SOCIAL THOUGHT AND SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR

CHAPTER OUTLINE
1.Attribution
a. Definition
b. Theory of Attribution – Harold Kelley
c. Errors/Biases

2. Groups
a. Definition
b. Types
c. Formation of groups

3.Social Influence
a. Social facilitation and Social Loafing
b. Conformity
i. Definition
ii. Classic experiment
iii. Factors for conformity
iv. Factors for non-conformity
c. Obedience
i. Definition
ii. Classic experiment
iii. Factors for obedience
1
SOCIAL THOUGHT AND SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR
Social thought and social behaviour is a part of Social Psychology, which investigates how the
behaviour of individuals is affected by the presence of others and the social environment.
Social psychologists study wide range of social topics, including group behavior, social perception,
leadership, nonverbal behavior, interpersonal relationship, obedience, conformity, attitudes,
aggression and prejudice.

Social perception is a process through which we seek to understand other people’s

behaviour. We engage in social perception in many contexts - probably in every social situation
we encounter. Other people often remain one of the true mysteries of life. They say and do things
we don’t expect, have motives we don’t understand and seem to see the world through eyes very
different from our own.

ATTRIBUTION

Attribution refers to our efforts to understand the causes behind other’s behaviour and our
behaviour.

By deliberating about the relative influence of people’s actions and the situation in which they are
behaving, we make systematic judgements about the reasons behind their behaviour.

In seeking to explain another person’s behaviour, people have two general categories of cause

1. Situational causes/external causes – reasons for behaviour that rest on the demands or
constraints of a given social setting. Example: luck or other factors beyond one’s control
2. Dispositional causes/internal causes – the reasons for behaviour that rest on the
personality traits and characteristics of the individual carrying out the behaviour. Example:
traits, motives, intentions)

The general principal about attributions – behaviour will be attributed to situational causes when
external reasons are more likely and to dispositional factors when external causes are unlikely.

THEORY OF ATTRIBUTION
THE CAUSAL ATTRIBUTION THEORY – HAROLD KELLEY

This theory suggests that in attempting to discover causes for a person’s behaviour, people
consider three different kinds of information – consensus, consistency and distinctiveness

- Consensus information – information regarding the extent to which behaviour shown by one
person is shown by others as well. (Whether other people behave in the same way as the

2
 person we’re considering). The higher the proportion of other people who react the same way,
the higher the consensus.
- Consistency information – information regarding the extent to which a specific person shows
similar behaviour to a given stimulus across time.
- Distinctiveness information – Information regarding the extent to which a given person
reacts in the same manner to different stimuli or situations. Distinctiveness high – behaviour
specific or distinct to one situation. Distinctiveness low – behaviour similar across different
situations.

Taking into account information about consensus, consistency and distinctiveness allows people
to attribute certain behaviour either to dispositional factors or to situational factors. When
consensus and distinctiveness are low and consistency is high, people tend to make dispositional
attributions. When consensus, consistency and distinctiveness are all high, people tend to make
attributions to external situational factors.

Attribution Consistency Consensus Distinctiveness

Situational High High High
(external)
Dispositional High Low Low
(internal)

The only criticism of Kelley’s theory is that the attribution process does not work quite so well
when people must seek, find or recognize the information on their own but works when they have
concrete, explicit information.

When do we exert such time and effort in the process of attribution?

- Confronted with unexpected events

- Encounter unpleasant outcomes or events

Internal Causes No other student behaves

the same way (consensus is
low)

Student got up and
criticised a
professor in class
Behaviour is attributed to
The student behaves in this
internal causes – violent
manner during other classes
temper, psychological
(consistency is high)
problems

The student loses his

temper in other situations
3
too (distinctiveness is low)
External Causes
Many other students behave
the same way (consensus is
high)

Student got up and The student behaves in this Behaviour is attributed to

criticised a manner during other classes external causes – something
professor in class with this professor about the professor
(consistency is high)

The student doesn’t lose his

temper in other situations
(distinctiveness is high)

ERRORS AND BIASES IN ATTRIBUTION/PERCEPTION

Social perception is the process of forming impressions of others. The resulting impressions that we
form are based on information available in the environment, our previous attitudes about relevant
stimuli, and our current mood.
Humans tend to operate under certain biases when forming impression of other individuals.

Let us examine some of these biases.

1. Fundamental attribution error (Correspondence bias) – the assumption that other

people’s behaviour represents some inner trait. It is the tendency to over-attribute other’s
behaviour to dispositional causes and the corresponding failure to recognize the important of
situational causes. Reasons
a. It is merely perceptual – when we view behaviour, the information that is more
conspicuous is that which comes from the individual. Typically, environment is seen as
static and unchanging while the person moves about and reacts – making the person the
focus of attention. Because the environment appears less obvious, dispositional causes are
attributed
b. Basic process people follow when they make an attribution – the first step is to make a fast
automatic dispositional attribution and then take the time to correct or adjust it by taking
into account situational determinants. Unfortunately this is easy to disrupt. Any event that
interferes or diverts attention prevents the correction and thus the dispositional
attribution sticks.

4
 Example, an executive arrives late for the meeting. On entering he drops his notes and spills
coffee all over his tie. You conclude that he is disorganised and “that kind of a person”.
However all this may have happened due to traffic, slippery files and the coffee cup being too
hot.
There are cultural variations with regard this error. In India, people in an older age group were
seen to attribute more situational causes to behaviour as compared to the US where people
constantly engaged in this error. This may be because the Hindu Indians emphasize social
responsibility and societal obligations in a fundamentally different manner.

2. The self-serving bias: This is the tendency to attribute positive outcomes to our own traits
or characteristics but negative outcomes to factors beyond our control. E.g. if students score
well in an exam they will most likely attribute it to internal causes like talent or hard work but
if they score poorly they will attribute it to external factors like difficult paper or strict marking.
Thus we have a tendency to take credit for positive behaviour or outcomes by attributing them
to internal causes, but to blame negative ones on external causes, especially on factors beyond
our control.
There are several factors which determine this attribution but the most important is the need
to protect and enhance our self-esteem or the desire to look good to others. Attributing our
successes to internal causes while failure to external causes permits us to accomplish these ego-
protective goals. Self-serving bias is a cause of much interpersonal friction. It often leads
persons who work with others on a joint task to perceive that they, not their partners, have
made the major contribution. Similarly, it leads individuals to perceive that while their own
successes stem from internal causes and are well deserved, the success of others stems from
external factors and are less appropriate. Also, because of the self-serving bias many persons
tend to perceive negative actions on their parts as justified and excusable but identical actions
by others as irrational and inexcusable.

In these ways the self-serving bias can have important effects on interpersonal relations. There
may be a number of good examples of the self-serving bias. Below are some of the self-serving
bias examples:
 Believing that you are more intelligent than you actually are.
 Believing that a positive outcome (e.g. writing a best-selling book) is completely due to
your talents when it may be partly explained by chance factors or the effects of others.
 Blaming a negative outcome in your life on other people or bad luck when it may be
partly due to making bad decisions.
 Believing that you can become a famous singer when most people have doubted your
singing ability.

3. The false consensus effect – the tendency to assume that people agree with you to a greater
extent than is actually true. The main reason is the availability heuristic – the easier it is to

5
 bring information to the mind, the more important we judge that information to be. It
appears that most people find it easier to remember instances in which others have agreed
with them, than the instances in which others have disagreed. Fundamentalists and political
radicals often overestimate the number of people who share their values and beliefs, because
of the false consensus effect.

4. Automatic vigilance – This is the strong tendency to pay attention to negative social
information. If another person smiles at us twenty times during a conversation but frowns
once, it is the frown we tend to notice.

In an important sense this tendency is very reasonable. It alerts us to potential danger and it is
crucial that we recognize it and respond to it as quickly as possible. But our attention capacity
is limited, so when we direct attention to negative social information we run the risk of
overlooking other valuable forms of input. Thus, it may save us cognitive effort but it can lead
us into errors in our perceptions or judgments of others. Automatic vigilance effect also helps
explain why it is often so important to make a good first impression on others. Since people
are highly sensitive to negative information anything we say or do during a first meeting that
triggers negative reactions is likely to have a strong effect on the impression we create than
positive information. In this and many other respects the automatic vigilance effect can have
important effects on key aspects of social thought.

5. Motivated skepticism – in general, we are skeptical about information that is inconsistent

with our initial preferences but quite open to information that supports these views. We
examine information that supports our preferred conclusions much less carefully – and less
skeptically – than information that is inconsistent with our views. This does not mean that we
never acknowledge the accuracy or usefulness of information contrary to our preferences; we
do accept such input in some cases. But in general we tend to posses several kinds of cognitive
filters that make it more difficult for such inputs to enter our social thought and shape our
conclusions.

6. Counterfactual thinking – imagining events and outcomes different from the ones we actually
experienced. Negative outcomes that follow unusual behaviour will generate more sympathy
that negative outcomes that follow usual behaviour. For example – Mrs. Caution never picks up
hitchhikers. Yesterday however she gave a stranger a ride; he robbed her and stole her car.
Mrs. Risk frequently picks up hitchhikers. Yesterday she gave a stranger a ride; he robbed her
and stole her car. We are more likely to think that Mrs. Caution felt more regret then Mrs. Risk.
This is due to the operation of counterfactual thinking.

Effect of counterfactual thinking –

1. Such thinking, depending on its focus, can either boost or depress current moods. If individuals
imagine better outcomes than actually occurred (upward counter factual) they may experience
strong feelings of regret, dissatisfaction or envy, especially if they do not feel capable of
6
 obtaining better outcomes in the future. Alternatively, if individuals imagine worse outcomes
than actually occurred, they may experience positive feelings of satisfaction, hopefulness
(doing well on test with little study).
2. Counterfactual thinking can also help individuals understand why disappointing outcomes
occurred. This in turn can often help people change behaviour and strategize for improvement.
The magnitude of change will be determined by the magnitude of improvement desired.
Regardless of specific thoughts involved, engaging in counterfactual thinking may be one
technique that helps individuals learn from past experiences and profit from their mistakes

GROUPS
A group may be defined as an organised system of two or more individuals, who are interacting
and interdependent, who have common motives, have a set of role relationships among its
members, and have norms that regulate the behaviour of its members.

Groups have the following salient characteristics:

1. A social unit consisting of two or more individuals who perceive themselves as belonging to
the group. This characteristic of the group helps in distinguishing one group from the other
and gives the group its unique identity.
2. A collection of individuals who have common motives and goals. Groups function either
working towards a given goal, or away from certain threats facing the group.
3. A collection of individuals who are interdependent, i.e. what one is doing may have
consequences for others. Suppose one of the fielders in a cricket team drops an important
catch during a match — this will have consequence for the entire team.
4. Individuals who are trying to satisfy a need through their joint association also influence
each other.
5. A gathering of individuals who interact with one another either directly or indirectly. A
collection of individuals whose interactions are structured by a set of roles and norms. This
means that the group members perform the same functions every time the group meets,
and the group members adhere to group norms. Norms tell us how we ought to behave in
the group and specify the behaviours expected from group members.

TYPES OF GROUPS
Groups differ in many respects; some have a large number of members (e.g., a country), some are
small (e.g., a family), some are short-lived (e.g., a committee), some remain together for many
years (e.g., religious groups), some are highly organised (e.g., army, police, etc.), and others are
informally organised (e.g., spectators of a match). People may belong to different types of group.
Major types of groups are enumerated below:
 primary and secondary groups
 formal and informal groups
 ingroup and outgroup

7
Primary and Secondary Groups

A major difference between primary and secondary groups is that primary groups are pre-existing
formations which are usually given to the individual whereas secondary groups are those which
the individual joins by choice. Thus, family, caste, and religion are primary groups whereas
membership of a political party is an example of a secondary group. In a primary group, there is a
face-to-face interaction, members have close physical proximity, and they share warm emotional
bonds. Primary groups are central to individual’s functioning and have a very major role in
developing values and ideals of the individual during the early stages of development. In contrast,
secondary groups are those where relationships among members are more impersonal, indirect,
and less frequent. In the primary group, boundaries are less permeable, i.e. members do not have
the option to choose its membership as compared to secondary groups where it is easy to leave
and join another group.

Formal and Informal Groups

These groups differ in the degree to which the functions of the group are stated explicitly and
formally. The functions of a formal group are explicitly stated as in the case of an office
organisation. The roles to be performed by group members are stated in an explicit manner. The
formal and informal groups differ on the basis of structure. The formation of formal groups is
based on some specific rules or laws and members have definite roles. There are a set of norms
which help in establishing order. A university is an example of a formal group. On the other hand,
the formation of informal groups is not based on rules or laws and there is close relationship
among members.

Ingroup and Outgroup

Just as individuals compare themselves with others in terms of similarities and differences with
respect to what they have and what others have, individuals also compare the group they belong
to with groups of which they are not a member. The term ‘ingroup’ refers to one’s own group, and
‘outgroup’ refers to another group. For ingroup members, we use the word ‘we’ while for outgroup
members, the word ‘they’ is used. By using the words they and we, one is categorising people as
similar or different. It has been found that persons in the ingroup are generally supposed to be
similar, are viewed favourably, and have desirable traits. Members of the outgroup are viewed
differently and are often perceived negatively in comparison to the ingroup members. Perceptions
of ingroup and outgroup affect our social lives.

Group Formation
Basic to group formation is some contact and some form of interaction between people. This
interaction is facilitated by the following conditions:

Proximity : Just think about your group of friends. Would you have been friends if you were not
living in the same colony, or going to the same school, or may be playing in the same playground?
Probably your answer would be ‘No’. Repeated interactions with the same set of individuals give
us a chance to know them, and their interests and attitudes. Common interests, attitudes, and
background are important determinants of your liking for your group members.
8
Similarity: Being exposed to someone over a period of time makes us assess our similarities and
paves the way for formation of groups. Why do we like people who are similar? Psychologists have
given several explanations for this. One explanation is that people prefer consistency and like
relationships that are consistent. When two people are similar, there is consistency and they start
liking each other. For example, you like playing football and another person in your class also
loves playing football; there is a matching of your interests. There are higher chances that you may
become friends. Another explanation given by psychologists is that when we meet similar people,
they reinforce and validate our opinions and values, we feel we are right and thus we start liking
them. Suppose you are of the opinion that too much watching of television is not good, because it
shows too much violence. You meet someone who also has similar views. This validates your
opinion, and you start liking the person who was instrumental in validating your opinion.
Common motives and goals: When people have common motives or goals, they get together and
form a group which may facilitate their goal attainment. Suppose you want to teach children in a
slum area who are unable to go to school. You cannot do this alone because you have your own
studies and homework. You, therefore, form a group of like-minded friends and start teaching
these children. So you have been able to achieve what you could not have done alone.

SOCIAL INFLUENCE PROCESSES– Influence of Groups on Individuals

We have seen that groups are powerful as they are able to influence the behaviour of individuals.
What is the nature of this influence? What impact does the presence of others have on our
performance?
We will discuss two situations: (i) an individual performing an activity alone in the presence of
others (social facilitation), and (ii) an individual performing an activity along with the others as
part of a larger group (social loafing).
Social facilitation research suggests that presence of others leads to arousal and can motivate
individuals to enhance their performance if they are already good at solving something. This
enhancement occurs when a person’s efforts are individually evaluated. What would happen if the
efforts of an individual in a group are pooled so that you look at the performance of the group as a
whole? Do you know what often happens? It has been found that individuals work less hard in a
group than they do when performing alone. This points to a phenomenon referred to as ‘social
loafing’. Social loafing is a reduction in individual effort when working on a collective task, i.e. one
in which outputs are pooled with those of other group members. An example of such a task is the
game of tug-of-war. It is not possible for you to identify how much force each member of the team
has been exerting. Such situations give opportunities to group members to relax and become a
free rider.

Social influence refers to the efforts by one or more individuals to change the attitudes,
beliefs, perceptions or behaviours of one or more others. Some important forms of social
influence are given below:

- Conformity – Conformity is a type of social influence in which individuals change their attitudes
or behaviours in order to adhere to existing social norms.

9
 - Obedience – refers to instances in which someone in a position of authority simply tells or
orders one or more persons to do something and they do it.

Conformity is an indirect form of social influence and obedience is a direct form.

CONFORMITY
Conformity is the process of changing one’s attitude or behaviour in accordance with the
group norms, to act the same as other persons in one’s group.

Pressures towards conformity stem from the fact that in many contexts, there are explicit or
implicit rules indicating how we should or ought to behave. These rules are known as social norms.
In some instances they are detailed, precise and explicitly stated example- laws by the
government. Other norms are unspoken or implicit – speak respectfully to elders and juniors.
Similarly we are often influenced by current and rapidly changing standards of dress, speech and
grooming. Regardless of whether social norms are explicit or implicit, most people obey them
most of the time.

Without conformity, we would quickly find ourselves facing social chaos. With no one following
traffic rules or basic rules of etiquette, the world would be a crazy, disorganised and unpleasant
place.
CLASSIC EXPERIMENT- SOLOMON ASCH STUDY
Asch asked participants to respond to a series of simple perceptual problems such as the one in
the figure.

Standard line Comparison lines

On each problem each participant indicated which of the three comparison lines matched a
standard line in length. Several other persons (6-8) were also present but unknown to the real
participants, all were assistants (confederates) of the experimenter. On certain occasions, known
as critical trials, the confederated offered answers that were clearly wrong – they unanimously
chose the wrong line. Moreover, they stated their answers before the participants responded.

10
Thus, on these critical trials, the participants faced a dilemma – should they go along with the
other persons or stick to their own judgement?

A large majority of people chose conformity. Across several different studies, fully 76% of those
tested went along with the group’s false answers at least once; overall they voiced agreement with
these errors 37% of the time. In contrast only 5%of the participants in the control group, who
responded to the same problems alone, made such errors. These results clearly demonstrate the
powerful effects of conformity, even in a situation when the correct answer is obvious.

FACTORS AFFECTING CONFORMITY – WHY WE ‘CHOOSE’ TO GO ALONG

1. Informational influence – the behaviour of other people often provides useful information.
The tendency to conform based on informational influence depends on two aspects of the
situation – how well informed we believe the group is and how confident we are in our own
judgement. Anything that increases confidence in the correctness of the group should increase
conformity. Conversely, anything that leads us to doubt the group knowledge should decrease
conformity.
Example – a thirsty traveller at an oasis in the Sahara desert who sees Arabs drinking from one
well and avoiding another should copy them.
2. Normative influence – social desirability – we want to gain the approval or avoid disapproval
of others. We want others to accept us, like us and treat us well. People often learn that one
way to get along with the group is to go along with the group standards – this leads us to alter
our behaviour to meet other’s expectations. Such influences can be powerful. If individuals
learn that others they admire hold views different from their own, they won’t simply change
what they say in order to ‘fit in’. They often reinterpret the views expressed by these other
persons so that they can find these views more acceptable. They do considerable cognitive
work in order to be able to accept these views privately as well as endorse them in public.
3. Group size – according to Asch, conformity increased with group size but only up to three
members; beyond that point it seemed to level off or even decrease. Later theorists have found
that conformity tends to increase with group size up to 8 group members and beyond. So it
appears that larger the group, the greater our tendency to go along with it.
4. Types of social norms in operation – social norms can be descriptive or injunctive.
Descriptive norms are ones indicating what most people do in a given situation. Injunctive
norms specify what ought to be done – what is approved or disapproved behaviour in a given
situation. Some researchers believe that in situations where antisocial behaviour is likely to
occur, injunctive norms may exert somewhat stronger effects.
Findings suggest that both descriptive and injunctive social norms may influence our
behaviour through somewhat different mechanisms. A practical implication of this is that
efforts to change people’s behaviour should focus on activating the type of norms most likely

11
 to succeed. In situations where most people already behave in a pro-social manner, calling
their attention to this fact – activating a descriptive norm – may further strengthen this
tendency. In situations where many people do not behave in a pro- social manner, activating an
injunctive norm, and so reminding people of how they should behave may be more efficient.
5. Status – within a group, the status of a person also affects his or her susceptibility to
conformity pressures. Status is the evaluation of a role or person by the group. In general,
lower status people conform more than higher status people. However in some cases high
status leaders may conform more to group norms than people in non leadership roles in order
to maintain and bolster their leadership position by going along with other group members.
6. Similarity to the group – pressures to conform are greatest in groups in which the members
are similar to one another. This stems from people’s need for social comparison, in which they
use comparison with others to judge their own abilities, attitudes and behaviour. The more
similar others are to ourselves, the more apt we are to use them for comparison purposes.
Thus their social influence on our own behaviour is likely to be greater.

FACTORS DETERMINING DEVIANCE

Deviance is when people are able to not go along with the group. While some people adhere to
social norms most of the time, many do not conform completely, and certainly not all of them. Many
factors appear to be important, some are discussed below:

1. The desire of individuation – people differ in their willingness to do things that publicly
differentiate them from others. Whereas some people are more comfortable blending in,
others prefer to stand out. High individuation people are more likely to say that they have a
distinct way of dressing, unique nickname and own unique possessions. In a lab study of
conformity, high individuation subjects were less likely to go along with the majority view and
more likely to engage in what the researchers called “creative dissent”

2. Control – another reason why individuals choose to resist group pressures involves their
desire to maintain control over the events in their life and yielding to social pressure runs
counter to this desire. Going along with a group implies behaving in ways one might not
ordinarily choose which can be viewed as restriction on personal freedom and control. The
stronger an individual’s need of control, the less likely he is to conform.

3. Social supporter – having even a single social supporter – a person holding an opinion similar
to one’s own – typically allows an individual to remain independent of the group. For example,
in Asch’s classic studies, when a social supporter was present, conformity was reduced to 15%
of what it was when he was not present. The effect of having a social supporter is so powerful
that the competence of the supporter doesn’t even matter much. This is also known as group
unanimity.

12
 OBEDIENCE
Obedience refers to instances in which someone in a position of authority simply tells or
orders one or more persons to do something and they do it.

Persons who possess authority and could use it often prefer to exert influence through the velvet
glove – through requests rather than direct orders. Obedience occurs in many settings ranging
from school to military bases.

CLASSIC EXPERIMENT- DESTRUCTIVE OBEDIENCE – STANLEY MILGRAM

In his research, Milgram wished to learn whether individuals would obey commands from a
relatively powerless stranger requiring them to inflict what seemed to be considerable pain on a
totally innocent stranger. The experimenter informed participants (all males) that they were
taking part in an investigation of the effects of punishment on learning. One person in each pair of
participants would be the “learner” and would try to perform a simple task involving memory. The
other “teacher” would read the words to the learner and punish errors through electric shock
delivered through instruments placed in front of the ‘teacher’. The voltage of shocks ranged from
15 – 450 volts.

The role was determined by drawing slips which was rigged so that the participant would always
be the teacher and the assistant would always be the learner.

The teacher was then told to deliver a shock to the learner each time he made an error and
increase the strength of the shock with each error. This information was false; in reality the
assistant never received any shock. The only real shock was a mild pulse from button no 3 to
convince participants that equipment was real.

During the session, the learner made many errors (following a prearranged pattern). Thus
participants faced a dilemma – should they continue punishing with increasingly painful shocks?

If they hesitated, they were urged by the experimenter with comments like “please continue”.
Though some people did refuse to go on, an astounding 65% showed complete obedience even
when victim pounded on the wall or pretended to have passed out.

These results are not restricted to a single culture as similar findings were reported in studies in
several different countries with both children and adults.

FACTORS AFFECTING OBEDIENCE

13
 1. Transfer of responsibility – the persons in authority relieve those who obey off the
responsibility of their own actions – “I was only carrying out orders”. This transfer of
responsibility may be implicit; the person in charge is assumed to have the responsibility for
what happens. In Milgram’s experiments, the transfer of responsibility was explicit;
participants were told that the experimenter and not they would be responsible for the
learner’s well being.

2. Visible signs of authority – persons in authority often possess visible badges or signs of
their status. They wear special uniforms or insignia; have special titles and so on. Faced with
such obvious reminders of who is in charge, most people find it difficult to disobey.

3. Escalation of demands – in many situations where people might otherwise resist, there is a
gradual escalation of the authority figure’s orders. Initial commands may call for relatively
mild actions and only later do orders require behaviour that is dangerous or objectionable.
Participants in Milgram’s research were first required to deliver only mild and harmless
shocks. Only as the sessions continued did the intensity of these punishments rise to
potentially harmful events. Thus, people who have already obeyed orders and have thus
shown their allegiance find it difficult to show otherwise.

4. Fast pace of events – in many situations involving destructive obedience, events move very
quickly, demonstrations suddenly turn into riots, arrests into mass beatings. The fast pace
gives participants little time for reflection or systematic processing – people are ordered to
obey and almost automatically they do so. In Milgram’s research, within few minutes of
entering the laboratory, participants found themselves faced with commands to deliver
strong electric shocks to the learner.

5. Personality factors – people who characteristically attribute factors external to themselves

as the cause of their behaviour may be more prone to obedience than those who
characteristically attribute their behaviour to internal causes. Hence people who attribute
their actions to commands of another (external) may behave more obediently than those who
feel more personally responsible (internal attribution)

Many questions have been raised about how ethical Milgram’s experiments were. For instance,
some social psychologists suggest that it was unethical in the first place to put subjects in
situations in which they were pressed to carry out acts that normally would be unthinkable to
them. In reply to such criticisms, Milgram claimed that following the experiment a full debriefing
eradicated any negative outcomes of participation. Furthermore, long term follow ups also
indicated no effects due to participation.

14