been anticipated by Milgram when
he began the research.
* Milgram’s studies emphasised the power
(A) The shock generator used in the experi-
ments. Fifteen of the 30 switches have
already been depressed.
(B, The learner is strapped into the chair
and electrodes are attachedto his wrist
Electrode paste is applied by the
experimenter. The learner provides
answers by depressing switches that
light up numbers on an answerbox.
(C) The subject receives a sample shock
; sense of duty to authority is only one of
from the generator.
(D) The subject breaks off the experiment In
front of him is the event recorder, wired
into the generator, which automatically
records the switches used by the subject.
(Zimbardo 1974). According to this view.
those who were instrumental in bringing
about the Holocaust did not harbour evil
motives, they merely excelled as efficient
and effective technicians of genocide. In
essence. the perpetrators were dutiful
bureaucratsfirst. genocidal killers second.
The role of other factors
Milgram conveyedin his writings a sense that
obedience to authority was sufficient on its
own to explain the motivations of those
involved in the Holocaustatall levels (except
for Hitler himself). Milgram does not consider
other motivational factors that may have
operated in addition to obedience. such as
the self-bolstering function that is served by
disparaging an outgroup and byhaving the
exciting freedom to exert unlimited power
overthat group (Staub 1989).
A related motivational factor was the
posed a significant temptation for members
of the SS to violate their discipline and
avail themselves of the loot. Contrary to
Milgram’s view of the Nazi subordinate
acting in blind obedience to authori
Rudolf Hoess stated in his trial memoirs
(1992. cited in Mandel 1998) that:
The newly arriving (lewish] treasure was
ng for the SS, who were not
always strong enough to resist the tempta-
tion of these valuables which lay within
such easyreach. Not even the death penalty
or a severe prison sentence was enoughto
stop them.
In onevariation of Milgram’s research, the
experimenter left the room before the
‘learning’ session and continued to give
instructions bytelephone.In this condition.
only 9 out of 40 participants went to the
maximum shock level. showing. that the
authority’s direct surveillance is a crucial
the killers were alone with their victims as
perspective. whereby the very act of
they walked them to a killing site and then
behaving in such a manner. especially in
shot them. Not only were they not in the situations that require recurrentacts ofevil
physical presence of their superiors but
over a considerable length of time. changes
also. ’...each killer had a personalised. face-
the wayin which theindividual thinks and
to-face relationship to his victim...’ (Gold-
behaves even when heis nor acting under
hagan 1996). Most social psychologists
authority. Milgram’s experimentalsituation.
would agree that this should have however, is not representative of the situa-
prevented depersonalisation of the victims tions most of those involved in the Holo-
(a reason suggested by Milgram for the
caust faced because his participants were
obedience found in his research parti-
throwninto conflict within minutes of testing
cipants). and correspondingly. brough'
the leamer. Their experiencein this conflict
about empathyfor them.
situation lasted no longer than a half hour
and entailed constant pressures coupled
Agentic shift with subtle situational features. These
included the graduated nature of the shocks
Central to Milgram’s explanation of obedi- and ambiguous cues conceming the poten-
ence is what he termed theagenticstate,
tal danger to the learner. and offered them
the ‘condition a person is in when he sees
no legitimate channel for defiance nor even
himself as an agent for carrying out another
the time required to think properly about the
person’s wishes’. Milgram argued that situation.
people shift back-and forth between an
Conclusions
David Mandel (1998) suggests two other
negative social implications of the ‘just
following orders’ claim regarding the
Holocaust. Thefirst is that it is offensive to
survivors who knowall too well that there
was much more behind the way they were
viciously brutalised, mocked, and tormented
than a mere obligation to followorders. A
several factors that contributed to the
Holocaust butthere are clearlyothers.
The second implication of the oversim-
plified obedience accountis thatit effectively
serves the function of absolving Nazi war
criminals (and an untold numberof other
evildoers) by reaffirming exactly what many
of them. even the highest-ranking Nazi
Officials on tial at Nuremberg,claimedin their
defence — that they too were ‘just following
orders’.
Mandelsuggests. that the many oversim-
plified statements about the Holocaust that
have been made byMilgram and a numberof
other socialscientists,like the claims of most
pny Ayssanun ans euesplsuuag ap Aq parnginsip 22u2ipoqo wiy axp wos) ‘wesdjpy AajUNS Aq $96)
obedience rate of 65% as proof that mos
notall. of the accused warcriminals were just
following orders. In so doing. he provided sin
example ofhowsocial scientists can lend an
air ofscientific legitimacyto the obedience
alibi.
References
Arendt. H. (1965) Eichmann in Jenisalem:
A Report on the Banality ofEvil (rev. ed.).
Viking Compass.
Goldhagen. D. J. (1996) Hitler's Willing
Executioners; Ordinary Germans and the
Holocaust, Alfred A. Knopf.
Lifton, R. J. (1986) The Nazi Doctors:
Medical Killing and the Psychology: of
Genocide. Basic.
Mandel. ‘D. R. (1998) ‘The obediencealibi:
Milgram’s accountof the Holocaust recon-
sidered’, Analyse Kritik: Zeitschrift fir
Sozialwissenschaften, Vol. 20, pp. 74-94.
Milgram. S. (1963) ‘Behavioural study of
obedience’. Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, Vol. 67, pp. 371-378.
Milgram, S. (1974) Obedience to Authority,
Harper & Row.
Staub, E. (1989) The Roots of Evil: The
Origins of Genocide and Other Group
Violence, Cambridge UniversityPress.
Zimbardo, P. G. (1974) ‘On “obedience to
authority”, American Psychologist, Vol.
29, pp. 566-567.
Zimbardo,P. G. et al. (1973) ‘The mindis a
formidable jailer: a Priandellian prison’,
The Neu: York Times Magazine, pp. 38-60.
Mike Cardwellis Senior Lecturer at Bath Spa
University College, Chief Examiner for AQA
A-level psychology and an Editor of PsycHoLocy
Review.
_ Key concepts
@ Obedience to authority
@ Motivationalfactors in obedience
© Agentic shift
@ The obediencealibi

accused Nazis, constitute litle more that an -

16 PSYCHOLOGYReview April 2001 17

 Experiments

An experimentis defined by the fact that the experimenter has control over the variables — that means,
the things that change during the study. There are three main types ofvariable:

Independentvariable (IV) é The factor that the experimenter purposefully changes — this is BL)
the thing that you believe causes the behaviour you are looking for, so you wantto see the effect it has o
A$ wD
~
‘on behaviour. e. g. If you wanted to see the effect of loud noise on participants’ work level, then the
noise would be the thing you manipulate.

How could you < operationalise the variable of noise?

Dependentvariable (DV) a The factor that the experimenter measuresat the end — this is the
thing that you think is being affected by the independentvariable. Because you are manipulating the
independent variable, you can see the effect it has on the dependentvariable.
Whatis the DV in this study? How could you operationalise the DV?

Extraneous variables e Factors that might get in the way ofa link between the independent
and dependentvariables. These need to be controlled so that causality (seeing whether the IV really
has an effect on the DV) can be established.

Task: What other variables apart from noise mightaffect participants’ work level?
Situational variables Participant variables
These are variables connected with the research These are variables connected with the research
situation. participants.
e Materials used in the investigation e Intelligence

af @

if
& ‘)
- 0

Therefore, if there is an extraneous variable, the results of the experiment may not be valid. This means
they may notreally show what the experimenter thought they would. Psychologists try to avoid
problemslike this by controlling all possible extraneous variables.
 Controlled variables dé: Factors irrelevant to the study which have been neutralised so they
can’t affect the DV.

Confounding variables Lin variable under study that is not the IV but which varies
systematically with the IV. Changes in the dependentvariable may be due to the confounding variable
rather than the IV and therefore the outcome is meaningless. To ‘confound’ means to cause confusion.

TASK:

Identify the variables in the following study:

AIM: ‘TO SEE WHETHER EATING CHEESE BEFORE BED GIVES YOU NIGHTMARES.’

INDEPENDENTVARIABLE:

DEPENDENT VARIABLE:

EXTRANEOUS VARIABLES:
o Situational variables:

o Participant variables:

Recap: Remind yourselves of Bickman’sstudy:

AIM:

INDEPENDENT VARIABLE:

DEPENDENT VARIABLE:

EXTRANEOUS VARIABLES:
© Situational variables:

o Participant variables:
 Experimental Methods
There are various ways that psychologists can useto find out the information they need:

Experi mental method Strengths Weaknesses

f. Lab:

Examples?

Natural:

Psychologists go and observea naturally

changing variable. They do not interfere
at all.

Quasi:

The IV is naturally occurring but the DV

may be measured ina lab. The key
feature is that that IV has not been made
to vary by anyone.

Examples?
 Identify the experimental method:

There are two Psychologyclasses in a school. They both have all their lessons in a particular classroom but
becauseoflimited space, there is not enough room for them all to fit in the school hall to take their exam. One
class takes their exam in the hall, but the otherclass has to take it in their normal classroom. A psychologist
then decides to compare the results ofthe twoclasses.

A psychologist puts up a poster asking for people to come and take part in his experiment. When theyarrive,
he takes them all into a room and reads them a list of words. He then leaves half of them in this room and
takes the other half into a different room. He then asks both groups to write down as many ofthe words as
they can remember, then comparesthe results ofthe two groups.

There are two Psychologyclasses in a school. A psychologist decides that they will both have all their lessons in
a particular classroom but at the end ofthe course, one class will take their exam in the schoolhall, whilst the
otherclass will take it in their normal classroom. He will then compare the exam results ofthe two classes.

There are two Psychologyclasses in a school. A psychologist decides that they will compare the performance of
males and females in the end oftopic Social Psychology test. The IV is gender, and the DVis performance ona
test,

A Psychologist measured how ‘authoritarian’ people were on a scale, and then separated them into authoritarian
and non-authoritarian personalities. He then measured how many ofthem obeyed a simple commandfrom an
authority figure.
Re
 Evaluating Milgram’s Study — Ethics

We have to Ste toparticipants or they,guess the aim ofthe experiment. Is tt worthit when theyfindout andare distrustful?

Howfar 1s harming someone allowed? Is tt worthitfor what wefindout ?

@: Activity: Chat in pairs- was Milgram’s study unethical?

® An Ethical Issue is something that concerns how the experiment was conducted and whataffectit
had on the participants.
® An Ethical Guideline is something that has been introduced to prevent ethical issues occurring.

Ethical issues:
ETHICAL WHYIT IS AN ISSUE How CAN WE RESOLVEIT?
ISSUE
Deception It prevents participants from being Debriefing:
told the true nature of the
experiment. They may find
themselves in an experiment which
goesagainsttheir beliefs. This may
makeparticipants distrustful of
psychologists.

Informed Participants have not agreed to bein Prior general consent:

consent the research. They may find they are
(lack of this) taking part in an experiment against
their wishes. They may become Children:
distrustful of psychologists in the
future.

Presumptive consent:

Protection of Participants should come outof the Right to withdraw:

participants research in the same state as which

“i
| re a
| OF
,
»
|
{
they entered it. If they are harmed it
may impacton their futurelives in a
| : | Stop experiment:
negative way.

Debriefing:

Quick exam question:

Identify three ethical issues (3 marks) Handy Hint
Mnemonicfor ethical
issues = DIP
 Ethical guidelines

The British Psychological Society (BPS) has devised the ethical guidelines — all psychologists should
adhere to these guidelines and must show their plans to the BPS before they conduct their research.
They then decide whether the research can go ahead.

Ethical Guideline Explanation

Fully informed consent:
Deception:
Protection from harm:
Withdraw:
can also withdraw their results from the experiment after it has finished.
The aims of the experiment must be clear. Participants should be
informed about anything which may influence their willingness to
participate. When research involves children under 16, parental consent
must be sought.
Information must not be withheld from participants, and they should not
be mislead if they arelikely to object when debriefed at the end of the
procedure.
Participants must not be harmedeither physically or emotionally. The
guidelines also state that it is the responsibility of the researcher to ensure
that the stress is no greater than in everyday life. The researcher should
makesure that the participants do not experience any negative emotions
or feelings e.g. damage to self-esteem or to confidence and must stop the
experimentif they think this is happening.
Participants must betold at the beginningof the study that they can leave
at anytime regardless of whether they have been paid or not. Participants

Confidentiality: Participants have the right to keep their information confidential. If this
cannot be assured then they must be informed of this before the
experimentstarts.

Debriefing: Following the investigation, participants should be fully informed about

the nature of the research. The participant’s experiences of the research
should also be discussed.
Observational research: Whereconsenthas not been obtained, privacy is an important issue —
people should not be observed in situations in which they would not
normally expect someone to observetheir behaviour.
Giving advice: Sometimes during the course of the research, the researcher may identify
psychological/physical problems,or the participant may seek advice from
the researcher. Great care must be taken in these situations — if you are
unqualified to give advice, an appropriate professional source should be
identified.

a2
 Watch the Derren Brown replication of Milgram’s study. Identify where the guidelines are being
broken, and describe the situation in which theyare broken.

Ethical Guideline v Description of situation in which the guideline was broken

Informed Consent

Deception

Debriefing

Withdrawal

Protection of
Participants - Distress

Protection of
Participants - Physical
Harm

Confidentiality

Colleagues

Advice

OK G
° pth
fo}
 ETHICS BATTLE-
MILGRAM VS BAUMRIND

You deceived
participants
| could not tell them the truth
about the aims as this would have
ruined the experiment. | had
presumptive consent and did
debrief afterwards.
Your experimenter
made participants
feel that they
couldn’t leave.

All participants weretold they could

leave at anytime despite the fact they
were paid. Over 70% said they were glad
to have taken part after the experiment.

You did not

protect them
from harm.
| could not have guessed that
participants would have got so
stressed. | did debrief them
afterwards and a year later. No one You should
had long lasting damage. have stopped
it sooner then

80% of participants afterwards said You did not

they had learnt something about respect the rights
themselves. It was worth lying to of the participants
participants because of what| found
out about the Holocaust — the ends
justified the means.
A few of you will plan the essay...

5
Outline and evaluate Milgram’s research (12 marks AS Level, 16 marks A Level)

Outline

Evaluate:
 ISSUES AND DEBATES IN PSYCHOLOGY- Cultural bias

Critics argue that mainstream psychology has generally ignored culture as an important
influence on human behaviour, and by doing so, has mistakenly assumed that the findings
derived from research carried out in Western culture can be straightforwardly applied all
over the world. Classic studies such as Milgram’s were originally conducted with US
participants and revealed very different results when replicated in other parts of the world.

The Present and Future of Obedience to Unjust Authority

by Sharon Presley

The Milgram experiment, with its chilling results, occurred in the early '60's. Have
things changed since the Milgram experiment? Are people less obedient to unjust
authority? Many people imagine so. I have two words in answer to that question:
Abu Ghraib. But perhaps, some might think to themselves: "That was a military
situation wheresoldiers are told to obey authority. What does that tell us about real
life?" "The Human Behavior Experiments," a program aired a number of years ago
on TV, provides an answer (PSO, 2006). Besides discussing the Milgram and
Zimbardo experiments, as well as the Latane and Darley studies on bystander
apathy, the program details a number of notorious real-life cases and draws the
connections to the psychology studies. Perhaps the most astonishing one was the
case of the "Telephone Cop." A man, masquerading as a police officer, started
calling fast food places around the country, telling the manager that one of the
employees was a suspected drug dealer and asking the manager to hold the
suspect for him. In the example used for the program, the innocent teenage girl
employee was, over several hours, subjected to humiliating questions, a strip
search and finally--sexual molestation by the manager's fiance! This, all at the
behestof the alleged police officer on the phone. Hard to believe? Sorry but similar
results at other fast food places happened more than once. The man on the phone
sounded authoritative and had the mask of authority. They obeyed.

Lest readersstill think such events are flukes, current psychology research
evidence also supports the idea that people arestill basically about as obedient to
authority as they were in the 1960's. Never underestimate the Capacity of
individuals to compartmentalize their moral values from their everyday lives. A
number of partial replications of the Milgram experiment have been conducted over
the years. None are encouraging; almostall tend to support Milgram's basic
conclusions, though with some inconsistencies. Several of the most important are
described below.

Early Studies

Unlike most of the other studies, one experiment did find significantly lower rates of
obedience (Kilham & Mann, 1971). In their study of Australian college students,
Kilham and Mann focused on the Milgram experimental version in which participants
who relayed information to another person who pulled the actual shock lever were
highly obedient (92.5%or 37 of 40). In their Transmitter scenario, which was
roughly comparable to Milgram's, only 54% (27 of 50) were fully obedient. In their
Executant scenario, the participant pulled the shock lever but the order did not
come directly from the Experimenter; it was relayed through another confederate
"subject." In this version, the rate of maximum obedience dropped to 28%(14 of
50). Kilham and Mann speculated that because the transmitter "performed an
important mediating role, instrumental to punishing the victim," it may help explain
why fewer participants obeyed (p. 701). They also interpret the overall lower rates
of obedienceas a result of the sample ("hirsute" college students) and the
"zeitgeist" of the times--campus unrest and anti-war activities were common on
college campuses. In another departure from Milgram, Kilham and Mann also found
significant gender differences; 68% of the men but only 40%of the women gave
the maximum shock in the Transmitter version; only 40% of the men and 16%of
the women obeyed in the Executant scenario. Because, acrossall conditions, men
were paired with male learners and women with female learners, they suggest that
this difference may be a result of women being morelikely to form an alliance with
the victim to oppose the unreasonable demands of the experimenter. They called
for further exploration of the interaction of gender and role.

Two studies have followed up on Milgram's Experiment 13 in which another

"participant" (actually a confederate) assumed the Experimenter's role. In this
scenario, the rate of obedience went down to 20%(4 out of 20) (Milgram, 1974).
Both studies found a much higher rate of obedience in their comparable conditions
(Mantell, 1971; Rosenhan, as cited in Blass, 1991). Mantell, using a West German
sample, found that 52% gave the maximum shock in this scenario, while 53%of
Rosenhan's sample obeyed. In the baseline version, in which Milgram obtained an
obedience rate of 65%, Mantell and Rosenhan both obtained 85%. Troubling
findings, indeed.

The Dutch Study

In more recent times, Meeus and Raaijmakers (1995) conducted a study of what
they called "administrative violence," as opposed to the physical violence (shock)
used in the Milgram experiment, arguing that this method has moreecological
validity in present times. Their study included an experimenter, the actual
participant, and a confederate who was presented as being a job applicant. The
participants were asked to disturb the applicant while he was taking a test as part
of his application. They were told thatif he failed the test that he would not get the
job and would be unemployed. The experimenter instructed the participants to
make 15 negative "stress" remarks about his performance and personality that
would be detrimental to his performance. If the participants refused, they were
given a series of four prods similar to those in the Milgram experiment. A control
group was given instructions to make negative remarks to the applicant, but was
not told that they had to makeall 15 remarks.

The results were chilling: 91% of the experimental group obeyed to the end,
making all 15 negative remarks. None of the control group made all of the remarks.
 Like Milgram (1974), the authors note that the participants did not like their task;
many said they disliked making the remarks, thinking them "unfair." Also
comparable to Milgram's results was the fact that the participants were more likely
to attribute responsibility to the experimenter for what happened (46%) than
themselves (34%). Once again the results were: Do what you are told and do not
question why.

The Burger Study

Most recently, Burger (2009) did a partial replication of the Milgram experiment. To
avoid ethical problems, he replicated the instructions only up to the point at which
participants first heard the learner's verbal protests (150 volts). He also screened
out those who had taken more than two psychology courses or who expressed
familiarity with the Milgram study. The participants were paid $50 and were told
they could withdraw at any time. Of the Milgram participants who went beyond the
150 volt point, 79% went clear to the end (450 volts) so Burger concluded that his
results could be roughly compared to Milgram's.

The rate of obedience was only slightly lower than 45 years ago. Burger found that
30% stopped at or before 150 volts while 70% werewilling to go on, aS compared
with the Milgram results in which 17.5% stopped at 150 volts and 82.5% went
beyond this point. Like Milgram, Burger found no significant differences between
men and women; 33.3% (6) of men and 27.3% (6) of women stopped while
66.7(12) of men and 72.7 (16) of women continued.

However, the real surprise for Burger was what he called the "Modeled Resistance"
scenario. This was comparable to the condition in which two alleged peers of the
teacher quit at an early point. In the original Milgram experiment, only 10% went
to 450 volts; in Burger's replication, modeled resistance made little difference: 45%
of the men(5) and 31%(6) of the women stopped at 150 volts, but 54.5% (6) of
the men and 68.4%(13) were willing to go on. Like Mantell (1971) and Rosenhan
(as cited in Blass, 1991), having an ally who resisted did not make muchdifference.
This is one of the mostchilling findings in the replications. Even having a resistant
ally may not be enough to keep people from obeying destructive authority.

"People learning about Milgram's work often wonder whether the results would be
any different today" writes Burger. "...Although changesin societal attitudes can
affect behavior, my findings indicate that the same situational factors that affected
obedience in Milgram's experiment still operate today." (Burger, 2009, p.9).

Conclusion

The power of authority to claim people's allegiance and obedience remains strong.
Most people do what they are told by authority. Most people who imagine that they
are exceptions are notlikely to be. Until more people realize that they are not
necessarily exceptions, that they too have the potential to go along with unjust
authority (and may already be doing it); until large numbers of people are willing to
be morecritical of authority; to be willing to step back and see the moral forest, not

ra (.
 just the immoral but demanding trees, we continue to run the risk that uncritica
l
and destructive obedience to unjust authority can happen here and can happen
now.

References

Blass, T. (1991). Understanding behavior in the Milgram obedience experiment:

The role of personality, situations, and their interactions. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 60 (3), 398-413.

Burger, J. (2009). Replicating Milgram: Would people still obey today? American
Psychologist, 64, 1-11.

Kilham, W., & Mann, L. (1974). Level of destructive obedience as a function of

transmitter and executant roles in the Milgram obedience paradigm. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology,29 (5), 692-702. ,

Mantell, D. (1971). The potential for violence in Germany. Journalof Social

Issues, 27, (4), 101-112.

Meeus, W.H.J., & Raaijmakers, Q.A.W. (1995). Obedience in modern society: The
Utrecht studies.Journal of Social Issues, 51 (3), 155-175.

Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. New York:

Harper & Row.

PSO (2006). The human behavior experiments. Court TV and Sundance Channels,
June 1.
fe
 The Present and Future of Obedience to Unjust Authority

A few of you will... Summarise the article in the space below,focusing on the
issue of cultural
bias. Remember to use your note taking skills — don’t simply copy the article
into the boxes
(you won’t have room!)

The big picture (an overview):

The main points:

A conclusion (1/2 sentences):

 Conformity

a ad

Kelman (1958) identified three different types of conformity. “a ae

1) COMPLIANCE:

This leads to public compliance but private disagreement. It isa temporary rather than a permanent
change.

For example:

Evidence comes from: t

anh ‘ :

2) INTERNALISATION:

This leads to public compliance and private acceptance on a permanentbasis.

For example:

Evidence comes from:

3) IDENTIFICATION:

‘Conforming to whatis expected based onsocial roles.’ An individual may accept influence because
they wantto be associated with another person or group. By adopting the group’s attitude and
behaviours they feel more part of the group. This has elements of both compliance and internalisation.
The individual accepts that the behaviours they are adopting are right (internalisation) but the reason
for doing so is to fit in (compliance).

For example:

Evidence comes from:

You will be learning about this man

for independentstudy...
ao
oy
 ASCH’S STUDY OF COMPLIANCE (1952)

Aims: To explore whether people will conform toa group norm even when they
know they are wrong.

Procedures: The American male participants were told they wereparticipating

in an
experiment about visual perception. In each trial, Asch used 6-8 confederates, and
one naive participant. The real purpose of the experiment was tosee if the naive
participant would give a wrong answer in an unambiguous line judgement task,
even
though it was obvious that that was the wrong answer. The participant was always
seated last, or second tolast. Participants were told to look atline X, and report which
other line (A, B
or C) was the same length as X. There was always a fairly obvious solution to the task. On
12 out of 18
trials, the confederates all gave the wrong answer (these werecalled critical trials),

Findings:
On 36.8% ofthe critical trials, participants gave the incorrect answer. 75% of people
conformed on at
least one critical trial. To confirm that this was not becauseof visual problems, Asch conducted
another
trial with no confederates. The error rate was only 1%.

Conclusion: Therefore, people must have got results wrongin the critical trials because they
were
complying with the group.

Fill in the

Innocent
porlcipant
" Asch did an experimentto test
a
ry Asen . The task he used was
(there was an obvious
answer) - we know this becausein the control group (all naive participants) the error
rate was
_____-%. He used all participants who were from . He sat
confederates round a table. He used naive participant who sat one from the end of the
row or last in the row. On 12/18 of the trials (known as the
) the
confederates all gave the wrong answer. Asch wanted to see whether the participants
would go
against what they knewto be the right answer and with the confederate’s
answers.

He found that of the answersgiven on the critical trials were incorrect (went along
with confederates answers).

% of the participants conformed at least once. % of people never conformed. We

say they resisted conformity. When wego along with something we don’t agree in order
to fit
in wecall this
meg My
Q fro
 Asch also carried out variations where he altered his initial procedure:

Changgto original Asch gxperiment Findings

GROUP SIZE: Asch varied the number of With one or two confederates:
confederates.

With three or more confederates:

UNANIMITY — AN ALLY: In the original

study, participants unanimously gave the
wrong answer. In this variation, Asch a
confederate in 3" seat who always gave
the correct answer. Naive participants
still sat one from the end.

UNANIMITY — A LONE ‘DISSENTER.’

A confederate gave an answerthat was
different to the majority but wasn’t the
correct answer.

TASK DIFFICULTY:

Asch madethe difference betweenthe

lines smaller so that the task was more

difficult.

One confederate who gave wrong

answersall therest of the participants
were naive participants.

Participants write down their answer

instead of saying it in front of the group.

Real life examples of conformity:

\ Street performers put moneyin the bottom oftheir jars before they start- this has been found to increase the
amount of moneyteal people place in thejar.

TV programmes such as “You've been Framed” and “Friends” have canned laughter that they add to the
programme- this has been found to increase real audiences laughter.
fone!
 & Let’s criticise... Asch’s study
zy és

§ Oe USING YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF PSYCHOLOGY — CAN YOU THINK OF ANY

CRITICISMS OF ASCH’S STUDY?
|Methodology:

ce Validity:

Sue
© YES?It isa study so wecan control a lot of the variables . Therefore we have good control of
variables - things that get in the way of the experiment.

@ NO? However there may have been as the set up

was quite artificial.

© Also Asch claimed he had found compliance (people after said they knew it was the wrong answer
but they did not wantto look silly. HOWEVER some participants said they thought they had
misunderstood what they had to do and had questioned their eyesight- this is not compliance. It is
|

© It lacks population validity because it is (because the

study only used ) and (because
Asch only used participants from ). Therefore the
findings...

© Ecological validity - Conformity usually takes place in a social context with people we know rather than
strangers. Therefore this was not real life measure of conformity.

| ETHICS

D
I
P

A CHILD OFITS’ TIME? |

The study may be out of date since it was done in the 1950s, following the war, when American’s
thoughtit was important to comply. Therefore you can argue his findings are due to the time in which
he conducted his study.
ss) Indeed, Perrin and Spencerreplicated the study on British Male students in 1981, and
Se found that on only out of 396 trials people gave the incorrect answer. This
suggests that....

Another study by Perrin and Spencer looked at youths on probation as the naive participants and
probation officers as confederates... what do you think happened
 SHMERIE (1935)
PRODUCED SUPPORT FOR
INTERNALISATION

WAim: To see if when a task is ambiguous (no right or wrong answer), others conformed to others
opinions if they were unsure of an answer (internalisation).
Procedure: Participants were asked individually how far a moved iw a room.
(it dtdaw’t actually move! This was to make partictpants ). After being asked individually
how far it moved they were asked in groups of
_— 4 af it
#Finding: The results converged- participant' s answers became
closer togetherafter they hadi discussed them. eR,
.
8g

Conclusions: Sherif had found &A

Participants accepted the points of view of the other members of ( | cL
ra
the group. They then accepted these oplmtons 7
ow as their own.
TT alts
[ L. ty “Ss

Quick Quiz
Are these scenarios examples of compliance, internalisation or identification?
™ Internalisation- is when anindividual accepts influence because the contentofthe attitude or behaviouris
consistent with their own value system.
™» Compliance is when we comply (go along) with other because we hope to achieve a favourable outcomefrom
doing so. Theattitude or behaviouris adopted not becauseofits content, but because of the rewards associated with
its’ adoption.
™ Identification - is when anindividual accepts influence because they want to be associated with another person
Or group.

1. Saying you would love tosee a film at the cinema that interests your friends
but not you.
2. You havejust passed your driving test. You see other drivers turn their head
lights on so you do too.
3. Anew recruit joins the army and adopts the same beliefs and behaviours ashis fellow
soldiers.
4. You agree with yourfriends that Primark is rubbish even though you werein there last
week.
.)
5. Laughing at a joke with others even though you have not understoodit. c x
6. You don’t know the date. Yourfriend has written that the date is the 5" of October.
You then write the same date at the top of your work.
7. You read an article about how animals are killed to eat. You go homeandtell your
parents you would like to become a vegetarian.
 Explanations for Conformity

Deutsch and Gerard (1955) — The dual-process dependency model

TYPE OF SOCIAL INFLUENCE: TYPE OF SOCIAL INFLUENCE:

NORMATIVE SOCIAL INFLUENCE: INFORMATIONAL SOCIAL INFLUENCE:

NEED: NEED:

USE: USE:
This is an emotional process. People prefer social approval to
rejection.
This is a cognitive process. People want to be right.

y y
TYPE OF CONFORMITY: TYPE OF CONFORMITY:
COMPLIANCE - Going along with others INTERNALISATION - Going along with others
(conforming to the group norm) to gain their (conforming to the group norm) because you
approvalor avoidtheir disapproval even have acceptedtheir point of view. You show
though you privately disagree with the group. public compliance and private acceptance.
Their views are taken on at a deep and
permanent level.

Support for this idea: Support for this idea:

Asch: Sherif:

Asch:

R4

Garuandeau and Cillessen (2006):

Lucas et al (2006): Lucas asked students to
give answersto easy and difficult maths
problems. There was more conformity to the
incorrect answers when problems were
difficult. This showsthat...
 Issues with explaining conformity in terms of ISI and NSI:

Individual differences: Asch found that some students were less conformist than other
participants. Perrin and Spencer (1981) found less conformity in engineering students (who
were more confident about precision). This suggests that there are individual differencesin
conformity- people who are more knowledgeable arelesslikely to conform, perhaps because
they are more confident. Also, McGhee and Teevan (1967) found that nAffiliators (people who
have a greater need for social relationships)were morelikely to conform. The desire to be liked
underlies conformity for some people more than others.

Oversimplified: The two process approach maybe oversimplified. It isn’t always possible to
know whether ISI or NSI are at work.

Social Impact Theory (Latane, 1981)

A few ofyou will: Research and_summarise Latane’s Social Impact Theory , thinking about how it
applies to both obedience and conformity.
i

The big picture (an overview):

The main points (what are the main points of his model?): \
 For several lessons time... Preparing to study Zimbardo

You will need to:

1) Watch the video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=760lwYmpXbc

2) Read through the website http://www.prisonexp.org/ which will tell you more about the
Stanford Prison Experiment.

3) Read ‘Power turns goodsoldiers into ‘bad apples’(after the questions)

4) Optional for a few ofyou... read the article ‘An Outsider’s View’ written by Christina Maslack
(the wife of Zimbardo)

Havea think about and make notes on the following questions which wewill be discussing in class:

Whatpolice proceduresare used during arrests, and how do these procedureslead people to
feel confused, fearful, and dehumanized?

What prevented "good guards" from objecting or countermanding the orders from tough or
bad guards?

Whatfactors would lead prisoners to attribute guard brutality to the guards' disposition or
character, rather than to the situation?

Whatis identity? Is there a core to your self-identity independent of how others define you?
Howdifficult would it be to remake any given person into someone with a new identity?
 Do you think that kids from an urban working class environment would
have broken down
emotionally in the same way as did our middle-class prisoners? Why? What
about women?

Was it ethical to do this study? Was it right to trade the suffering experienced
byparticipants
for the knowledge gained by the research? (The experimenters did not take
this issue lightly,
although the Slide Show may sound somewhat matter-of-fact about the events
and experiences
that occurred).

Howdo the ethical dilemmas in this research compare with the ethical issues
raised by Stanley
Milgram's obedience experiments? Would it be better if these studies had
never been done?

Knowing whatthis research says about the power of prison situations to have
a corrosive effect
on human nature, what recommendations would you make about changing the
correctional
system in your country?
 Power turns good soldiers into 'bad apples'
By Philip G. Zimbardo | May 9, 2004

THE HORRIFYING PHOTOS ofyoung Iraqis abused by American soldiers have shocked
the
world with their depictions of human degradation, forcing us to acknowledge that
some of our
beloved soldiers have committed barbarousacts of cruelty and sadism. Nowthereis
a rush to
analyze human behavior, blaming flawed or pathologicalindividuals for evil and
ignoring other
important factors. Unless we learn the dynamics of "why," we will never be able to
counteract
the powerful forces that can transform ordinary peopleinto evil perpetrators.

ADVERTISEMENT Those responsible should suffer severe sanctions if found

guilty. However,
we must separate guilt from blame. Should these few Armyreservists be blamed
as the "bad
apples" in a good barrel of American soldiers, as our leaders have characterized
them? Or are
they the once-good apples soured and corrupted by an evil barrel? I argue forthe
latter
perspective after having studied the psychology ofevil for many decades. In fact,
I have been
responsible for constructing evil barrels that produced many bad apples.

Like Brigadier General Janis Karpinski, who wasin charge ofthe Iraqi prison at
Abu Ghraib,I
was oncea prison superintendent with no experience or training in corrections. In
1971 I was in
charge of the Stanford Prison Experiment, in which randomly assigned student volunte
ers in a
simulated prison role-played prisoners and guards. Although everyone knewit wasjust
an
experiment, the line between simulation and reality was breached as it became a psychol
ogical
prison ofincredible intensity.

The planned two-week study was terminatedafter only six days because it wasout
of control.
Good boys chosenfor their normalcy were having emotional breakdowns as powerle
ss prisoners.
Other young men chosenfor their mental health and positive values eased into the
character of
sadistic guards inflicting suffering on their fellow students without moral compunc
tion. And
those "good guards" who did not personally debase the prisonersfailed to confron
t the worst of
their comrades, allowing evil to ripen without challenge.

Theterrible things my guards did to their prisoners were comparableto the horrors
inflicted on
the Iraqi detainees. My guards repeatedly stripped their prisoners naked, hooded
them, chained
them, denied them food or beddingprivileges, put them into solitary confine
ment, and made
them clean toilet bowls with their bare hands.

Asthe boredom of their job increased, they began using the prisoners as their playthin
gs,
devising ever more humiliating and degrading games for them to play. Over time,
these
amusements took a sexualturn, such as having the prisoners simulate sodomy on
each other.
Once aware of such deviant behavior, I closed down the Stanford prison.

Human behavior is much more underthe control of situational forces than most
of us recognize
or want to acknowledge. In a situation that implicitly gives permission for suspend
ing moral
values, many of us can be morphed into creatures alien to our usualnatures. Myrese
arch and
 that of my colleagues has catalogued the conditions for stirring
the crucible of human nature in
negative directions. Someof the necessary ingredients are: diffus
ion of responsibility,
anonymity, dehumanization, peers who model harmful behavior,
bystanders who do not
intervene, and setting of powerdifferentials.

Those factors were apparently also operating in Iraq. But in additi

on there was secrecy, no
accountability, no visible chain of command, conflicting demands
on the guards from the CIA
and civilian interrogators, no rules enforced for prohibited acts, encour
agementfor breaking the
will of the detainees, and no challenges by many bystanders who
observed the evil but did not
blow the whistle.

Wemustlearn from this tragic eventso it is never repeated. And

we mustnot permit the
authorities to deflect the blame and responsibility from themselves
by pointing fingers at those
soldiers who wentinto the administration's preemptive war as
proud Americans and return now
as disgraced prison guards.

Thearrogance of powerthat spawnedthe "shock and awe" of milita

ry might one short year ago
has been humbled by the dismay and disgust over these revelations
of abuse. It is time forall
Americansto reflect on the justification for continuing the war in
Iraq thatis killing, maiming,
and demeaning our young men and women who have been put in
harm's way for spurious
reasons. Before more ofour youth are corrupted, perhapsthe time
has cometo empty out the
vinegar of needless warthat hasfilled that evil barrel.

Philip G. Zimbardo is emeritus professor of psychology at Stanfo

rd University. m

Task: Advance warning:

You will be required to do the task on Locus of Control later on

in this booklet... you’ll need a computer.
 Conformity to Social Roles — Zimbardo

The Stanford Prison Experiment

Haney, Banks and Zimbarto (1973)

e To study majority influence througha role-pla

ying exercise. He
also wanted to
e To determine whether conformity was due to
dispositional or
situational factors.

Procedure:

Sampling: male participants were selected using

sampling. This means it wasa self-
selected sample whichis notoriously biased — only
people of a certain personality type will volunteer,
need the money! or people that

Each prisoner was subjectedto physical and

testing to make sure that they were suitable for
the experiment. (You can do someofthetests on
the BBC websitel). All of the participants were deem
Participants were ed normal.
allocated to the role ofprisoneror guard.

Prisoners were formally arrested from their homes andt

aken to the basementof Standford University where
prison had been conducted. Guards worked for ___ a fake
hours a day Zimbardo worked not as a psychologist
assigned himself the roleof... , but

How wereparticipants deindividuated?

e Prisoners were assigned a . Theyall had to weara prison . This was

ee,
e Guards were madeto wear
so that prisoners could not seetheir

Findings:

While to begin with, the behaviour of both groups wasre

latively limited and non-intrusive. By the endof thefi
however,the prisoners had takenoff their numbersin rst day,
protest and the guards issued more and more sever
punishments. Prisoners were madeto clean the e
. Although the experiment was supposed to last
for. it was terminated after only days due to the extremedistress experienced by
participants.

Conclusions:
 The Ethics of Social Influence Research

This article examinesthe ethical issues that arise when conducting social influence research, as
specified by the AQA-A specification. The ethical guidelines do, however, apply to any
psychology research conducted by membersofthe British Psychological Society.

Informed Consent

According to the British Psychological Society's ethical guidelines, before taking partina
psychological investigation, participants should be informed of the aims ofthe research and any
aspects of it that might reasonably influence their decision to participate. Additionally, they
should explain any other aspects that the participant enquires about (BPS 2005). They also
state:

If harm, unusual discomfort, or other negative consequencesfor the individual’s future life
might occur, the investigator must obtain the disinterested approval of independentadvisors,
inform the participants, and obtain informed, real consent from each of them.

In Zimbardo, Haney and Bank's (1971) Stanford Prison Simulation, the participants signed a
consent form which stated

| understand that participation in the research projectwill involve a loss of privacy, that | will be
expected to participate for the full duration of the study,that| will only be released from
participation for reasons of health deemed adequate by the medical advisers to the research
project or for other reasons deemed appropriate byDr. Philip Zimbardo, Principal Investigator
of the project, and that| will be expected to follow directions from staff members of the project
or from other participants in the research project.

Nevertheless, they werenot informed that they would be arrested by a member of the Palo
Alto Police Department and driven to the 'prison' ina police car with sirens wailing

Deception

Acording to the BPS Ethical Guidelines, "The withholding of information or the misleading of
participants is unacceptable if the participants are typically likely to object or show unease once
debriefed." Nevertheless, it would be impossible to investigate many psychological processes
without deception, so psychologists have a responsibility to

(a) determine that alternative procedures avoiding concealmentor deception are not available;

(b) ensure that the participants are provided with sufficient informationat the earliest stage;
and :
 (c) consult appropriately upon the way that the withholding ofinformation or deliberat
e
deception will be received. BPS (2005)

Milgram’s (1963, 1965) obedience studies were a controversial use of deception. Baumrind
(1964), for example, accused Milgram of not protecting his participants from the stress
and
emotional conflict they experienced. Milgram (1974), however, claims that all participa
nts were
fully debriefed. This included giving them a report which detailed the procedure and
results of
experiments and a questionnaire concerning their feelings about the experime
nt:

84% of the participants claimed they were glad to have taken part
0

Less than 2% weresorry to havetaken part.

0

80% felt that more experiments of that kind should be conducted.

0

74% learned something of personal importance.

Oo

Milgram claims that the researchis morally justified by the fact that it was
endorsed by those who took part. One criticism of this, however, is that the
. Zz sRS
participants are effectively giving their consent after the experiment has taken
JaLieowiwe
place. Moreover, the 2% who werevery sorry they had taken part did not
ar 0
consent (even afterwards) to what may have been a psychologically damaging
5 8
experience. Aronson (1988), nevertheless, claims that deception was the only
Must a
way that this piece of research could be conducted. Otherwise, the behaviour
being studied would not be consistent with how people behavein real situations. Aronson
claims that deception is often the best and only way to obtain useful information about
important situations.

Debriefing

If participants are aware that they have taken part in an experiment they should be
debriefed.
This is informing the participants of the nature of the research and the expected results.
According to Aronson (1988), the experimenter should ensure that participants leave
the
experiment in a frame of mind that is as sound as it was when they entered. Sometim
es effects
may be produced by the experimentthat a verbal description can not negate,active
intervention may be needed.

Debriefing in Zimbardo et al.’s Prison Experiment.

In this study the participants had group and individual debriefing sessions. The participa
nts
were also given questionnaires:

e Several weeks after the experiment

e Several months later
e At yearly intervals
 Most also met with the experimentersto discuss their reactions. Zimbardo concluded that the
suffering was confined to the experiment and did not extend beyond it (Zimbardo, 1973).

The Right to Withdraw

It should be made clear to participants at the start of the investigation that they have the right
to withdraw at any time. Informing participants of their right to withdraw usually forms part of
the standardised instructions given to participants. The right to withdraw exists regardless of
any payments made or offered; so participants should still be paid even if they withdraw if they
have been offered paymentas an incentive to take part. In children avoidanceof the testing
situation should be taken as evidenceof failure to consent. The participant also has the right to
withdraw retrospectively. This may happen as a result of the debriefing; in this case their data,
including recordings should be destroyed.

The right to withdraw in Zimbardoetal.’s Prison Experiment.

The right to withdraw was denied to one participant for a short time: “Less than 36 hours into
the experiment, Prisoner #8612 began suffering from acute emotional disturbance,
disorganized thinking, uncontrollable crying, and rage. In Spite of all of this, we had already
come to think so much like prison authorities that we thought he was trying to "con" us -- to
fool us into releasing him.” “When our primary prison consultantinterviewed Prisoner #8612,
the consultant chided him for being so weak, and told him what kind of abuse he could expect
from the guards and the prisonersif he were in San Quentin Prison. #8612 was then given the
offer of becoming an informantin exchange for no further guard harassment. He was told to
think it over.“. “During the next count, Prisoner #8612 told other prisoners, "You can't leave.
You can't quit." That sent a chilling message and heightened their sense of really being
imprisoned. #8612 then began to act "crazy," to scream, to curse, to go into a rage that seemed
outof control. It took quite a while before we became convinced that he was really suffering
and that wehad to release him.” From Zimbardo (1999)

Protection of Participants

According to the BPS guidelines, investigators have a primary responsibility to protect

participants from physical and mental harm. Any risk should be no greater than those
encountered in their normal lifestyles. If risks are greater than this then the investigator should
seek the disinterested approval of independent advisors, inform the participants AND obtain
fully informed consent. 'Disinterested approval’ means that the person giving approval does not
have anything to gain from the research; for example, they will not benefit financially or
professionally from it.Participants should also be asked about any factors in the procedure
which may create a risk, such as a pre-existing medical condition. They should also be informed
of any special action that should be taken to avoid risk. Participants should also be informed of
procedures for contacting the investigator should stress, potential harm, or related questions or
concern arise despite any precautions taken. It is the investigators responsibility to detect and
removeor correct these consequences. There should be no deception when the researcher is
seeking information that could be regarded as private: “Where research involves behaviour or
experiences that the participant may regardas... private... they should be protected from stress
by all appropriate measures, including the assurance that answers to personal questions need
not be given.”It should be noted when discussing protection of participants that all of the other
guidelines are aimed at protecting the participants. The principles in this section, then, are in
addition to the other guidelines.

CP )
SECES
& AQA (A) AS Module 3 — Ethicalissues in
psychological research; A2 Module 5 —
Issues and debates: ethicalissues
- AQA (8B) AS Module 1 — Research
methods: ethics
Edexcel A2 Unit 6— Issues, perspectives oe
and debates in psychology
OCRAS5.1.3 — Ethics
i he 1950s and 1960s saw a
iflurry of research studies
‘aimed at investigating how
‘and why people respond to
----—-. the influence ofothers. Three
of the classic studies in this area, by
Solomon Asch, Stanley Milgram and Philip
Zimbardo, told us a great deal about the
nature ofsocial influence, but provoked a
storm of protest along the way. Were such
protestations appropriate, or did the impor-
tance of what was learned outweigh any
harm done?
Aseivs stucly of conformity
(Asch 1956)
Throughout the 1940s and 1950s, America
was overwhelmed with concerns about the
threat of communism growing in Eastern
Europe and China. Capitalising on those
concerns, Senator Joseph McCarthy made a
public accusation that more than 200
discomfort of being in the minority and to
have the data from your senses discon-
firmed by the behaviour of others.
However, we frequently find ourselves in
disagreement with others and so the
discomfort experienced by Asch’s parti-
cipants would have been nothingoutof the
ordinary.
Obedience to authority was an important
social issue in the early 1960s. The Holo-
caust was still fresh in people’s minds. Adolf
Eichmann, the architect of ‘the final solu-
SIGYOD/SHOIDOOYS 41
tion’ (as this process was known within the
Soldiers must learn to obey orders. Nazi hierarchy) had recently been
the time Asch started his pioneering research
sentenced to death for his part in this
Those who conformed must have experi-
terrible episode of human history, despite
on conformity, the legacy of that time enced pressure to do so and mayhavefelt
his plea than he had just been ‘following
stretched on for a numberofyears. distress at having behaved like ‘sheep’.
orders’, And just 5 years later, Lt William
Those whoresisted were also underpres-
Calley was to face a court-martial for
sure, Indeed, in a related study using an
the massacre of 300 unarmed civilians
Asch-type task, participants experienced
elevated blood pressure (indicating raised
including women, children and theelderly)
in the village of My Lai in South Vietnam. At
Asch’s research was typical of the laboratory stress levels) during theirparticipation in
his trial, Calley claimed that he too was
culture of American social psychology in the study (Bogdonoff et al! 1961).
the 1950s. At that time, deception was the simply ‘obeying orders’. Milgram’s experi-
norm — it was considered normal practice
ments were the first efforts to understand
byresearchers to give a ‘cover story’ so that
this puzzling phenomenonin an objective,
participants would notchange their behav- scientific manner.
In Asch’s study on conformity, we learned
iour to suit the requirements ofthe experi- something that was both new (atthetime)
ment. In Asch’s research, the participants and important, the fact that ordinary people
clearly did not know they were being will conform to implicit group pressure.
tricked, nor did they know that the other Aronson (2003) argues that this research
Despite the importance of the subject
communists had infiltrated the US govern- students populated the nation’s campuses, ‘participants’ were actually confederates of wasjustified because the question was an
matter, did Milgram cross the line and
ment. His campaigning brought aboutoneof and their professors shrank from teaching the experimenter, The true participant who important one, the experiments were well
expose his participants to more than just
had to standtheir ground against an other- designed, the results were clear, and the
the most repressive times in twentieth anything that might be construed as contro- mild discomfort? One response to the
century American politics. To the despair of versial, Meaningful political dissent all but wise unanimous majority may well have participants suffered a minimum of discom-
disturbing results of these studies was to
withered away (Shrecker 1994). Although found the experience quite distressing. fort. This is not to underestimate the
intellectuals, middle-class Americans became shift attention from the levels of obedience
social conformists, a silent generation of the worst of the McCarthy era was over by Milgram obtained to the ethics of putting
participants through such stressful experi-
One ofthe main aims ofMilgram's research into obedience to authority was to explore the circum- ence (Baumrind 1964). We know thatall the
The aim of Asch's original study was to explore the conditions under which participants would stances under which people might be inducedto act against their consciencebyinflicting harm on participants felt under strain during the
remain independent whenfaced with fairly unambiguous perceptual task and a majority opinion other people.This was born out of the need to explain the behaviour of those who committed study, and that many felt bad afterwards
‘thatdiffered from their own judgement ofthe task atrocities in the Second World War death camps. about what they had done. Yet, we also
Asch showeda series oflines to participants seated arounda table.All but one were confed- _ Milgram deceived 40 male volunteer participants into thinking they were giving gradually know from a follow-up survey that almost
erates ofthe researcher. In eachtrial, participants were showna ‘test’ line, and asked which ofthree increasing electric shocks to anotherparticipant (an actor) during a word association task.The ‘real’ all of them wereglad they had participated
otherlines was the samelength. On six neutraltrials, the confederates gave correct answers; on the subject acted as the‘teacher’ and the actor was the‘learner’.In the‘baseline’ condition, the learner — they felt they had learned something
other 12 they unanimously gave the sameincorrect answer. was in another room, with no voice contact with the teacher. After each wrong answer, an electric extremely important and, despite claims by
On32% ofthe trials where confederates had unanimously given a wrong answer; naiveparti- . shock was delivered(although nonewas really given) with an increase of 15 volts each time. Milgram’s critics, none had suffered long-
cipants conformed to the majority view. 74% of the naive participants conformed at a once "Shocks started at 15 volts, but with each mistaketheteacher had to increase thelevel, up to term emotional disturbances. As Milgram
(comparedtoa figure of only 5% when making decisionsin private). 450 volts (marked as ‘danger: severe shock’ on the shack generator),All 40 participants continued himself commented, the study might not
Asch's study found that some people conform to the majority because theybelieve that their to at least the 300-volt level; 65% continued to the full 450 volts. As the shocks got worse, the have attracted so much hostile criticism if
perception must be inaccurate and the majority's accurate: Others yield because they don’t want learner protested more and more strongly, and finally failed to answeratall, Ifthe teacher objected the results had been different. Milgram’s
torisk beingridiculed by the rest ofthe group. Asch foundthat despite the pressure exerted by the © or hesitated, the experimenterinsisted: 'you have no otherchoice, you must continue...’ research effectively ‘opened our eyes’ to the
_ Majority, a large proportion of people tend to remain independentin their, judgements. Prior to Milgram's research, it was traditional for social scientists to explain behaviour such as possibility that each of us is capable of
_ the Nazi warcrimes in termsofdeviantpersonalities, Milgram showedthat destructive obedience performing in the same way as had his
can be evokedin the majority of people by purely situationalfactors,The capacity for moraldeci- research participants, and by implication,
April 2003 * 29 sion. makingis suspended whenanindividual is embeddedwithin a-powerful sacial hierarchy. the same as SS goats in the Nazi death
camps.
30°: PSYCHOLOGYReview
 Milgram was disappointed that his
critics did not recognise the care he had
put into responding to his subjects’ high
stress levels immediately after their partic-
ipation, as well as into checking on any
lingering effects over time (Elms 1995).
Milgram had also pioneered the use of
debriefing procedures that are a matter of
course in psychological experiments
nowadays — providing participants with
information and support that will coun-
teract any reactions to participation that
might damagetheir self-esteem.
Manypsychologists have welcomed Milgram's
findings as being highly relevant to an
understanding of phenomena such as the
Holocaust. But others (including some who
have argued that the research was uneth-
ical) have deniedthatthis research has any
real social relevance. Critics such as Orne
and Holland (1968) claimedthat although a
participant will carry out behaviours that
appear destructive, this reflects more their
willingness to trust the experimenter and
the experimental context than what they
would do outside the experimental situa-
tion. Being orderedto give electric shocks
. to poor learners, they argued, ‘does not
4 involve the same psychological process as
“that which affected German prison guards
in concentration camps. Milgram did not
acceptthis criticism, arguing that any effec-
tive authority figure in the real world will
always find ways to justify imposing his or
her will on those beneath them. Like
William Calley at My Iai, the subordinates
who obey authoritative commands in the
teal world always find reasons for their
obedience.
Doesthis, therefore, mean that we can
justify Milgram's research because of the
social significance of the findings? Mandel
(2003) thinks not. Milgram’s findings have
indeed been usedas evidencein support of
the idea that Holocaust perpetrators were
just ordinary people who were motivated
by a needtofulfil their duties to their supe-
riors. As many Nazi war criminals claimed
in their defence, they were ‘just following
orders’. Although Milgram’s findings are an
importantcontribution to social psychology,
claims Mandel,their relevanceto explaining
the Holocaust has been greatly overstated.
One danger of focusing exclusively on
obedience whentrying to explain events such
as the Holocaust and MyLai is thatit detracts
attention from otherimportantfactors includ-
ing racism, prejudice and discrimination.
Using an obedience explanation therefore
offers a convenientalibi to those guilty of helped spark the September 1971 rebellion
crimes against humanity. The misapplication at Attica State Prison in New York, leading
of psychological research findingseffective- to the bloodiest suppression of an inmate
ly constitutes a breach ofethics that stretches uprising in US history. In this climate of Ethical issues in 2Zimbarce’s
far beyondtheinitial confines of the study prison unrest, the Stanford prison experi-
researein
itself. mentoffered the world a demonstration of
how ordinary people can do things they The ethical issues in this research seem
would have.never believed they were obvious because the study is so highly
capable of doing. Zimbardo’s main reason dramatic. The allocation of college students
for carrying out his prison simulation study to-the role of either guard or prisoner
Bythe 1970s, Americans had more domestic was to focus on ‘the powerofroles, rules, seemingly led to brutality from the former
concerns on their minds. On 21 August group identity andsituational validation of and psychopathology in the latter. For the
1971, the bloodiest day in San Quentin behaviour that generally would repulse researchers, this was evidenceofthe capacity
prison history, inmate George Jackson, a 29- ordinary individuals’ (O’Toole 1997). Like of roles to render irrelevant the concepts of
year-old leader of the Black Pantherparty, Milgram’s research, this study was set to human judgement, will and decency with
led a revolt that ended in six deaths, show that ordinary people are capable of which wetypically understand and explain
including his own. His killing is said to have extraordinary behaviour. behaviour.
Zimbardo maintains that this study was
ethical becauseit followed the guidelines of
the Stanford human subjects ethics
committee that approved it. He claims that
there was no deception; all participants
were told in advance that, as prisoners,
many of their usual rights would be
suspended and they would have only a
minimally adequate diet and health care
during the study Gwhich was planned to
Jast 2 weeks). Zimbardo does, however,
acknowledge that the study was also uneth-
ical because people suffered and the guards
were allowedto inflict pain and humiliation
onthe inmates over an extended period of
time (O'Toole 1997).
‘Was this researchjustified?
Despite the lessons that might have been
learned from this study, Aronson (2003)
does not believe that it was justified. He
argues that the stress and discomfort expe-
rienced by the prisoners was significant and
wenton for6 full days (rather than the hour
On Sunday morning, 17 August 1971, nine young men were‘arrested’in their homes by Palo Alto or so that Milgram’s participants had to
police. At least one ofthose arrested vividly remembers the shock ofhaving his neighbours come endure). Because ‘the investigators were so
out to watch the commotion as television cameras recorded his handcuffing forthe nightly news. involved in their role (Zimbardo himself
The arrestees were among about 70 young men, mostly college students eager to earn $15 a played the role of prisoner governor), they-
day for two weeks, who volunteered as subjects for an experiment onprisonlife that had been were notsufficiently removed from thesitu-
advertisedin the Palo Alto Times. After interviews‘anda battery of psychological tests, the two dozen ation to protect the ‘prisoners’ from the
judged to be the most normal, average and healthy were selected to participate, assigned excesses of the guards.
randomly either to be guards or prisoners,Those who would beprisoners were booked ata real As a result of this study, Zimbardo has
jail, then blindfolded and driven to a campus where they wereled into a makeshift prison in the testified before bodies concerned with pris-
basementofJordan Hall.Those assigned to be guards weregiven uniformsandinstructed thatthey ons and prison reform. His testimony about
were notto use violence but that their job was to maintain controlofthe prison. the research influenced US Congress to
_ From the perspective ofthe researchers, the experiment becameexciting on day two when the changethe law so that juveniles accused of
prisoners'staged a revolt Once the guards had crushedtherebellion, ‘they steadily increasedtheir federal crimes would no longer be housed
coercive aggression tactics, hu tion and dehumanisation ofthe prisoners; Zimbardo recalls,The beforetrial with adult prisoners, because of
staff had to frequently remind the guards to refrain from such tactics; he said, and the worst thelikelihood of violence against them. The
instances of abuse occurredin the middle ofthe night when the guards thoughtthestaff were not experimenthasnot, however, brought about
_ watching.The guards' treatment ofthe prisoners — such things as forcing them to clean out toilet the changesin prisons or guardtraining pro-
bowls with their bare hands and act out degrading scenarios, or urging them to becomesnitches — grammies that he would haveliked. In fact,
‘resulted in extremestress reactions that forced us to release five prisoners, one a day, prematurely’ prisons have been radically transformed in
the United States in the last 25 years to
make them less humane. Voters have
April 2003 * 34 increasingly elected politicians who take a
tough public stance in favour of prisons as
32°: PSYCHOLOGYReview
places for punishment, rather than for
_teformingsocial deviants.
Conelusicns
The study of social influence plays a vital
role in helping us understand the world in
which welive. Trying to decide whether
any one study within this arena is ethically
justifiable, however, is a thankless task.
Undoubtedly we can learn important
lessons from even the most ethically
dubious study.It is also importantto try to
_ be objective and unemotional aboutjudging
whether such studies are ethically accept-
able. The value of social influence research,
particularly the studies carried out by
Milgram and Zimbardo, will no doubt
continueto provoke discussion for years to
come. Zimbardo argued that his and
Milgram’s studies provide a special insight
into human behaviour and experience. He
suggests that the reason these studies
provoked so much hostile criticism is
because they showed the possibility of ‘a
dark side’ to human nature. Maybe these
lessons are worth learning, but are we
psychologically tough enough to learn them
in the way that Milgram and Zimbardo
chose to carry out their research? I will
leave the last word on this to Elliot
Aronson.
I believe that we human beings are not
fragile. Rather, we are extraordinarily
resilient organisms. By that, ] mean we can
absorb an enormous amount of emotional
discomfort without long lasting negative
effects. (Aaronson 2003) ©
References
Aronson, E. (2003) “'Social influence
research:do the ends justify the means?’ in
M. Cardwell, L. Clark and C. Meldrum
“(eds), Psychology for AS Level, 2nd edn,
Collins, London.
Asch,S. E. (1956) ‘Studies of independence
and conformity: a minority of one against
a unanimous majority’, Psychological
Monographs, Vol. 70, No. 416.
Baumrind, D. (1964) ‘Some thoughts on
ethics of research: after reading Milgram’s
“Behavioral study of obedience”, Amer-
ican Psychologist, Vol. 19, pp. 421-23
Bogdonoff, M. D., Klein, E. J., Shaw, D. M.
and Back, K. W. (1961) ‘The modifying
effect of conforming behaviour uponlipid
responses accompanying CNS arousal’,
Clinical Research, Vol. 9, p. 135.
Elms, A. C. (1995) ‘Obediencein retrospect’,
Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 51, No. 3,
pp. 21-32
Haney,C., Banks, W. C. and Zimbardo,P.G.
(1972) ‘A study of prisoners and guards in
a simulated prison’, Naval Research
Review, Vol. 30, pp. 4-17.
Mandel, D. (2003) ‘Obedience and the holo-
caust: explanation oralibi?’ in M. Cardwell,
L, Clark and C. Meldrum (eds),Psychology
Jor AS Level, 2nd edn, Collins, London.
Milgram, S$. (1963) ‘Behavioural study of
obedience’, Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, Vol. 67, pp. 371-78.
Orne, M. T. and Holland, C. C. (1968) ‘On
the ecological validity of laboratory decep-
tions’, International Journal of Psychi-
atry, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 282-93.
O'Toole, K. (1997) ‘The Stanford prison
experiment: still powerful after all these
years’, Stanford News, 8 January 1997.
Shrecker, E. (1994) TheAge ofMcCarthyism:
a BriefHistory with Documents, St Martin’s
Press, Boston, MA.
Mike Cardwell is Senior Lecturer at Bath Spa
University College and Chief Examiner for a
major examining board. He has written many
books for AS and A2 psychology, including
Psychology for ASlevel (2nd edition) with Liz
Clark and Clare Meldrum (Collins) and Psych-
ology AS: the Complete Companion with
Cara Flanagan (Nelson Thornes). Heis an editor
of PsycHOLoGY REVIEW.
Ethics
& Conformity
=» Deception
*. Distress
«+ Obedience
'» Debriefing
Trust in the experimenter
. Following orders
Psychword solution
aw
BAUME
(Or 2.
IND; ;
p|
 Exam Focus:

Consider whether the procedures usedin social influence research (theories and/or studies)
can
be justified if they broke ethical guidelines. (16 marks)

Hints from the exam board:

Since no oneparticular form ofsocial influence is specified in the question, candidatesare free to
choosefrom a rangeofstudies, although Milgram and Zimbardoare likely to be the most
popular.

Candidates may offer an argument condemning research such as this, and/or mayalso offer a
position defending these studies as well.

Thuscandidates could argue that the means neverjustifies the ends and that no matter how
important the research unethical procedures are never acceptable.

They could considerthe criticisms made by psychologists such as Baumrind, that Milgram’s
procedures were unnecessarily cruelto his participants, that they were not protected sufficiently
and they suffered harm. (Savin similarly criticised Zimbardo’s study)

Candidates could focus on the positive consequencesof thesestudies. They could argue that these
studies radically changed ourperception of obedience. They demonstrated that weall have the
capacity to obey orders, not merely a disturbed minority. Milgram set out to test the hypothesis
that Germansare different; in fact he showedthat they are nodifferent from the rest of the world.

Zimbardo’s research had a considerable impact on the training of prison wardersin this country.

Candidates may introduce further theories/studies as a form of commentary/evaluation. The

degree to which candidates use this material as part of a critical commentary, rather than simply
describing alternatives, will constitute the effectiveness ofthe evaluation and the numberof
marks awarded.
 Consider whether the proceduresused in social influence research (theorie
s and/or studies) can be
justified if they broke ethical guidelines. (16 marks)

Essay plan:

6 marks: Describe the ethical issues which arise in social influenc

e research:

5 marks: Explain how Psychologists havecriticised the presence of these

ethical issues in research:

5 marks: Give the alternative viewpoint — defend and discuss whether

the ‘endsjustified the
means.’
 Zimbardo’s Research: All is not what it seems...

What the textbooks don't tell you - one of

psychology's most famous experiments was seriously
flawed

Conducted in 1971, the Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE) has acquired a

mythical status and providedtheinspiration for at least two feature-
lengthfilms. You'll recall that several university students allocated to the
role ofjailor turned brutal and the study had to be aborted prematurely.
Philip Zimbardo, the experiment's lead investigator, says the lesson from the research is thatin
certain situations, good people readily turn bad. "If you put good applesinto a bad situation, you'll
get bad apples," he has written.

The SPE wascriticised back in the 70s, but that criticism has noticeably escalated and widenedin
recent years. New details to emerge show that Zimbardo played a keyrole in encouraging his
"guards" to behavein tyrannicalfashion. Critics have pointed out that only onethird of guards
behaved sadistically (this argues against the overwhelming powerofthesituation). Question marks
have also been raised aboutthe self-selection of particular personality typesinto the study.
Moreover, in 2002, the social psychologists Steve Reicher and Alex Haslam conducted theBBC
Prison Study to test the conventionalinterpretation of the SPE. The researchersdeliberately avoided
directing their participants as Zimbardo had his, and this time it was the prisoners who initially
formed a strong group identity and overthrew the guards.

Given that the SPE has been usedto explain modern-dayatrocities, such as at Abu Ghraib, and
giventhat nearly two million studentsare enrolled in introductory psychology courses in the
US, Richard Griggs, professor emeritus at the University of Florida, says "it is especially important
that coverageofit in our texts be accurate."

An extract from:http://digest.bps.org.uk/2014/07/what-textbooks-dont-tell-you-one-of. html

A few ofyou will... View and research the BBC study (Reicher & Haslam, 2006) and make comparisons/draw
similarities between these results and the results of Zimbardo etal.
 Evaluating Zimbardo

Use the space below to summarise your evaluation points for Zimbardo’s study:

Conformity to
social roles is not
automatic:

Demand
characteristics
may have been
present:

Ethics:

The SPE helps us

to understand
Abu Ghraib:

The Stanford Prison experiment
was a dramatic simulation of
prison life conductedin the
summer of 1971 at Stanford
University by psychologists Craig
Haney, Curtis Banks and Philip
Zimbardo. The planned 2-week
investigation had to be ended
prematurely after only 6 days
because of whatthe situation was
doing to the participating college
students. In only a few days, the
guards became sadistic and the
prisoners became depressed,
showing signs of extreme stress.
Christina Maslach discusses
herrole in this iconic study.
he August of 1971 turned out to be
an amazingly pivotal point in my
life — much morethan | realised
at the time. | had just completed
my doctorate at Stanford University and
was preparing to start my new job as an
assistant professor of psychology at the
University of California, Berkeley. In my
personallife, 1 was romantically involved
with Philip Zimbardo and we were consid-
ering marriage. Although | had heard about
plansfora prison simulation study,| did
not pay muchattention. Ordinarily | might
have been moreinterested,but | was in the
process of moving and my focus was on
preparing for my firstjob. However, when
Philip asked me, as afavour, to conduct
some interviews with the study partici-
pants (i.e. the ‘prisoners’ and the ‘guards'’),
l agreed to help.
Psychology Review
then quickly averted my gaze. | was over-
whelmed by chilling, sickening feeling.
‘Do you see that? Come on, look — it's
amazing stuff!’ 1 could not bearto look
again, so | snapped back, ‘I already saw it!’
Thatled to a bit of teasingcriticism'from all
the researchers about what was the matter
with me. Here was fascinating human
behaviour unfolding, and 1, a psycholo-
gist, could not even lookat it. They could
not believe my reaction, which they may
have taken to be a lackofinterest. Their
comments and teasing made me feel weak
and stupid — the out-of-place womanin
this male world — in addition to already
feeling sickened by the sight of these sad
boys so totally dehumanised.
Reacting to the experiment
Later, after we left the prison setting,
Philip asked me what | thought about the
entire study. | am sure he expected some
sort of great intellectual discussion about
the research and the events we had just
witnessed. Instead, what he got was an
incredibly emotional outburst from me.1
Myrole in the Stanford Prison observation point, | was stunned to see was angry and frightened and | said some-
experiment that John Wayne wasthe ‘nice guy’ with thing like, ‘What you are doing to those
The interviews were to be done onFriday, whom | had chatted earlier, only now he boysis a terrible thing!’ A heated argument
nearly a weekafter the start of the study, wastransformed into someoneelse. He between usthen followed. This was espe-
tot only moved differently but he talked cially frightening for me, because Philip
to assessthe subjective impact ofparticipa-
tion on both the guards andthe prisoners. differently, with a Southern accent. He was seemed to be sodifferent from the person
1 went to the Stanford campus on the yelling and cursing at the prisoners as he I thought | knew. He was not the same
Thursday nightto visit the ‘prison’ and to made them go throughthe‘count’, going man that | had come to love, someone
get somesense of what wasgoing on. out ofhis way to be rude andbelligerent. who is gentle arid sensitive to the needs
of others, and especially to mine. We had
When | went downstairs to the basement It was an amazing transformation from the
location of the prison, | viewed the prison person | hadjust spokento. never had an argumentofthis intensity
‘yard’ from the observationpoint at the end At around 11.00 p.m., the prisonérs were before. Instead of being close and in tune
ofthe hall. Not much was happening at that takento the lavatory prior to going to bed. with each other, we seemed to be on the
point and there was nothingto see. | then Thelavatory wasoutside the confines ofthe opposite sides of a great chasm. Somehow
wentto the other end of the hall, where prison yard and this had posed a problem the transformation in Philip (and in me as
the guards entered the yard. There was a for the researchers, who wantedthe pris- well) and the threat to ourrelationship was
room outside the yard entrance in which oners to be ‘in prison’ 24 hours a day (just unexpected and shocking.
the guards would relax when not on duty as in a real prison). They did not want the 1 do not remember how longthe fight
or change into or out oftheir uniforms. | prisoners to see people and places in the went on, but eventually Philip acknowl-
talked to one of the guards there who was outside world, which would have broken edged what | was saying, apologised for
waiting to begin his shift. He was pleasant, the total environmentthey were trying to his treatment of me and realised what
polite andfriendly — a nice guy. create. So the routine for the bathroom had been gradually happening to him
Later on, one of the research staff-said runs wasto put paper bagsover the pris- and everyoneelse on the study. They had
that | should look atthe yard again, because oners' heads so that they could not see all internalised a set of destructive prison
the late-night guard shift had come on, anything, chain them togetherin a line and values that distanced them from their own
and it was the notorious ‘John Wayne’ lead them downthe hall to the bathroom humanitarian values. And at that point, he
shift. John Wayne was the nickname andback. ownedup tohis responsibility as creator of
for the guard who was the meanest and Whenthe bathroom run tookplace that this prison and madethe decision to call
toughest of them all; his reputation had Thursday evening, Philip excitedly told me the experiment to a halt. By then it was
preceded him in various accounts | had to watchit: ‘Quick, quick — look at what's well past midnight, so he decided to end it
heard. | was eager to see who he was and happening now! | looked at the line of the next morning, after contactingall the
what he was doingthatattracted so much hooded,shuffling, chained prisoners with previously released prisoners and calling
attention. When | looked through the guards shouting orders at them — and in all the guard shifts for a full round of
Pa
February:2010 a
 debriefings, first of the guards and pris-
oners, and then everyone together.
Lessons to be learned
Diszent, disobedience and challenge
Whatis the important story to emerge
from my role as ‘the terminator’ of the
Stanford Prison experiment? There are
several themes | would like to highlight.
First, however, let me say what the story
is not. Contrary to the standard (and trite)
US myth,the Stanford Prison experiment is
not a story aboutthe lone individual who
defies the majority. Rather,it is a story
about the majority — about how everyone
who had some contact with the prison
study (participants, researchers, observers,
consultants, family and friends) got so
completely suckedintoit. The powerof the
situation to overwhelm personality and the
best of intentions is the key storyline here.
So why was my reaction:so different?
The answer,I think,lies in two facts: | was work within a set of definitions ofthat situa-
a late entrantto thesituation and | was an
tion, establishing a uniquely defined role as
‘outsider’. Unlike everyone else, | had not rebel
been a consenting Participant in the study
wasan outsider without a clear role.
whenit began and had not experienced
its
powerful defining events. Unlike everyone
else, | had no socially defined role within
that prison context. Unlike everyone else,|
wasnot there every day, being carried along
as the situation changed and escalated bit
by bit. Thus, the situation | entered at the
end of the week wasnot truly the ‘same! as
it was for everyone else; | lacked their prior
consensual history, place and perspective.
For them, the situation was construed as
beingstill within the range of normalcy; for
me,it was not — it was a madhouse.
that | would havestill acted out of the same but at
My overall reaction wassimilar to that of ethical princip
Prisoner 416, who wasalso a late entrant be certain
(he joined the study on the Wednesday
as a replacementfor another prisoner,
8612, who had been released early). He,
too, found thesituation crazy. Prisoner 416
All the participants in
the experiment had by the individual mustbe translated into focused onthesituational determinants of Maslach, C., Jackson, S. E. and Leiter, M.P.
internalised a set of systemic disobedience that forces mean- burnoutand ofits opposite, work engage- (1996) The Maslach Burnout. Inventory
destructive prison ingful changes in'the situation or agency ment, and havetried to apply thesefindings (3rd edn), Consulting Psychologists Press.
values itself and notjust in some minorconditions. to practical solutions (Maslach 1976, 1982; Maslach, C. and Leiter, M. P. (1997) The -
Maslach,Jackson and Leiter 1996; Maslach * Truth about Burnout, Jossey-Bass.
The legacy of the Stanford
and Leiter 1997, 2008; Maslach, Schaufeli Maslach, C. and Leiter, M. P. (2008) ‘Early
Prison experiment and Leiter 2001). So my ownstory in-the predictors of job burnout and engage-
For me, the important legacy of the Stanford Prison experimentis not simply ment’, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Stanford Prison experiment is what 1 therole | played in ending the studyearlier Vol. 93, pp. 498-512.
learned from my experience and how that thanplanned, but mycareer in beginning a Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B. and Leiter,
shaped my subsequentprofessional contri- new research program that wasinspired by " M. P. (2001) ‘Job burnout’,in S. T. Fiske,
butions to psychology. What | learned myexperience with that unique study. D. L. Schacter and C. Zahn-Waxler (eds),
about mostdirectly was the psychology On the personal side, | decided that Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 52,
of dehumanisation — howbasically good Philip was indeed the man for me and we pp. 397-422.
people can come to perceive and treat got married in 1972, celebrating ourthirty-
others in such bad ways; how easyitis for seventh wedding anniversary in 2009. We Christina Maslach is Professor of
people to treat others — whorely on their live in San Francisco, which has allowed Psychology andvice provostfor undergraduate
help or good will — as less than human, both of us to pursue our academic careers education at the University of California,
prisoners and tormented by the guards for as animals, inferior, unworthy of respect . at Stanford (Philip) and Berkeley (me), and
different kinds, as prisoners and guards Berkeley. She is best known for her pioneering
not eating his food. Prisoner 416 was an
argued about what was happening within or equality. That experience led me to do wehave two wonderful daughters. But in work on job burnout and she wrote the
‘insider’ in the situation because he tried to the
prison, but disobedience wasrare. the pioneering research on burnout — August 1971, who would have guessedthat Maslach BurnoutInventory, the most widely
It
first emerged in the prisoner rebell the psychological hazards of emotionally all of this would be the future outcome? used research measureinthis field.
ion,
which was quickly crushed by the guards, demanding human service workthat can
and disobedientprisoner. In contrast,|
Then Prisoner 416 went on his solitar lead initially dedicated and caring individ- Articles by Maslach
y
hunger uals to dehumanise and mistreat the very Maslach, C. (1976) ‘Burned-out', Human
Would | have been
strike, in which disobedience meant Key words
so vocally opposed people they are supposedto serve. Behavior, Vol. 9, No. 5, pp. 16-22. Burnout
refusing to go along with the rules
of the Dehumanisation
were | one of the research team? Would| Myresearch hastried to elucidate the Maslach, C. (1982) Burnout: the Cost of
situation. But that disobedience did
not Disobedience Dissent
have been ableto stand up to the authority
ultimately changethesituation — indeed, it causes and consequences of burnoutin Caring, Prentice-Hall. Reprinted in 2003, Obedience Stanford Prison experiment
that Philip represented, if | werestill
a backfired. The guards pitted the other a variety of occupational settings. | have Malor Books.
graduate student and not feeling the pris-
oners against Prisoner 416 and they did not
independence of my new Position as
a come to his support when the guards
professor? Would | have cared enoughto put
him in solitary confinement.
challenge him and his research enterprise, PHILIP ALLAN
As an outsider, | did not have the option
had | not had a prior personal relationship WES
of specific social rulesthat | could disobey
that enabled me to see how much he had ,
so my dissent tooka different form — that
been adversely transformed by his ownrol
e of challenging the situation itself. Some
in this
drama?| just do not know. | hope
have seen this challenge as a heroic action,
the time it did notfeel especially
Psychology Review Online og
les, but in retrospect, | cannot heroic. On
the contrary,it wasa frightening Your complete magazine online, with special featuresincluding: &., PHILIPieALLAN ednesoniling |
. and lonely experi
ence being the deviant, © Grade-boosting commentaries on key articles from senior examiners
doubting my judgmentof bothsituations
Parallels with obedience © Background resources to download and usein your own work
and people, and maybe even my worth as
research ; © Share useful resources
a research social psychologist.
It is interesting to consider my reactio
ns © Special revision PowerPoints
eee

chosetoresist the powerful pressures he | had to consider also what| might do

in light of Stanley Milgram's obedience
wasfacing from guards and inmates by if Philip continued with the experiment, ® iPages:interactive revision diagrams on key topics
tesearch
. | have always been struck by the despite my determ
going on hunger strike, refusing to eat his differe ined cha enge to him. © Email bulletins from experts, including a special on UCAS admissions
nce between dissent and disobe- Would
foodin protest. He believed thathis rebel- have gone to the higher authorities
dience in those studies. Although many
— the departmentchair, dean or Human Onlyavailable to subscribers using your magazine’s PIN and Keyword
lion might serve as a catalyst for renewed
participants dissented, saying that they
my rer, back cover, back * Backcover, uma... .
prisoner solidarity and opposition against Subjects Committee — to blow the whistle (see back cover). ick cover, back cover. cover. Backcover, back cover.
ver, back cover, back Back cover, back cover, back
did not wantto give electric shocks to the On
it? I cannot say for sure and|am glad it
the guards orthat, if it did not, he would get ick cover, back cover cover. Back cover, back cover.
rer, backcover: back. Back cover, backcover, back
learner, some even crying at the prospect
never came to that. But in retrospect, that
ick cover, back cover, cover. Back cover, back cover.
physically ill and would haveto be released.
of whatthey thought they were doing to
He was wrong; even after only 4 ‘daysit that action would have been essential in trans-
poor victim, only a minority of the lating
wastoo late to stir myvalues into meaningful action.
the other prisoners out participants actually
disobeyed and stopped > Psy seeRe
of their conformity to therules. Instead of pressin When one complains about some injustice > KEYWORD
g the shock keys. Verbal statements and the complaintonly results in cosmetic
becoming the defiant hero who mobilised did
not often translateinto behavioural acts. modifications while thesituation continues
collective resistance to the guards, he was
In the Stanford Prison experiment, unchanged, then that dissent and disobe-
just a lonely troublemaker, despised by
there was a greatdealof dissent of many
dience are not worth much. Disobedience

Psychology Review
February 2010
 als instiufions that promote it, Deperson- © Is there evidenceof‘emotional exhaustion’ among the guards?
-eccui” among individu © [If there is role conflict, what are the.conflicting roles?
lopmen of negative. or cynical attitudes
lis ation leads to the deve © Is there evidence of role ambiguity for these guards?
as ards other people. Among srare workers, this apparently
tow their Read the passage below and determine whataspects of this partic-
callous perc eption of cliemhca n even lead workers to view
dese! ftheir problems. Because ofthis, ular guard's situation might have contributed to burnout
clients as somehow
lead to ade lafi
t zeton in both the quality of care provided, The working conditions faced by Sergeant Chip Frederick were inhumane,
Tutors,» CxemlmEnsy'ieccenshersdidtenlbsed! ‘nie burnout can
ailtell us how inagpeotentt ikis(@ be zetive. in Gur i as well as having 2 detrimental effect on the health consisting of 12-hournight'shifts for 40 days, with not a dayoff. If that was
learning. Cmte’‘CGarctael’GivesSome USEiul ecitivittics themselves. not bad enough,the level of exhaustion andstress was exacerbated by the
7 et and mor ale of the workers
iratac( conselidete-enel euhanes your waders laslach's researchidentified six areas chaotic conditions, unsanitary andfilthy surroundings. This young man with
cistene
of tine ertliste:isu aweake ea work life — workload, control, no mission-specific training was put in charge of more than 1,000prisoners.
He rarely left theprison, missed breakfasts, stopped exercising or soci 1g.
reward, community, fairness and
Zimbardo (2005)
values — in which the degree of
mismatch betweenthe person
and how doesthe process of dehumani- and the job environment is
References
sation contribute to our mistreatment of our predictive of burnout. Maslach, C. (2008) ‘Job burnout: new directions in research and
fellow human beings? You might consider the role ; Although much of her intervention’, Current Directions in Psychological Science, Vol. 12,
of dehumanisation in real-life conflicts, such as the =. f - early work was carried out pp. 189-92.
dehumanisation of Jews by the Nazis during the Holocaust / man service workers, Reicher, S. and Haslam, A. (2009) ‘Beyond obedience:challenging the
or the dehumanisation of the Tutsi by the Hutu during the high levels of job burnout have conformity bias in social psychology’, PsycHoLoey Review, Vol. 15,
fter reading Professor Maslach's article and pondering over the Rwandan genocidein 1994, No. 1, pp. 2-5.
also been found in other occupa-
issues it raises, have a go at someof the activities below. They 2 Maslachrefers to her reaction being different because she was onal aeveeuch as teachers, social Zimbardo, P. G., Maslach, C.and Haney, CG (1999) ‘Reflections on the
will help you understand how studies such as the Stanford Prison an ‘outsider’, with no defined role within the prison context. Zimbardo Stanford Prison experiment: genesis, transformations, consequences’,
and customerservice workers.
experimentdo notexist merely as objects of academic curiosily, but are acknowledgesthevital role that she played in the SPE, and how such- ! in T. Blass (ed) Obedience to Authority: Current Perspectives on the
the inform: ation above,vi isit fiaonl Effect website again
models of manyof the otherwise inexplicable aspects of human behav- critical ‘outsiders’ have an importantrole in all psychological studies, at Abu Milgram Paradigm, Erlbaum.
(wwwsduciferefiectcom/) an d conside the actions of the guards
iour in reallife. Ethical guidelines, such as those produced by the BPS, now also: Zimbardo, P, (2005) The psychology of powerandevil: all powerto the
Ghrai
acknowledgethe importantrole of‘colleagues’ who are notanintegral ‘ob person? Tothesituation? To the system?! at; www.prisonexp.org/pai/
The Stanford Prison experiment o Could at least some of their acti jons be explained in terms of
part of the research study in question. Whatis this role, and whyis it powerevil.pdf :
You can read more about the Stanford Prison experiment (SPE) study
burnout’? .
important?
Whataspects of tl eir behaviour suggests ‘depersonalisation’ of their
at www.prisonexp.org/. Philip Zimbardo (1999) has thisto say about the 3 Maslach highlights the difference between ‘dissent’ and ‘disobedi- Mike Cardwell
charges?
ethics of this study: ence’, particularly in studies such as Milgram's obedience study. From
Was the SPEstudy unethical? No and yes. No, becauseit followed the guide- your knowledge of Milgram's study, why do you think‘dissent’ did not
* lines of the Human Subjects Research Review Board that reviewed it. There translate into ‘disobedience’ among the participants who acted the role
was no deception;all participants were told in advancethat, if they became of the ‘teacher? .
prisoners, manyof their usual rights would be suspended andthey would have
only ally adequate diet and health care during the study... The Stanford Prison experiment and Abu Ghraib
Yes, it was unethical, because people suffered and others were allowed to You can read about Dr Zimbardo's explanation of the similarity between
inflict pain and humiliation on their fellows over an extended period of time. the SPE and the Abu Ghraib prisoner abusesat: www.lucifereffect.com/.
(Zimbardo etal. 1999) You should also watch his 2008 TEDlecture, which is available on the ‘www. philipallan.co.u Kk/a-zonline
The following questions should be answered after discussion in samesite.
small groups. Whenthe famous photographs of prisoner abuse beganto leak o
Instant understanding for t he very best grades
1 The 2-weekstudy was endedafter 6 days. Did Zimbardo dothe right of the infamous Abu Ghraib military prison in Iraq, there were some
thing ending it when hedid,or was the importanceof the study such that eerie parallels between the sadistic acts of some of the SPE guards 8 Clear concise entries on all key terms |
he should have continued forthe full 2 weeks? In fact, should he, as he (see Maslach's reference to the sadistic guard nicknamed ‘John
himself suggests, have ended it as soon asthefirst prisoner suffered a Wayne’) and the US military police guards in the Abu Ghraib prison.
Written by a leading examine rand author ae
Joes
severe stress disorder on day 2? Both the SPE and Abu Ghraib abuses, according to Zimbardo, demon- mS Cardwell
o’ FREE onlinne support and definitions at the
2 Imagine you are a memberof the Human Subjects Research Review strate howsituational forces can dominate dispositional characteristics
a mouse
click ofeek
Board (Ethics Committee) that approved the SPE. Given what you in determining a person's behaviour. This, says Zimbardo, is not a case
now know,notonly about how it turned out, but also about how it has of ‘bad apples’ being responsible for such aberrant behaviour, but the
been used and applied as an insight into human behaviour, would you ‘bad barrel’ that was the SPE and the Abu Ghraib prison corrupting
approve the experiment or not? Give reasons why you have reached those who werea part ofit.
your decision. © What did he mean by this and whatevidence does he use to support
"3 The ethical guidelines that were current in the USAatthetimethis sucha conclusion? For more information and $ mple pages go to
study was conductedwerein part informed by the responseto Stanley aannacliltallarcosnlele-zon line. You can
Milgram’s earlier obédience study — as, indeed, are more contem- Burnout
order enine at www. philipallan.co.uk.
porary studies informed byissues that arise in studies such as the SPE. Maslach wasable to utilise her experience in the SPE to become
To con act our Customer Services Department, Wa wast
Using the current BPS guidelines (www.bps.org.uk/the-society/code- pioneering researcherin thefield of job burnout. Her research employed en erie
of-conduct/code-of-conduct_home.cfm), consider whetheror not, and in a similar situationist perspective to show how some healthcareinstitu- . teloohone 01235 82 7720.
what ways, the SPE might be judged unethicaltoday. tions — such as hospitals and mental healthcare providers — promoted
burnout among their workers. This perspective was in contrast to the
An outsider in the SPE more traditional emphasis on i ual characteristics that contributed
ts

, Thefollowing questions should be answerédafter discussion in small to burnout. ‘ February 2010

groups. Maslach (2008) defines burnout as ‘psychological syndrome of
‘1 Maslachrefersin herarticle to ‘the sight of these sad boyssototally emotional exhaustion, depersonalisation and reduced personal accom-
dehumanised’. What does she mean by ‘dehumanised’ in this context, plishment (evaluating oneself and one's work negatively) that can

6 Psychology Review|_
Explanations of Resisting Social Influence — Resisting Pressure to Conform or Obey

We havelooked at studies by Asch, Milgram and Hoffling which have suggested that people will conform
or obey when they are put under pressure. However, in each of the studies, there have been people
who resisted pressures to conform or obey. One way of explaining this is to say that they show
‘independent behaviour.’

Resisting social influence involves disobedience and non-conformity.

What makes someone RESIST

pressure to obey or conform?
University initiations
The University of Gloucestershire saysit will investigate after the BBC obtained
footage of students taking part in a bizarre initiation rite. The secretly-filmed
video shows students with bags over their heads, drinking and vomiting.
Many former and current students have been writing to the BBC to tell us about some of
the initiation rituals they went through, here are some of their views and stories.

&6 I went to Cheltenham and Gloucestershire College of

Higher Education in September 1994, to study English
Literature.
I was away on holiday when they assigned halls of
residence so instead of being with other students from
my course I ended up in halls with all the sports
students.
It was there that I saw lots of initiations and it was a
complete nightmare.

One particularly bad initiation involved the lad who was in the room next to me. He was
taking part in an initiation for a group where theyall had to dress up as policemen.
He came back in a state beyond belief, covered in his own vomit and half-dressed. I had to
help him to bed and makesure he didn't choke to death. The surprising thing for me was
that he wasn't bullied into taking part, he wanted to.
66 I just didn't feel the
I never wanted to be part of that group. I believed thatif need to puke into a
these people wanted to endanger themselves with such bucket and drinkit
ludicrous behaviour then let them. I had friends who also to prove myself. 3?
didn’t believe in that culture.

I did used to play in the rugby team. But I never took part in the drinking culture I just
didn't feel the need to puke into a bucket and drink it to prove myself. I left the team as I
was often left on the bench during games.

If these people didn't give in to this social pressure then they'd be giving in to some other
form of peer pressure that would lead to some other undesirable, or potentially life-
threatening situation.
99
EVANDJONES (CARDIFER
66I was initiated into the cricket club at Aperystunth
University. All the first-years were paired with heavy
drinkers from the third year and told to drink the same as
their 'buddy'. Mine seemed to drink a pint of Guinness every
15 minutes.

By midnight we wereall wasted but were frogmarched to the sa a

beach. We had to run up the beachto a third year holding a eval Jones On Unie Beech
bottle of vodka, drink from the bottle and dunk our heads in the sea. By the end the
freshers wereall vomiting and collapsed on the beach wherewestayed the night, passed
out. Thinking back, it was pretty dangerous, but everyone got into the swing of things
because they didn't want to look a 'wuss'. Whenever anyone looked like they were going to
leave, the club captain would come over and stand over them, telling them they’d have to
do press upsif they didn’t do as they were told. There was one guy who had had enough.
He said he was going to leave, and stumbled home. At the time, I loved my university
initiations!

avesata)
66 Before I went to university, my older brother told me all
about University Initations, recalling how people in his year
had been made to drink out of shoes through socks and
saying I would be made to do the same things because that
was the culture, and if I didn’t do it, I wouldn’t be on the
team. However, when I got to university, I was determined
not to join in initiations just to prove to my older brother ee eS UE,
Jason Peachey (on the left)
that I could resist, and that it would not affect my chances Of with his partner
being on the team. Rugbyclub initiations were particularly
bad, I heard stories of students ending up naked on an army assault course, but never got
involved, and it didn’t affect whether I played or not!

I think initiations are fine as long as no-one is forced to do anything they don't want to do.
Students haveto be careful that everyone looks after each other and no-one gets in
trouble. a9

[pyitstoLeon
iXeni
66 I was a student at University College London for three years and the initiation
 ceremonies that went on went far beyond whatis acceptable. At my school there
were ‘initiations’ but these seemed very mild in comparison to what went on at
University.
We would go out as a team and enjoy nights out and get 66 I heard stories of
very very drunk and would often get up to all sorts. freshers being made
There always seemed to be an element of control about it, to eat their own 49
and yes going out together did help with team bonding and vomit!
a sense of camaraderie.
However, at my university this so-called 'team bonding’ would take a very noticeable
plunge towards levels of extreme depravity. I have often heard stories of freshers being
made to eat their own vomit! I was a very keen rugby player at school and wished to
continue it at university, but it was made very clear that if I didn't join in on our so called
‘sports night’ then my chancesof getting into the team wereslight so I decided to stop
playing, it was that simple.
ao

Explanations of Resistance to Social Influence

1) Social Support: the perception of assistance and solidarity available from others.

When there are othersin social situations who defy attempts to make them conform or obey,it
becomes much easier for an individual to also resist such forms of social obedience.

Social Support and Resisting Conformity:

a) The most importanceaspect of social support is that it breaks the u

position of the majority. Dissenters are therefore likely to reduce conformity — they raise the
possibility that there are others equally legitimate ways of thinking or responding. This helps
them to feel more confident in their decision — e.g. the non conforming peer in Asch’s study.

b) The effect is not long lasting - Asch’s research showedthatif a ‘non-conforming’ peer starts
conforming again, then so doesthe naiveparticipant.

c) Early social support is more influential than later social support. The sooner a dissenter speaks
out, the greater the chancesof rallying other people and resisting the majority.
 Changgto original Asch gxpgrimegnt
UNANIMITY — AN ALLY, In the original
study, participants unanimously gave the
wrong answer. In this variation, Asch a
Findings
In Asch’s study, the presence of a dissenter disagreeing with
the majority answer on the critical trials made conformity
drop sharply.

confederate in 3"! seat who always gave

the correct answer. Naive participants
still sat one from the end.

Note: Allen and Levine (1971) found thatthis is particularly true if the ally
is seen as valid. Conformity was lower on Asch style tasks when the ally
had no glasses than when they had they had thick
glasses on!

UNANIMITY — A LONE ‘DISSENTER.’

A confederate gave an answerthat was

different to the majority but wasn’t the

correct answer.

UNANIMITY — TIMING IS CRUCIAL
Asch found thatif there is a dissenter who answerscorrectly
from the start of the study then conformity drops from
%to __% butif the confederate onlystarts to
dissent later in the study then conformity only drops to
%. This supports the idea that social support
received earlier is more effective than social support
received later.

Social Support and resisting obedience:

Disobedience peers act as ar m on which an individual can model their

own behaviour. Disobedient role models reduce the UNANIMITY of the group makingit easier for the
individuals to act independently.

Can you think of any examples from history of people being disobedient and standing up to an authority
figure?
 Result:
OBEDIENCE: Presenceofallies: Milgram v
found that when there are three teachers
(two confederates and one naive
participant) the two confederate teachers
refuse to continue with the experiment.

Mullen et al (1990) found that when disobedient role models broke the law by jay-walking (crossing
roads illegally) participants were more likely to jay walk themselves than when disobedient models
were not present, supporting the idea that the presence of role modelsincreasesresistance to social
influence.

2) Locus of Control

Activity: Match up the boxes

Locus of control The belief that you can control the things that
happen to you

Rotter
A personality measure which looks at how much
control we think we have over our behaviour
Internal locus of control

The belief that you are not in control of the things

that happen to you.
External locus of control

Psychologist who devised Locus of control

 Homework Task: Locus of Control

When you have not done well in your

homework. do you think. it is because
the teacher wasn't very good or because
you didn't work hard enough?
This can reveal a tot about you!

Research project aims:

1. Take a locus of control personality test and find out your score and whether you
are internal or external
2. Find out about “Locus of control”
Print out your results and your
=| research for the nextlesson...!
Use the internet to find out about the following things:

1. Whatis the definition of Locus of control?

2. Who cameup with this idea and when?
3. What doesit say about you if you have an internallocus of control?
4. What does it say about you if you have an external locus of control?
5. Is it better to have internal or external locus of control?
6. Do men and womentend to have different locus of control scores?

Extra work (for the truly independent among you)

* Whodoyou think would be better at resisting the pressure to obey or conform?
Those with an internal or external locus of control?
* Can you find evidence to support your thoughts?

Use websites to help you get started:

http://wilderdom.com/psychology/loc/LocusOfControlWhatIs.htm|
http://www.dushkin.com/connectext/psy/ch11/survey11.mhtml
 7/16/2009

Individual differences - PERSONALITY

People are able to resist pressures to obey
Locus of control refers to a person’s
or conform depending on their personality.
perception of the amountof control they
have overtheir own behaviour.
What can you remember about different
personalities in obedience and conformity?
Rotter believes there to be two types of
personality- people with an INTERNAL
locus of control and people with an
EXTERNALlocus of control.

Locus of control
ho
Rotter (1966) Olhais
| control contramy
ny destiny destiny
INTERNAL Senha

Locus of
Believe we control Behaviour is caused
Control
our own behaviour by external things
therefore take e.g. fate or luck!
responsibility for it.

INTERNAL OR EXTERNAL?

INTERNAL EXTERNAL
Our exam results
were teally good
because | am a
Wherewere you on the scale?
good teacher
 7/16/2009

INTERNAL OR EXTERNAL? INTERNAL OR EXTERNAL

Drugs Were the

reason my children “rate my Own) music, of
course ldo, | work hard
were taken away,
Ee lice

How can werelate internal and

external locus of control to resisting
obedience and coniormity and
showing independent behaviour?

Imagine...

i You are a psychologist... how

are you going to
investigate whether locus
of controlis related to
independent behaviour?

iC
 g
Discussthe influence of Locus of Control on Resisting Social Influence (12 marks)

Locus of control is...

Rotter (1966) distinguishes between twodifferent types of people.

Internals:

Externals:

Support: ‘However’
Resisting Spector (1983) gave Rotter’s LoC scale to 157 University However, the LoC only affected conformity only in situations where there
Conformity: students and found that participants with a high external was normative social influence. They did not conform in situations where
locus of control did conform more than those with a low there was social influence.
external LoC .

Moghaddam (1998) found that Japanese people conform

more easily than Americans and that they have a more
LoC. This suggests that differences across
cultures may be explained by differences in LOC.
Avtgis (1998) performed a meta-analysis ofstudies
involving LoC and conformity and found that individuals
with an internal LoC wereless likely to conform.
Resisting Milgram and Elms (1974) found that those in Milgram’s
Obedience: study who on an obedience task had a
more locus ofcontrol than those who
did not show independent behaviour.
Williams et al (1981) reported that in a of
‘s study with university students, locus of control
was notrelated to conformity, but that was more
important.
(1967) tested for a link between LoC and obedience but found
no relationship between the two. However, (1991) reanalysed
the data using a more precise technique and found that
participants with an internal LoC were more able to resist obedience than
those with an external LoC. Those with an internal LoC were especiallylikely
to resist ifthey felt that the researcher was trying to them to
obey. This suggests the aspect ofpersonal control in a situation is important,
as those with a high internal LoClike to feel like they have a choice over their
behaviour.
Two reasons why people conform are shown below- please fill in the blanks to explain each type:

: Wetake on others opinions

1. Informational [—_>
>) as our own. This is called —
conformity

2. Wantto be liked and

accepted by the people
around us

Normative Internalisation We are unsure and in an Compliance Wego along with others
conformity attemptto be right changing our behaviour
but not our beliefs.
 With reference to psychological research, explain two factors which may affect resistance to
social influence (4 marks)

However, there are several factors which appear to affect whether people
will conform tw group situations including both situational and
factors.

Situattonal factors trclude social support through the presence of In

support of this, Asch found conformity rates from wx
@ to fo when people were given an , perhaps as a
result of Lower normative soctal tnfluence — the made the participantfeel less
sully and more confident about theirjudgment. Milgram also found that the presence
of allies decreased rates tw his study — tn the original study é
of participants went to Vv whereas tw a replication where there were two
confederate teachers who refused to go on, obedience Aropped to . These
Aissenters act as and encourage the participant to stand up
to the authority figure.

A atspositional factor which ts Lmportantis of ;

The concept of Loc was designed by . He differentiated between tnadividuals
who have aw Locus of control which means they believe that thetr behaivour
and expertence ts caused by events outside of thelr control, and people with aw
Loc which means that individuals believe that they are responsible
for their behavior ana experiences rather than external factors. Research indicates that
those who have an internal Loous of controlareless likely to conform or obey.
 A last thought on initiations...

By Natalie Sutton
BBC News

I was "initiated" when I applied to join my university's

women's hockey team. I found the ceremony, with its
emphasis on stomach-turning food and heavy drinking,
frightening and degrading.

: re! _|
At my initiation I was told to dress as a pirate and then
summoned to a student house to meet my fellow novices. There we weretold to prepare
"bucket juice" - an intoxicating mixture of beer, spirits, alcopops and wine. We were given
Oxo cubes to suck as we were paraded, singing and chanting, around the neighbourhood.
We ended up in a dark basement where raw fish was stuffed down our bras and we were
told to eat a nausea-inducing mixture of cat food, eggs and breakfast cereal topped with
Bovril, washed down with copious amounts of "bucket juice". After a lot of vomiting, we
were taken upstairs to a car park and pelted withflour, washing-up liquid and eggs, before
being led to our final destination, a local nightclub. Our last challenge was to eat the fish out
of our bras. It's also the last thing I remember, owing to the sheer amount of alcohol I had
consumed.

Why did I go through with it? The answer might be found in a 2004 student survey
conducted by Mike Tinmouth, then a studentofficer at the University of Southampton. It
suggested that the ceremonies were popular because theyinstilled "humility" in new team
members, and thus helped team building. As far as initiation "victims" are concerned, the
report suggested that they willingly took part in the ceremony because it helped fulfil a
"psychological need" to belong to a group.

Whatpieces of advice would you give Natalie to help herresist pressures to conform?

a=,
PUL
 Minority influence

“Minority influence’ refers to the type of social influence when a deviant group of
people, or individual, with a position that differs from the norm/majority, are able
to persuade an individual (or group) to change their attitudes, beliefs or
behaviour. In this case the influence is due to persuasion or conversion.”

Moscivict et al (1969) Calling 2 Blue Slide Green

e 32 groups of 6 women
e Ineach group, there were ___ confederates and__ naive participants who were
shown 36 blue coloured slides and asked to say which colour they saw.
e 2conditions:
o Confederates consistently said the slides were green.
o Confederates said green 24 times and blue 12 times —i.e. were inconsistent.
e % gave the same answer as the minority at least once. When the minority was
inconsistent, agreementrates . Acontrol group said the wrong
colour 0.25% of the time.

Moscovici distinguished between compliance and conversion and suggested thatit is through
conversion that the minority can influence the majority. People are mostlikely to yield to the
minority when itis:
e Consistent(i.e. consistentin its opinions). This makes people re- think their own views
‘maybe they have a point.’
° (i.e. not unbending, rigid and dogmatic)
e (i.e. focused, enthusiastic and has invested in its views). The
activities must create some risk to the minority to demonstrate commitmentto the
cause ‘wow,he mustreally believe what he is saying, so perhaps | ought to consider his
view.’
This means that that other people respect and i their beliefs.
_—_SOCial influence is also an explanation for minority influence (those with
more knowledge or greater status provide information).

oe

Serge IMeseovici nvented’ aay a
Onexoyaitts students; Charlan Nemeth; descriWes
what he meant to her andall of us
(is with’ great pleasure that | write:
for Ps\cHoLoGY Revirw on the topic of
minority influence and pay homage to
Rieii-eo Vlekcoha tery ed eee BE
TROoe ae
America'told Us that minority voices | with that erroneous answer. They ignored
could change hearts and minds,’
a course wasbrutally attacked for his views
against that war. Theoffer to flee to Paris for
a year wasa life raft.It provedto be a defiriing
year for me, professiorially and personally.
Social psychology research offered a path to
understanding the importantreal-life events
that surrounded me.
In Paris, 1968 was also a year ofprotest.
There were massive student protests about
the ‘bourgeois’ university system and more
general political and economic issues. The
movement quickly grew as workers staged
widespread strikes. This is the context for
understanding Serge’s work on minority
influence.
It was in 1969 that Serge’s seminal and
famousstudy on the blue-green slides was
published (Moscovici et al. 1969). He had
theorised about the power of the minority a
few yearsearlier, but this was the main exper-
iment that introduced minority influence.
It demonstrated that people with minority
viewpoints could persuade, provided they
were consistentin their position. Again, some
context is needed to appreciate why this was
a novel revelation that changed the way we
think about influence.
Social psychology prior to the
late 1960s
Earlier research viewed social influence as
flowing from the strong to the weak. We
hadscores of studies showingthat you could
changeattitudesifyou hadstatus or power or
whattheycalled ‘credibility’. So if you were
the headof a majororganisationor hadtitles
like professoror ‘expert’, you could change
attitudes morereadily than someonewithout
such credibility. There were also scores of
studies on the powerof the majority. It was
the ‘many’ whoinfluenced the ‘few’. The
classic study on the powerofthe majority was
done by Solomon Asch over half a century
ago andit dominatedresearch on influence.
In that study, Asch had shown that a
majority — even as few as three, even when
they were completely wrong — could persuade
people to adopttheir position. That early
study asked individuals to judge which of
three comparison lines was equal to the
standardline. It was an easy task and people
didn’t get it wrong. Yet ifthree or more people
Box 1), Serge wasia mentorand friend for over
all agreed on a differentline as the correct
ACO STaT (el
neersTe ealso influenced many of my was a time of protests,- most} agal
personal decisions, Tile) AnyVen brine (uel ne IN CO;elcetelnet www.hoddereducation.co.uk/psychologyreview
a
Tae Ts oe tee ere
rn nnenceeenTAT
answer, over a third of the subjects agreed
|] SargeMoseovici .
the information from their own senses and
believed the majority wascorrect. This study
is one of the few that has beenreplicated in
more than a dozen countries. The findings
hold up andcontinueto do so halfa century
later.
In all the textbooks, there was an
assumption aboutinfluence:it was the ‘many’
whoinfluenced the ‘few’. If you were alone
or in a minority, the best you could do was
to remain independent. No oneseriously
thought that the minority viewpoint could
prevail. Yet, the events in Paris and America
told us that minority voices could change
minds and hearts. Those protests became
broader movements. Serge always realised ©
It is often said that psychologists research
that minority views must havethis potential.
aspects of human behaviourthat relate to
Howelse could there be social change? How
their own strugglesin life. Serge Moscovici
else could there be great inventions? How
activist. He was
could there be anything new? born in 1925 in Romaniainto a Jewish
family. The rise of Nazism meantthat, as
The voice of the minority
a Jew,.he was expelled from school aged
With even a very cursory view ofhistory, it is 13 and becameinvolvedin the then-illegal
clear that minority voices can influence. They Communist party. He spent the warina
are often ridiculed and even punished. They forced labour campand,after the war, |
invoke anger andpressure to yield. This is travelled and decided to move to France
one reason why many people agree with the wherehestudied psychology in Paris and
continued to bepolitically active.
majority, even when they are wrong.This is
one reason whypeople remainsilent in most In the late 1960s he became involvedin
organisations even when they see problems greenpolitics and even ran for mayor
of Paris. His main interest was social
orethical violations. But what happens when
psychology.It was also at this time that he
someone decides to do more than remain
turned his focus to conformity — but as a
independent but silent? What happens if reaction against Asch-type conformity. With
s/he speaks up and tries to influence the his background as a member of minority
majority? 0 groups, hefelt that majority influence was
not the whole story ofsocial influence,
Consistency especially social change.If people simply
Thatfirst experiment by Moscovici and col- follow the majority there would be no social
leagues showed that minorities can persuade change.
and that one important element is consist-
ency over time. In their experiment, groups Most of the researchers involved were
of six included two individuals who called _ convinced that no participants would call
blueslides ‘green’. Those two were confeder- these slides green. They predictedthat the
ates of the experiment, paid to make these two ‘dissenters’ would be laughed out of
judgments. the room. Mostthen predicted that,if either
In one condition ofthe experiment, those condition could get someoneto call these
two confederates called every slide ‘green’. slides ‘green’, it would be where the minority
In a secondcondition, the confederates only of two was correct on % of the trials. The
called % of theslides ‘green’ and called the results showed otherwise. The condition
other % ofthe slides ‘blue’. This means that where the minority of two called theslides
they agreed with the majority ’ of the time. ‘green’every time was the onethat persuaded
Which condition, if either, would convince — whenthey were wrongall ofthe time. In
the majority to: call the slides ‘green’? this condition around 8% ofthe judgments
Remember,theslides are blue. Whentested by the majority were ‘green’. When the two
alone, people were not confused. Theycalled dissenters called the slides ‘green’ % of the
them blue. time and ‘blue’ % ofthe time, they had no
3

influence. Consistency was more important
than accuracy.
This basic finding about the importance
of consistency over time has held up over
several decadesofresearch.It is the necessary,
ifnot the sufficient, condition for minorities
to persuade others to their position. We
havesince learnedthat there are more subtle
aspects to consistency but what you can't do
is be inconsistent. You can’t just change your
mind. You can’t compromise or appease the
majority. You haveto be perceived as having
a position that you believe. Thatis essential
for minority opinionsto persuade.
The importance of conviction
Wehave learned that there are more artful
ways of being consistent and of exercising
influence. We have learned that conviction
is more important than beingliked. We have
learned that compromise can be counter-
productive for persuasion. We have even
learned that there are advantagesto being one
ofthe ‘few’. There is an assumption of convic-
tion when you are alone andlikely to suffer
repercussions (Nemeth 2012). Here is perhaps
SOLEUS RMORTY
CONVICTION
thebasis ofthe power ofmartyrs and whistle-
blowers. As noted by Abraham Lincoln, one
of the USA’s more esteemed presidents, t‘If
there is anythingthat links the human to the
divine,itis the courageto stand by principle
when everybodyelserejectsit.’
I particularly remembera discussion with
Serge on this topic. As a new faculty member,
I would sometimes worry about expressing
a contrary idea (especially in a published
paper). I remember him always asking me,
‘Whatdo youbelieve?’ That would lead to an
honest outpouring on mypart, ending with
a concern about havinga ‘short career’. He
wouldalways say, ‘You have to write that.’
I can't tell you how many times that
discussion comes to mind whenever! start to
appease the ‘powersthatbe’ in thefield. And
the result? When I say whatI believe, these
are usually my best papers. They havealso,
by the way, been the source of someirritation
and annoyance to my colleagues. Like all of
us, they are nicer when you agree with them
— andcite them favourably. Majorities have
powerbut so:does speaking the truth as you
bestseeit.
Minority influence now
Research on minority influence has flour-
ished since those early studies. We know
much more aboutthe art of persuasion. We
have learnedto question two assumptions of
the field. One assumptionis that influence
goes from the strong to the weak. Thatis
not necessarily true. There is power in being
underestimated. There is power in holding
minority views with conviction.
Another assumption is that influence
and liking go hand in hand. So much of
the research on attitude change made the
assumptionthat what makesyouliked makes
you persuasive. Liking can be an advantage
but, as students of minority influence, we
learned that dissenters do not have that
luxury. If they compromise, they will be
better liked but they will also beless effective.
Persistence in the face ofclearly beingdisliked
— this is what leads to persuasion.
The research on influence also became
broader and deeper than simple persuasion.
Theoriginal study and those that followed
showed that minorities persuade more than
is evident in public. It may occurlater, or
when asked in a different way, as people
are reluctant to show that they have been
persuaded bythe minority.
Minority influence makes you think
My own research overthe past three decades
showsyet another, powerful kindof influ-
ence. Majorities and minorities affect the
way we think about the issue more broadly,
whether or not we agtee with their position.
Ina nutshell, majorities narrow our thinking.
Welook at the issue from their perspective
so weread information that supports their
Psychology Review September 2015
hoe 1960s of us wantto ‘belong’, like they do. We want
to be liked. Especially in yourteens, these can
be overwhelming concerns. Weall had them
"Maser Ss.$ Lage, E. and Naffrechoux, P,
position. We take their approach in solving and weall still have them. +(1969) ‘Influence of a consistent minority
problems — and wethink in less creative A recent trip to Japan madethis evident. on the responses of a majority in a colour
ways. Minority views open our minds. We I gave a talk to 19-year-olds at a women’s perception task’, Sociometry, Vol. 32, No.4,
read onall sides ofthe issue. We use multiple college about thinking differently and its pp. 365-380.
strategies in problem solving. We think in value. Do you knowthefirst question asked at Nemeth,C. J. (2012)‘Minority influence
moreoriginal ways. Even when wrong, even the end ofthe talk? It was not an intellectual theory’, in P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. -
when they do notpersuade, minority views help distinction raised by the research. It was: ‘I Kruglanski and E, T. Higgins.(eds) Handbook
us to be better decision makers and more worry so much about whateveryone thinks. of Theories in Social’Psychology, Vol. 2, .
creative problem solvers. I don’t know whatto do aboutit? Sage, pp. 362-378.
Speaking up, daring to tell the truth,
Mlinovity influence research raising questions when everyone else is of us privileged to be ‘close in’, he made us .
liberates you in agreement is noteasy. It is the stuff of care. He made usthink. Heinstilled the belief
Whether it is my work or that of more than courage. It is also a great benefit, for we that we all can exert influence. He urged us
50 colleagues I could name, we owe a debt know that many ofthe financial scandals, to have the courageto express those beliefs.
to Serge Moscovici. It was he who taught us many incidents of corruption and many Wewill misss him.
that we didn’t needto‘fit’, We didn’t need to abuses would have beenavoided had people
conform to the majority. Even ifwe were not spoken up.
bornin the‘right’ categories, we could in fact Serge would lovethefact that teens in the
persuade, There was an art to persuasion.It UKare studying his work. He always believed
heavily depended on our own consistency that teachers have the most influence during
and conviction. those formative years when youarestill
In many ways,Serge liberated us. We all reflecting on who youare and who you want
knowthepain ofbeing‘different’. Weall see to be.
the advantages for people whom everyone Serge Moscovici imparted a wisdom —
likes and who seem to be so agreeable. Most and,yes, a convictionin hisbeliefs. For those
m
Digital magazinessiti Dynamic earning
TEAR Ni ~ | Our new eMagazines and the Magazine Archives are now available through our
| subscription service Dynamic Learning. This enables you to either read the latest
issueonline via tablet and smartphone,or research recent magazinearticles and extra
resourceswith coursework and exam preparation.
NEW! eMagazines
alagenines 0 full digital version of each print magazine, downloadable to any two devices
5 Lets you add, edit and organise personal notes
5 Perpetual access to the whole volume (no expiry date)
Full details of how to subscribe and allocate student subscriptionsat
www.hoddereducation.co.uk/magazines
Magazine Archive
@ Easy, 24/7 access for independent study and research
& Enhancedsearchfacility across hundredsof articles and additional resources
& NEW-custombuild lessonsor provide quicklinks to articles to use with extension ,
activities and research projects
Youcantrial the archivesforall A-level magazinesfree for 30 days: sign up at
www.hoddereducation.co.uk/magazines
www.hoddereducation.co.uk/psychologyreview
 Not too long ago, supermarkets provided thin plastic bags to everyone who
shoppedin the supermarket. However, due to pressures from minorities,
people now use‘bagsfor life’ andtry to use fewer plastic bags than they did in
the past.

Who were the minorities involved in this?

Explain how these minorities were consistent, and in their message.

When a fewindividuals begin to the views of the minority this leads to

the - as a few people move towards the minority
slowly more and morealso follow this path so thereis a gradual build up of momentum. This
takes places when the Zeitgeist (Spirit of the times) has changed. In history, minorities have
changed the attitude of society and the attitude of society changes the personal opinion of the
majority in that society. This is called social cryptoamnesia.

70

€o0
 people are recruited, the minority gradually begin Ss to E
Ig
become a majority. Fee

‘
is
Fy
Snowball effect =
A
i
Van Avermaet (1996) suggested that there is a critical Bp
GS
point when the minority becomes the majority, and called BS7
=
this the snowball effect. The minority position gains cs
ES5
powerand support as: more and more people express the
sameopinion and eventually what was a minority view
becomesthe opinion of the majority.
There is some evidence that this is occurring in India,
and the governmentIs being forcedtolisten. For example,
as a consequence of increasing pressure following
women’s civil rights campaigns, the Indian Parliament
passed a landmark bill in 2006 to give women more
protection and:rights. Perpetrators of physical,sexual
emotional or economic abuse towards women now face
imprisonmentandfines. ‘ -
However, although this has been welcomed -by
women’s rights activists, suggest that in reality
ntly worked and travelled in some women,particularly those from rural areas; will Student protest against
Meaden receem treatmentof rapevictims,
Psychology teacher Jenn a Mead can help us still be reluctant to seek legalprotection owingto social
explores how social psy:chology Kolkata, June 2013
India.‘Inthis article she stigmas. _f :
5ofsocial changethat she observed
understand the progesse India and publi¢ protests- amendments to criminal law for sexual assault cases. In Delhi, a
what they are saying a The: process of social. change has been happening slowly in India special task force has been constituted to look specifically at safety
racesses that lead to’ social people start to listen to them, think about
own views. In India the action of NGOshas over a numberofdecades, and althoughlegislation is changing, the issues for womenin the capital city.
e *soci ety adopts a new belief ultimately, change their
p chanege — e
that a
is,-w t
hen a whol ating chang e. prevailing attitude of Indian society continues to make'life. difficult
feel that such changes ae acted as a persistent voice advoc
Some of you may for women, ° . The future
or way of behaving. seeid ation
4 textb ooks, Be aay and intecnalis
only found ‘in, psychology - Informational so cial influence In December 2012; Delhi; the capital of ‘Indi it the headlines In such a big country, with a population ofover1 billion people, social
nd, how
irst-harand,
obse ve, first- how India ’ss
India’ ricé occur s when people aie rst
the unity y ‘to, ‘to. obser
ie opportunit Infor matio nal social influe vith a case: that: shocked the world. The brutal’ gang,.rape and changewill take time. The instigation of educational programmes
=! yield to minority-group pressures behaviours, o
adopt the
patriarchal society is beginningto of how to behave. They lookfor cues and t. Uneducated, single murder of a 23-year-old ‘physiotherapy student by'six.men on a designed to teach children about social equality will go some way
and showsigns of change. . usse they belie ve this-viiewis correc moving bus caused.shockwaves’ around the coufitty. The incident to helping, but only for those already in schools. Media campaigns
~ others becau
—— if and [ok to those singlek was condemned by. various women's groups and.encouraged many and coveragerelaying legislative changes only target those who have
ndian women afe. unsure oftheir rights
‘their own rights , This
Women and social change n who ‘aré passionately lobbying -for to stand up and fight'for change.: Public protests took place in New access to media; and those whoareliterate.
a costly burden and, een wome ation f
In India girls are traditionally seen ‘as ve ee helps the unedu cated womeninterpret the amibiguous'situ Delhi, where thousands of men and women gathered to"demand By the time Social changetruly occurs and womenare afforded
ties than boys, often growi ng up out how to. behav e. This leads
have.fewer-oppo rtuni find themselves and work an end: to: violence towards women. Similar protests took place the same freedoms as-those in the UK, social cryptomnesia may
and.manyare for ae which they i “£0 -a type ofconformity called inter- n majorcities throughout the country. In Bangalore, 600 women well have occurred, where: people forget the original source of
their potential. Their freedom: is estricted rone. Some as em
male chape nalisation, where, individuals, both : demonstrated on thestreets, and thousands of‘people change.LikeEmily Pankhurst and the Suffragettes who stimulated
from leaving their home without a rere two ote t
at h point they:are requirs In Mumbai, publicly comply -and- privately accep
to leave educationto get married, more e Benes marchedsileritly in Kolkata. The case attracted both change in the UK,it is possible that in a few decades the case of a
For widowsand:¢ ivorcees, e life. iis even mor the views of the group. As more
toeaee e homemake
ers. A ALSe) national and international media coverage, and drew 23-year-old physiotherapy student and the tireless work of NGOsis

ti)
they are notent ed to their ownland, finei FOV IC
make their journey attention to the situation faced by womenin ‘India. rememberedonlyin history books describing theirrole in the biggest
lt:to gain empl oyme nt anda re often forced to remarry. ‘ meestlts OE social change to havehit India in centuries.
difficu
a
\\V
women in.India, life canbe tough. Zeitgeist and social change .
: t a

iter as India undergoes It is possible that this incident has fuelled.a change
However, attitudes are slowly. beginning toa | References
; in-the ‘Zeitgeist’, the spirit of the times: Although
a process-of social: change. -
— work by NGOshas.changed the viewsof.a numberof” E, and Naffrechoux, M.(1969) ‘Influence of
Minority influence and internalization peopleiri India, and evenresultedin legislative change,
in a consistent minority on the responses of a majority in a colour
overnt ental organisations eT perhapstheplight ofthe young physiotherapy student perception task’, Sociometry, Vol. 32. No,4, pp. 365-380.
Many local-ctiarities andnon-g years ernang
y over a.number of will act as fuel to change theprevailing attitudeof the
India have:been working cofisistentl Van Avermaet, E. (1996) ‘Socialinfluence in small groups’, in
esin attitu des towar dswo men and pou S et7 = Indian population.
about chang Hewstone, M., Stroebe, W. and Stephenson,G. (eds.) Introduction to
and
and natio nal-l
‘ | evel.
level. Examp
Exam les'!
ples include the / Associ ti There.is evidence that this is the case. Following Social Psychology: A European Perspective (2nd edn), Blackwell.
botfii a local
e Wome nLiv ing Alone (ENSS), which lobbi ae the: protests, governments across various states in
erricwered Stil n, and Indo Gig a
es to’su pport single wome India announced steps to improve women's. safety,
Jaws and: programm erie Sn a
-(IGSS S), ‘whic h looks to inéluding dedicated helplinesfor those suffering from Jenna Maadan semcrpenienazdpsychology neadher,anc)
Social. Service Soc! for ‘land
iteracy, and ‘advocacy to": ight sexual.abuse, and fast track: courts-to, hear-cases of hasclaliveras!CRDcounsestor psysnalagy tescharsagiaxs
‘through education, legal
; | : on thecouniny. She fs also amexanmineriar a2 \ahin}g| A
“ownership in rural communities, violence against: women. The central :government
din thi famous ca ing a oe also appointéd-.a judicial committee to” suggest
As Moscivicl etal..(1969) showe
slide green’ study, minori ies who are consistent, one ae
to exert a strong social inf uenc
confident in-their message arelikely
d them. For examp le, if one or two people ina social
on those aroun
and passi onate ly express their view then other
group persistently
Psychology Review.

14
 Social Change

The above processes — minority influence, the snowball effect and social cryptoamnesia
can all
lead to social change.

“When soctety as a whole adopts a wew belief or way of believing which then becomes widely accepted
as the ‘norm.,’””

Examples of
social change

@ Quick formulae
a
Obedience = No social change or negative social change.

Conformity to the majority = No social changeor negative social change. (Example: Nazism
in World War 2)

Civil disobedience and non-conformity = Social change, often positive. (Examples: Civil
rights campaigner Martin Luther King. Rosa Parks not giving up her seat on the bus and the
Suffragette movement in the UK). J
Why doessocial change happen?

° Peoplefollow the influence of role models. Example?

* Aminority group uses information to persuade people to changetheir behaviour, through

Informational Social influence. Example?

* An individual from a minority group speaks out against injustice, leading to a wave of
dissent. Example?

* Adictator uses political and military power to create change, through fear and intimidation.
Example?

* A minority group usesviolence to raise awareness oftheir political viewpoint and force
change. Example?
 Focus on the exam...

A small environmental group wants to encourage people to use public transport or bicycles
instead of using their cars.

Using your knowledge ofthe role of minority influence in social change, what advice would
you give the environmental group?

For a minority to be successful in bringing about social change, it needs to be

flexible and . It helps if the members of the minority have an

locus of control and can show that they have the skills with which to challenge

the beliefs and attitudes of the majority. So the advice to the environmental group would be to

remain in their views when talking to members of the majority.

‘s research demonstrated that consistency was an effective strategyin his

‘calling a blue slide green’ experiment. If they can also show that they have made personal

sacrifices, such as having given up using their own cars, then they would be much morelikely to

have an effect on the majority because this showstheir to the cause. It

would also help if the environmental group could demonstrate that they werenotacting out of

self-interest, but because they believe that using public transportor bicycles is the best policy.

They are not going to gain anything for themselves if people start following their behaviours.

Explain how social influence research can help us to understand social change (4 marks)

influence is one process which helps us to understand social change.

According to Moscovici, Minorities bring aboutsocial change by being

and . Eventually, as more individuals begin to

i the views of the minority through the

the change gathers momentum. Eventually, thereis a shift in the (the spirit
of the times, and through the processofsocial the society begins to take
on the new viewsand forgets the original source of the change. This can lead to

social change.

Another social process which helps us to understand social changeis o . This

can lead to changesin dictatorships, wherebylegitimate figures change the
views of a population through processes such as gradual (getting them to agree
to one small change and then increasing the demands). This often leads to negative social

change. .

Revision:

Did you know that psychology has found several strategies for improving your memory which could help you
in your other subjects?

1) Imagery: Hoffling (the Hoff!) Orne and Holland (grumpy old men) Sherif drawings can help you to
remember things. Visualising things (and drawing them), or putting them in chart will help you to
remember them when it comesto the exam.

2) Narrative chaining: short stories which help you to remember your information. For example,
imagininga little story about what happened in Sheriden and King’s study will help you to remember
it.

3) Learning key words: This is so important. Use your glossary at the back of your booklet to help
you to identify which key words you do and don’t know.

4) Elaboration: Making your brain work! Not simply writing down whatthe teacher said, or copying
something from your booklet, but putting things into your own words showsthat you understand it.
 US/W6| "UBroa05
Police violently break up a demonstration against

SPMeGow/o;0jd0
eee eeaoneer autistic boy, naming facialfeatures
ormsdor/pyquamyn

apartheid in Durban, South Africa, 18 June 1959

T= list below shows how behaviours in classic autism

and/or Asperger's syndrome (in italics) may reflect
underlying strong drive to systemise. Consider how
behaviour involves systemising.
. a
Sensory systemising
Tapping surfaces-or letting sand-run throughone's fingers
Insisting on the same. foods each:day
:ee
~Motoric system ising 2, 2°.
Numerical.systemising -
‘Obsession ‘with:
repeatingcycle.
Spatial :systemising*:
‘Obsessions’ with. route
Environmental.systemising -.
“An
an
each
‘Coloured positron emission tomography (PET) scan.
i a, ofthe brain of a 4 year-old with autism.
: Spee ge ee iters
edhe
Social systemising) * ; .
ind changers
. >.) = Saying the firsthalf of ap
a : » forthe otheriper
Social influence and social change
. I
Andrew Stevensonlooks at research from the annals of social
a positive — and sometimes negative — influence on society as
f psychology can legitimately claimtobe
a positive force for good, its most
valuable researchfindingsreally oughtto
help usbuild a bettersociety. They might
do this by highlighting our potential for
behaving positively, exhibiting traits such as
empathy or altruism. Conversely, they
might alert us to the antecedents
of some of our more dehumanising
responses, suchas bullying or prejudice.
specific. event..oceurs inva: No cal/auditory/verba ‘systemising
Either way, psychology might emerge as an
choing sounds”. : improvement.
enlighteningforce for changing our society
for the better. Gergen (1973) recognised this
potential link between psychology and
social change when heargued that ‘Sophis-
tication as to psychological principles liber-
ates us from their behavioural implications’.
In other words,if we can understand the
psychological processes that prompt
humans to dehumanise or Oppress one
another, then wearein a betterposition to
psychology that has had
a whole.
builda society wherethis kind of thing is
less common. Practices such as corporal
punishment(thebirch), ethnic segregation
(apartheid) and female circumcision
(genital mutilation) might therefore be
outlawed or legislated against, partly on the
evidence of psychologists who have
researched their destructive potential.
According to this optimistic scenario,
psychology becomes a tool for social
Gergen's admittedly optimistic so-called
enlightenment hypothesis allows for
psychological research to be more than just
an academic exercise. Rather, it has a
tangible impact on the lives of the popula-
tion (literally, those to whom research
findings apply).
Findings about how we behave inthe
presenceofothers(social facilitation),
whywefollow orders (obedience) or why
we follow the example of others unques-
tioningly (conformity) can all be put to use
by those in power when they write policy.
However,such findings might be used a
darker way by unscrupulousindividuals or
organisations when planningtheir oppres-
sive practices. | examine the positive and
negative political potentials of social influ-
ence research in the following paragraphs,
ethos
; .
Identifying psychology s potential
for change
Can you think of any examples ofpsy-
chological research that strike you as
having the potential for reducing (or
even increasing) the level of suffering
in society? Could findings from any of
the key studies you know aboutbe instru-
mental for campaigners or policy makers
who are trying to bring about positive
policy changes to improve our society?

February 2009 7
 Table 1 Evaluationissue: socio-political impact
Table 4 Examples of research with positive Conclusions
socio-political impact .

A key study with i vocal, determined iinority. Moscovici(1976)investigated social i

Positive socio-political resulting from exposureto the opinionsof a minority, known as minority influence or independent
impact behaviour.This
influence may be more gradual than compliance to a majority view, thoughits effect has been
shownto be tangible and
durable - : -
An experimental scenario typically involves the.altering of group: opinions in.response
to an independently-minded
‘deviant’ expressing confident, consistent views. In one case, a deviant labelled'an ambiguously
coloured blue-green slide
green andit wasobservedthat the majority tendedto‘follow suit (Moscovici and Personnaz 1980)

netege
elagicalirese;
aes?

Minority influence on a visual task (Moscovici and

Personnaz 1980) .
Would group opinionsalter in response to an independently-
Table 2 The socio-political. impact ofsome familiar research minded ‘deviant’ expressing confident, consistent views? A
deviant confederatelabelled an ambiguously coloured blue-
greenslide green.and a tendency for the majority to follow
suit was observed.This effect was recorded:
(i) by participants making their judgementsin the presence
of the deviant confederate. : 5
(i) When askedprivately whatafterimage they saw (red-
An example ofits In order to reduce passive obedience amongthe general publ ic, a rangeof opinions should be encouragedin purple is green’s afterimage, so this was considered as a
society atlarge.
socio-polit Governments should ensure that press freedom allowsfor a variety of newspapers representing response made under minority influence). Minority
a spectrum of opinion
impact influenced responses were foundin bothtrials
People placedin a positi ; ity may belesslikely to take responsibility for their actionsif their personality
i uality, are hidden. Arguably, the use of de-individuating apparel may bequestionedfor itsnegative
i

Table 3. Social identity theory

* Social identity theory (SIT); putforwardby: -
Tajfel-and'Turner. (1979),-is partof'a:European’.
approach to'explairing human:befiaviour. :
:. "Wederive'a senseof soci
-also-a.critique of ‘mainstréam.US-soi :
= psychology’s tendency to portray humansas.
isolatedinformation processors. This-'mani--.: :
. festo forsocial. psychology’ stresses the.role =!
-. of collective-motives in influencing:action, as-"
opposedto‘individual:motives:-In other
sive-s ubject
words, SITargues‘that-colle
E}

* phenomenon’
roup'* =)
dividual;levels.
Humans .are seen-asinsepara r
society:in:which they
POO? BOWNYN] wor6y

8 Psychology Review
February 2009
By answering such questions, weare eval-
uating the socio-political impact of
research (see Table 1).
Socio-political impact is an evaluation
issue to help you assess the potential for
social change for various studies of human
behaviour. Some research, like that carried
out by Moscovici and Personnaz (1976),
demonstrates the potential effect of a deter-
mined minority to influence those around
him or her. Likewise, when evaluating any
numberofstudies you are familiar with, you
might wish to highlight their potential for
influencing levels of oppression, as in the
case of Howitt and Owusu-Bempah (1994).
Wecan apply the conceptof socio-polit-
ical impact to some familiar research topics,
such as obedience and deindividuation (see
Table 2). As you can see, findings from both
ofthese topics can be used to support argu-
ments for how societies might be governed
morepositively, either by designing police or
school uniforms, or by monitoring the
censorship ofthe press. Again, both these
examples remind us that psychological
research is more than just an apolitical
academicexercise.
A manifesto for social change
Psychology's potential for socio-political
impact has not gone unnoticed, especially
AS/A- LEVEL EXAM REVISION NOTES
@ Revise core topics effectively
& Learn to identify what you are being
asked to answer
m@ Prepare a thorough revision plan
= Improve your exam technique and
ultimately your grade
Eachtitle in the seriesis written by an experienced
examiner, who highlights the key points for each
topic area and identifies the common pitfalls you
need to avoid.
£10.99
To order Exam Revision Notes, use the form
bound into this magazine,order online and view
sample pages at www. philipallan.co.uk, or
telephone our Customer Services Department
on 01235 827720.
among European researchers. Here, an
indigenoustradition that recognises the
potential of collective behaviour as a force
for social change has thrived for some
years under the name ofsocial identity
theory (SIT) (see Table 3). SIT could be
described as social psychology's own
manifesto for collective action, since it
aimsto identify ways in which psycholog-
ical research can underpin policies which
might bring abouta fairer, more equitable
society. The beliefs associated with SIT can
be applied when assessing the socio-polit-
ical impact of various pieces of research.
Look at the studies summarised in
Table 4. Each of them deals with howindi-
viduals who are engaged in a group
context might influence the course of
events around them, in the arena of
minority influence, prejudice reduction, or
negotiation. In all these cases, note how
the participants are treated as active
agents who are empoweredto influence a
situation, rather than as passive subjects of
social forces, as was arguably the case in
some ofthe classic studies conducted by
Milgram and Asch.
Conclusion
Whether weare dealing with the classic
US research into social psychology of
AQAA) AS
Psychology
Jean-Marc Lawton
conformity and obedience, or with the
European strain of research borne out of
social identity theory, arguably we might
enhanceour powersof analysis and evalu-
ation by recognising thatall ofit has real-
world consequences. Doing research on
human behaviour is not an end in itself,
but a means ofproviding evidence from
whichpositive social change might occur.
While, admittedly, from time to time
psychological research findings occasion-
ally might have been put to misuse, it is
hoped that Gergen’svision of the enlight-
ening potential of psychology will be
realised.
Further reading
Moscovici, S. (1976) Social Influence and
Social Change, Academic Press.
Moscovici, S. and Personnaz, B. (1980)
‘Studies in social influence: minority
influence and conversion behaviour in a
perceptual task’, Journalof Experimental
Social Psychology, Vol. 16, pp. 270-82.
Tajfel, H. (1970) ‘Experiments in intergroup
discrimination’, Scientific American, Vol.
223, pp. 96-102.
Andrew Stevensonis HE Coordinator at
Aquinas College, Stockport, and author of
Studying Psychology (2007). .
Activity 1
mentioned in this article, which have either a positive or a
What is the difference between social influence and social negative socio-political impact. Once you have done this, note
change? them in Table 1.
Activity 2 Activity 3
Select two examples of research you have covered that are not Turn back to Table 4 on page 9 and enterthe following conclu-
sionsin the right-hand column, next to the appropriate study.
(Answers on page 33)
1 One person's consistent, confident defiance can alter the
accepted consensus view
2 Working together as a group with a common social identity
can producepositive collective outcomes
3 A policy of soci tegration can break downbarriers between
warring groups
(a) May apply to 1995 Rwandan genocide and 2007 Kenyan
ethnickillings
- AQA(A) ASPsychology (b) May apply during management-workforce industrial disputes
Religious Studies (2nd E
Spa ne (c) May apply to small, marginal political pressure groups’
attempts to gain influence at national level (e.g. Greens)

s consumers, weare repeatedly
bombarded with messages
telling us to consider the envi-
ronmentand to save energy in
the face of global climate change. As a
psychology student, embarking on the first
of what, | hope, will be many enjoyable
journeys throughthis fascinating disci-
pline, you may ask yourself, ‘What does
this really mean and how can | change my
own behaviour andthat of my family and
friends, to makea real difference to saving your behaviour. Do not use one of the
this planet?’
It would be impossible for me to give a minimisation throughsocial diffusion — Weare witnessing hazardousglobal changes
full answer to these increasingly impor- to curb the useofself-exonerative moral -aof mountingecological consequences.These
tant questions, but what | want to do here
2 Psychology Review
de ing.te tand:makés recommeé
® building'on ‘insights from psychology
Severe weatherevents are causing droughtin Mala Wi
global warming, melting ice sheets and
glaciers, the flooding of low-lying coastal
regions, severe weather events, topsoil
erosion and sinking water tables in major
food producing regions. In addition, fish
stocks are being depleted,thereis loss of bio-
diversity and our life support systems on
earth are being degraded.
Our human behaviours, as rulers of the
food chain, are wiping out species and
ecosystems supporting life at an ever-
accelerating pace. Attempts to offset these
harmful globaleffects with the introduction
of clean, green technologies, for example,
are more than offset by a soaring world
population of over6 billion people, heading
towards 9—10 billion by mid-century.
How can psychologyhelp?
A range ofpractical social, economic and
political interventions have been putinto
is to explain further some of the issues The purposeof thisarticle is to make you action by countries and their governments
involved and to encourage you toreflect more aware of these actions and to around the world. However my argument
on the fact that, while you may be doing encourage you to become‘moral stewards’ is that, until we understand this on an
manypositive thingsin terms of saving on ofyour environment,so that future genera- individual, psychological level — our
energy for example, you may also be tions will benefit from a cleaner, greener thoughts, feeling and actions — wewill
more than cancelling them out by (not meaner) and safer world. Psychology never make serious inroadsinto tackling
increased consumption of goods and has a hugeroleto play in this process and this growing problem. As psychologists,
services. Furthermore, you may be the price of not acting now for behaviour we need to understand better and to
attempting to justify this to yourself by changeis not worth imagining. We do not communicate to others how wejustify
using effective strategies that separate or have muchtime and yet, paradoxically, we and rationalise how our own behaviours
‘disengage’ your’ moral thinking from haveall the choices and options for change.
compromise the ecological health of our
individual worlds. When these behaviours
. mechanisms of moral disengagement — Whatis environmental karm?2 are taken together over the entire human
race, they affect the whole planet.
The celebratedcivil rights activist, Martin
disengagement. include deforestation, expandingdeserts, Luther King, once said, ‘Be the change you
wantto see.’ We need to see ourselves for
who and what wereally are and what we
are doing to our planet, before natureitself
takes action as a consequence and
threatens our survival. The selective
‘switching off’ of our own moral self-
sanction serves as a barrier to collective
actions in the wider society, so that we do
notreverse oreven stabilise the ecological
degradation | havelisted, despite our best
intentions.
Causes of environmental harm
According to Ehrlich et al. (1995), environ-
mental degradation of human origin stems
from three major sources:
e population size
e level of human consumption
. e damageto ecosystems caused by tech-
nologies used to supply consumable
products and to support our given lifestyles
Therefore, we need to consider these
three factors in developing a comprehen-
sive approach to environmental sustain-
ability, including changes in our lifestyles
and a reduction in population growth.
Psychology can play a leading role in
driving these changes, as it is concerned
with our understanding of human behav-
iour and experience.
The role of moral behaviour
Some of you may have read myearlier
theories and research into moral develop-
mentin psychology textbooks (alongside,
no doubt, related theories of cognitive
development). What| seek to do hereis to
Sam1g IS/WNSIA/PPAWHY s3UU}4
apply what we already know and under-
stand aboutthe nature of moralthinking to
a causethatis far too importantto ignore
and thataffects usall.
In the developmentof moral agency, we
construct standards of‘right’ and ‘wrong’
that serve as guides and deterrents from
harmful practices. We do things that give us
satisfaction and a sense ofself-worth, and
wetry to refrain from behaving in ways that
violate our moral standards, because such
conduct will bring self-condemnation
(rather like the role of the ‘superego’ in
psychodynamic theory). Our moral conduct
is regulated through an ongoing process of
evaluative self-sanctions.
In addition to this, our moral self-sanc-
tions can beselectively ‘turned-off'or disen-
gaged from harmful practices for many
different reasons, even when weare consid-
erate and compassionatein other areas of
our lives. In extreme cases, individuals can
be ruthless and humane at the same time
towards others, depending on whom they
choose to exclude from their particular
category of humanity. They may dothis in
the name ofso-called religious, political,
social or economic doctrines (Bandura 1999,
Zimbardo 2007).
Similarly, when it comes to environ-
mental practices, the immediate rewards of
consumptivelifestyles can easily override
distant adverse effects, especially if they are
slowly cumulative (Wenk 1979). We can see
this in the incentive systems of business
organisations that may be oriented strongly
towards practices bringing short-term
November 2008 ‘%
 * Moraljustification ee Minimising, ignoring or and society, psychosocial functioningis the that developed nations are stabilising their furtherintensifying competi-
+ Exonerative. comparison misconstruing the product of a dynamic interplay between
¢ Euphemistic labelling - populations, but developing ones — where tion for the earth's vital re-
consequences
intra-personal influences, in the form of most of the growth is occurring — are sources and overwhelming
cognitive, affective and biological determi- rapidly doubling their populations and efforts to secure an environ-
Detrimental Injurious
nants, the behavioural practices we engage many have quadrupled them since 1950. mentally and economically
. —__—> eg Victim
practices effects in and environmental influences. Personal Droughts produced byclimate change sustainablefuture. Collective
agency operates within a broad networkof have fuelled fights over scarce water and practices focused on short-
‘socio-structural influences’, thatis, social arable land in heavily populated Africa. term gains and benefits,
systemsthat are devised to organise, guide Under thesepressures, the fragile environ- rather than long-term solu-
and regulate human behaviour. Theserules mentis becoming increasingly uninhabit- tions, are making our prob-
Displacement of responsibility andpractices are not separate from human able for millions of people. Masses of lems even worse.
Diffusion of responsibility activity but, rather, are the product of them. displaced refugees live in squalid camps We can reverse this pro-
Figure 1 Psychosocial mechanismsfor disengaging moralself-sanctions In turn, they influence human development fighting for the basic necessitiesoflife. This cess by makinga start on re-
and functioning in a dynamic and mutually is only a small preview of things to come. engaging (not disengaging)
profits rather than long-term benefits. Even the messengers of harmful effects and interactive way. Even with the present population, millions with our moral compass. This
Likewise, the politician may lobby for local those working towards ecological sustain- Wecan see this example mostvividly in of people areliving in hovels in megacities. would involve the painful but
projects that may notbe environmentally _ ability are also derogated and discredited. the tobaccoindustry, the products of which They are struggling to survive withscarci- possible process of facing the
friendly and the media tend to focus on the Prince Charles, for example, receives a allegedly take the lives of more than ties of food, fresh water, basic sanitation, full consequences of our
crisis of the day, rather than on long-term mixed reception whenexpressing his views 400,000 people in the USA each year. A medical services and other necessities of actions rather than denying,
policy initiatives that avert future trouble. on such matters. These mechanismsusually networkof otherwise considerate people, life. Almosthalf of the earth's population distortingor explaining them
On an individual level, we may pursue operate togetherinteractively, rather than in includingagriculturists, tobacco executives, lives in severe poverty on less than $2 per away for our ownself-en-
activities that serve our self-interests but isolation, at both the individual and social biotechnical researchers, movie actors, day (Madrick 2003). Swelling populations hancementor self-protec-
that violate our moral standards — by systemslevel. Therefore, we need to under- fundedscientists and advertiserslegitimise are creating a humanitarian crisis. tion, as described above. By
inflicting human or environmental harm for standbothindividual behaviour and thatof andjustify their repressive social practices by removingour ‘self’ from the
example. In order to relieve the inner Population(billions)
the norms, values and expectations of a process of moral disengagement in which 10 centre of things and con-
tensions that this may cause, we choose to society to grasp fully how the moral disen- they see themselves asvictimised defenders
Less developed countries sidering the global picture,
separate our moral self-sanctions from gagementprocess worksin practice. of human rights, fighting off those who we can make a start on
detrimental social practices, making would wish to ban people from the pleas- More developed countries i 3 removing barriers hindering
ourselveseffectively ‘free’ from moral self- i. J
ures of smoking. They are able to diffuse behaviour change. We can
censure. The strategies that we use to their ownpersonal agency or responsibility then work towards making
perform these ‘disengagementpractices’ at by working in and through sub-divisions of ecologically sustainable prac-

s13;N3Y/11OUd} SrOduOy
different stages in the process are both the complex web ofthe tobacco industry, tices that are good for us and
varied and complex, and | haveillustrated seeing themselvesas decentlegitimate prac- our planet.
some ofthese in Figure1. titioners in the process. Psychology has a crucial
Three of these mechanismsoperate at the
role to play by shining a light
so-called behaviour locus. Here we may Social and moral justification 1750 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000 2050 on our own flawed motiva-
transform harmful practices into worthy Unlike the other mechanisms of moral Years
Source: Population Reference Bureau (1998)
tions and incentives and illlons of people live in hovels in meg ses
52101244 [N1S/SPIOP3 OW

ones through,for example, social and moral
justification, exonerative social comparison
and sanitising language(the acid rain that is
killing lakes and forests is disguised as ‘transit
particle depositions of unidentifiable
sources’). This is the most effective set of
disengagementpractices, asit eliminatesself-
censure while also enhancingself-approval.
In two of the mechanismsoperating at
the agency locus,individuals are absolved of
their personal accountability for harmful
practices by displacementand diffusion of
responsibility (the adage‘think globally, act
locally’ is an effort to restore personal
responsibility for the environmental harm
causedcollectively), At the outcomelocus,
the harmful effects of the practices are
disregarded, minimised or disputed, so
there is nothingto feel bad about.
Finally, in the two remaining mechanisms
Operating at the recipient locus, the
‘victims' who bear the brunt of worsening
ecological conditions are marginalised,
depersonalised and blamedfor their plight.
disengagement — which serve mainly to
free harmful practices from moral conse-
quences — social and moral justifications
serve a dual function. . future generations, we must makeit diffi-
Prince Charles's warnings on ecological e First, sanctifying harmful practices as
sustainability do not always get a goodreception serving a worthy purposeenables people to
preserve their sense of self-worth while
Although we know that a group works engaging in harmfulactivities.
through the behaviour of its members, e Second, belief in this self-worth protects
collective moral disengaging is not simply againstself-censure of harmful behaviours
the total of the moral beliefs of individual and also engages self-approval by bringing
members. Rather,it is an emergent group social recognition and economic rewardsfor
phenomenon arising from interactive being successful atit.
dynamics existing both within and between Wecan therefore justify our actions on
social systems. The whole (in this case, both social and moral grounds, free from
harmful environmental practices) is more the self-reproach that such behaviours
than the sum ofits parts (the individuals would normally bring. This is an example of
who justify and legitimise their harmful the meansjustifying the ends, as we further
behaviours). legitimise and justify our harmful actions.
Some ofthese social and moral justifica-
The role of moral agency tions are aimedatdispelling concern over
The exercise of moral agency is part of the the population growth problem. As shown
broader social cognitive theory (Bandura ‘sin Figure 2, population growthis soaring
2006). In taking a transactional view ofself globally. However,further analysis shows
Figure 2 Population growth in developed and
less developed countries
Towards a solution
Were Charles Darwin writing an update of
his book, On the Origin of Species, today, he
would be documenting the overwhelming
human domination of the environment,
but notin the way that even he could have
foreseen. Many of the species on our
degrading planet have no evolutionary
future. Through their actions, human
beings are wiping outotherspecies and the
_ eco-systemsthat support life at an acceler-
ating pace in a profoundly different way
from former mass extinctions by meteoric
disasters, plagues and floods.
We are now witnessing the growing
primacy of human agency in the co-
evolutionary processthat, rightly or wrongly,
interfered with the slow processof natural
evolution. Expanding economiesfuelling
consumptive growthbybillions of people are
enabling us to adopt the
sustainable path. If we are to be respon-
sible stewards of our environment for
cult to disengage moral sanctions from
ecologically destructive practices. It is not
too late.
References
Bandura, A. (2007) ‘Impeding ecological
sustainability through selective moral
disengagement’, International Journal of
Innovation and Sustainable Development,
Vol. 2, pp. 8-35.
Bandura, A. (2006) ‘Toward a psychology of
human agency’, Perspectives on Psycholog-
ical Science, Vol. 1, pp. 164-80.
Bandura, A. (1999) ‘Moral disengagement in
the perpetration of inhumanities', Person-
ality and Social Psychology Review, Vol. 3,
pp. 193-209. . The Exercise of Control, presents
Ehrlich, P. R., Ehrlich, A. H. and Daily, G. C.
(1995) The Stork and the Plow: The Equity
Answer to the Human Dilemma, Putnam.
Madrick, J. (2003) ‘Grim facts on global
poverty’, New York Times, 7 August 2007.
Wenk Jr, E. (1979) ‘Political limits in
steering technology: pathologies of
the short run’, Technology in Society, Vol. 1,
pp. 27-36.
Zimbardo, P. (2007) The Lucifer Effect:
Understanding How Good People Turn Evil,
Random House.
ProfessorAlbert Bandurais David Starr
Jordan Professor of Social Science at
‘ Stanford University. He is a proponent
of social-cognitive theory, which is rooted
in an agentic perspective. His landmark
book, Social Foundations ofThought
and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory,
provides the conceptual frameworkfor
this theory. His recent book, Self Efficacy:
people’s belief in their personal and
collective efficacy as the foundations
of human agency.

4 Psychology Review
November 2008 §&

STEUERerRael
Suratis
The snowballeffect - a great
thing whenit leads to positive
social change. Whenit leads to an
avalanche - not so good.
| A psychology teacher is explaining
to her students how times have
changed: ‘When I was your age,
30 years ago, homosexuality was
viewed by most people as wrong
andsinful. Not long before that,
it was even officially considered
by psychology andpsychiatry to
be a mentalillness. Nowadays,
the majority of people in Britain
are much more accepting and are
evenin favourof gay marriage.’
7 likely.
eeeaanDarang
influence processes can lead to
social change.
. and normative social
| influence (NS).
Examples of social change
The example of social change used
here is the wiovement for African-
| Americancivil rights in the 1960S.
But there are many other cases of
been crucial, such as: the spread of
environmentalism (¢.g. recycling),
the eradicatiion of apartheid
in South Africa, the collapse of
Communism
campaign forinwomen’s Europe,
Eastern votes the
(the
Suffragette movement), the growth
of the Internet... ‘ ‘drift’ into a new kind of behaviour.
THUANONION
Nef AQ3
Description Evaluation
aaa Paley aatooeace nn | Research support forrole of normativesocial influence (NSI) in social change. |
(1) Civil rights Segregation in 1950s America: places such as schools Whenwriting aboutsocial change,
{ Nolanet al. (2008) Significant decreases in So conformity can lead
marches drew - and restaurants in the Southern States were exclusive avoid turning your answerinto
{ hung messages on front energy use compared to _to social change through.
attention to to whites.Civil rights marches drew attention to the one aboutminority influence. You
i doors of houses. The control group who saw the operation of NSI.
segregation. situation by providing social proof of the problem. can do this by including other
key message was most messagesto save energy
residents are trying to with no reference to formsof social influence, such as
reduce energy usage. other people’s behaviour. conformity and obedience.
(2) A’minority People tookpart in the marches on a large scale. Even But bevery careful to link these
marched but they though it was a minority of the American population, processes with the central issue —
wereconsistent. theydisplayed consistency of message andintent. | Minority influenceis only indirectly effective in creating social change. | social changeitself. Use a specific
example, either your own or one
(3) Deeper This attention meant that many people who had Nemeth (1986) suggests Indirect: the majority Using minority influence given to you in a stem/scenario.
processing. accepted the status quo began thinking about the t the effects of minority is influenced only on to explain social change
unjustness ofit. influence areindirect matters related to the is limited becauseit
and delayed. It took central issue, and not the showsthateffects are
- | decadesfor attitudes issue itself. fragile andits role in
(4) Augmentation ‘Freedom riders’ were mixed racial groups who got on against drink-driving and p elayed: effects not seen social influence narrow.
principle. buses in the South to challenge separate seating for smoking to shift. for sometime.
black people. Many were beaten and suffered mob
violence.
Alimitation is the nature of deeper processing has been questioned. |
(5) Snowball effect. Civil rights activists (e.g. Martin Luther King) gradually i
got the attention of the US government. In 1964 the ; Moscovici suggested Mackie (1987) disagrees, So a central element
Civil Rights Act was passed, prohibiting discrimination | that minority influence arguing that majority of minority influence
—a changefrom minority to majority support for civil causesindividuals to influence creates deeper is challenged and may
rights. think deeply- whichis processing if you do be incorrect, casting
Sometimesitjust takes one to get the
a different cognitive notshare their views. doubton the validity of
- ; ball rolling...
- : process from majority We believe that others ~ Moscovici’s theory.
(6) Social This refers to people having a memory that a change | influence. think in the same ways
cryptomnesia happenedbut not remembering how.Social change as us; when wefind
occurred. came about but some people have no memoryof the } that a majority believes
events leading to that change. differently, weare forced
: : : to think hard abouttheir
Lessons from conformity research arguments.
Dissenters make Asch’s research: variation where one confederate
socal change more ae gavecorrect answers. This wha the eae | Identification is an important variable overlooked in minority influence research.
of the majority encouraging othersto dissent. This
demonstrates potential for social change. | Bashir et al. (2013) Participants rated — This suggests that being
; suggest people are environmentalactivists able to identify with a
Majority influence Environmental and health campaigns exploit conformity (Bs likely ta. behave negatively (‘tree minority group. lustias
by appealing to NSI. They provide information about : friendly ways pete wanting social change ae their ers in tems
what others are doing, ©. reducing litter by printing they wantedto avoid should avoid behaving of changing behaviour. 1. Briefly explain what is meant
normative messages onbins (‘Bin it — others do’). Social label of being minority _in ways that reinforce by‘social change’. (2 marks)
change 5 encouraged by drawing attention to the ‘environmentalists’. stereotypes; off-putting . ‘ . 2. Outline the role of social
majority's behaviour. to the majority. influence processesin social
: _ _ change. Refer to onereal-life
Lessons from|obedience research example in your answer.
: , , . . . i [ A limitation is there are methodologicalissues in this area of research. (6 marks)
Disobedient models Milgram’s research: disobedient modelsin the variation } 3. Evaluatethe role of social
make change more where a confederate refused to give shocks. The rate of Explanationsof social These can be evaluated Thesecriticisms apply influencein social change.
likely. obedience in genuine participants plummeted. changerely on studies in terms of methodology, to the evaluation of (6 marks)
by Moscovici, Asch and mainly over the artificial explanations forthelink 4. Outline and evaluate research
:
Gradual commitment ;
Zimbardo ;
(2007): once a small instruction
pacesis obeyed,it+ Milgram. tasks and betweensocialinfluence into therole
whether
nature ofthe
thegroup processes and social influence processesin
of social social
leadsto ‘drift’. becomes moredifficult to resist a bigger one. People . . change:
dynamics reflect real-life. change. ei (12 marks AS, 16 marks Al)
 Glossary

Obedience:

My Lai Massacre:

Adolf Eichamann:

Milgram (1963):

Confederate:

Naive participant:

Lab study:

Volunteer sample:

Situational factors:

Legitimate authority:

Bickman (1974):

Agency theory:

Autonomous state:

Agentic state:
Gradual commitment:

Dispositional factors:

Personality (Adorno):

Demand characteristics:

Experimental realism:

Orne and Holland:

Ecological validity:

Population validity:

Sample Bias:

Investigator Effects:

Hofling et al:

Sheridan and King:

Ethical issues:

Ethical guidelines:
 Informed Consent:

Debriefing:

Right to withdraw:

Deception:

Conformity:

Compliance:

Internalisation:

Identification:

Asch (1952):

Critical trial:

Child of its time:

Perin and Spencer (1981):

Sherif (1935):

Normative social influence:

Informational social influence:

 Garuandeau and Cillessen (2006):

Fein et al (2007)

Zimbardo:

Deindividuation:

Social impact theory:

Independentvariable:

Dependentvariable:

Extraneous variables:

Situational variables:

Participant variables:

Controlled variables:

Lab experiment:

Field experiment:

Natural experiment:
 Independent behaviour:

Social Support:

Rotter (1966):

Locus of Control:

Internal Locus of Control:

External Locus of Control:

Milgram and Elms (1974):

Spector (1983)

Moghaddam (1998)

Blass (1991):

Minority influence:

Moscivici et al (1969):

Social change:

Rosa Parks:

Ghandi:
Terrorists: