1. Describe and evaluate two studies of social influence. [12 marks]
Before we get started I want to show you what exam question we are heading towards…
Describe and evaluate two studies of social influence.
[12 marks]
While I take the register think about what studies you could include, what kind of social influence they investigate and other studies that support of challenge them.

2. Obedience and Defiance of Authority

3. What is Obedience to Authority?
OUTCOMES:
E – D:To be know a definition for obedience and the difference between OBEDIENCE and CONFORMITY
C: To be able to apply knowledge to real life situations
C – A: To be able to describe and evaluate a study on obedience
D – A: To be able to create and answer levelled questions

4. What is Obedience to Authority?
In small groups identify what you think obedience is, why we obey- write your ideas down
Extension activity- On your own- come up with a definition of obedience

5. What is Obedience to Authority?
“A type of social influence where someone acts in response to satisfy a direct order from authority.”

6. Social Influence What is Obedience?
A more direct form of social influence where the individual has less choice to give way.
The individual is faced with the choice to comply with an order from a member of authority, or whether to defy the order.
They might choose not to defy the order for fear of punishment.

7. An example
If your boss at work tells you to clean the toilet – you will probably do it, even if you don’t really think it’s fair that you should have to.
What is this similar to? (think conformity!)

8. Why is it not conformity?
Identify why the example is not conformity:

9. Conformity
Obedience
What is it?
Going along with the crowd/yielding to group pressure
Changing our behaviour to follow the demands of an authority figure
Who ‘asks’?
Nobody actually has to ask! We act to please peers, friends, social group, or to resolve ambiguity.
Authority figures: parents, teachers (no don’t laugh!), police, government etc.
Why do we do it?
To be accepted, liked or just to fit in, to avoid feeling silly or in a situation when we don’t know what to do.
To avoid punishment or unpleasant consequences
Extension activity- think of real life examples that can be applied to obedience to support the ideas presented in the table

10. Research into Obedience
STAR STUDY: Milgram
ALSO KNOW: Hoffling
Hofling
Stanley Milgram

11. The Milgram Experiment
A Star Study!
Like Asch, and Zimbardo it is a key study – so know it inside & out!

12. The premise of the Study
There is a teacher and a learner
The learner is strapped to a chair with electric shock plates.
The learner answers Qs
For any incorrect answers the teacher must give an electric shock by pressing a switch on a generator
For each incorrect answer the voltage of shock must be increased
From 15 to 450 Volts

13. The TEACHER heard a dialogue from the LEARNER next door
Statements including
“Ow, I can’t stand the pain. Don’t do that”
“Let me out of here. My heart’s bothering me!”
“Let me out - my heart’s bothering me, let me out!”
After this the LEARNER falls ominously Silent (as if he is dead!)
If the TEACHER tried to refuse to `shock` the experimenter gave a set of scripted Prods
Prod 1: please continue.
Prod 2: the experiment requires you to continue.
Prod 3: It is absolutely essential that you continue.
Prod 4: you have no other choice but to continue

14. The Milgram Experiment - RESULTS
Results: 65% (two-thirds) of participants (i.e. teachers) continued to the highest level of 450 volts. All the participants continued to 300 volts.
Before the study – Milgram asked experts how far people would go – the consensus was thast most pps would stop at 150 volts
100%
65%

15. Conclusion: Ordinary people are extremely obedient to authority, even when asked to behave In an inhumane manner. It is not evil people who commit atrocities, but ordinary people obeying authority. But why does this happen? Think of things you heard in the Milgram video When the participants heard that the full responsibility was the experimenter’s they continued to obey. This is known as the ‘agentic state’ and the shift from seeing yourself as an autonomous individual to a subordinate of others who carries out orders to but does not feel personally responsibility form them is called the ‘agentic shift’

16. Social Influence Who agrees and disagrees with Milgram?
Beaumrind (1964) – Milgram placed his participants under great emotional strain causing psychological damage!
Darley (1992) – the experience of administering shocks may activate an evil aspect of an individuals personality, they feel more motivated to repeat the actions.
Hofling et al. (1996) conducted a study in a hospital (realistic setting). Nurses were telephoned by Dr Smith who asked them to give a drug to a patient. Nurses should not take orders over the phone and the dosage was double. 95% did as requested. This shows that obedience does take place in real life settings!
Rank and Jacobson (1975) repeated this, however the drug was familiar and they were allowed to consult their peers (more realistic?) 89% refused.

17. Evaluating the Study
Ethics
Methodological issues

18. Ethical issues
Informed consent – was not obtained from pps – this means they weren’t aware of what they were going to be doing.
Right to withdraw: If pps tried to leave the experimenter issues a number of prods to make them continue
Protection from harm: Milgram’s pps suffered from stress of the experiment, one even had convulsions – no long term effects reported but still the case that ppl had to live with the knowledge that they would have obeyed to the extent of killing someone!
Deception: PPs had to be deceived in order to avoid demand characteristics, this raises the issue of whether pps would still have been happy to take part if they knew what the study was really about beforehand.

19. Methodological issues
Sample was purely American men this means that we cannot necessarily generalise results and assume all people will behave in the same way – however, the study has been replicated across cultures and found similar results.
Potentially the pps may have displayed demand characteristics, having guessed the experimental hypothesis – however a lot was done to convince pps that the experiment was really about learning, so this seems unlikely
Lacks mundane realism- not an everyday obedience task
Low ecological validity- lab environment

20. Key Study 2: Hofling
Example of obedience in a filed experiment

21. Factors affecting obedience

22. 1) Location
What is it? Location relates to where the experiment is carried out and the prestige of this location (e.g. a university is more prestigious and conveys a more legitimate impression than a run down office block. (AO1)
What is its effect? Location should have the following effect: obedience should be higher in a more prestigious and legitimate location, BECAUSE ps’s are likely to feel the experiment is more important and feel like they should obey. (AO2)

23. Research
Evidence for factor: Milgram – variation of same experiment, but carried out in run down office block instead. Obedience drops to 47.5% (1 x AO1)
CONCLUSION: This suggests that the location and prestige of location influences obedience, as a location which is more legitimate leads to increased obedience. (1 x AO2)

24. 40% Social Influence Variation 1: Proximity of Victim
In the original study, the teacher and learner (victim) were seated in separate rooms.
But in this variation they were seated in the same room.
The obedience level dropped to 40%. This was because the teacher could experience the pain/consequences being inflicted on the learner directly.

25. 21% Social Influence Variation 2: Proximity of Authority
In the original study, the experimenter sat in the same room as the teacher, closely monitoring them.
But in this variation they gave their orders via telephone.
The majority defied the experimenter, only 21% gave maximum shock level.
No physical authority figure present = less pressure. Teachers were under less scrutiny and experienced less fear.

26. 40% Social Influence Variation 3: Presence of Allies
Three participants (1 real and two confederates) shared the task.
When the two confederate participants refused to carry on, almost all real participants also withdrew.
Only 40% administered maximum shock.
They used the judgement of their peers as a reason for causing further harm to the victim.

27. 2.5% Social Influence Variation 4:Increasing the Discretion
Teachers were given the choice of shock level they could administer.
Only one participant out of 40, gave the maximum shock!
Most refused to give a shock which caused the learner to protest again.

28. 65% Social Influence Variation 5:Participants were Female
No male-female differences in obedience were found.
Although females did report feeling more stressed than men.
This implies that differences in sex is not a major factor in obedience to authority.

29. Nazi Germany & Holocaust
Social Influence
5 minutes
To Start: Why do we obey?
Consider the two pictures. In pairs consider all the reasons why people obey? What factors might affect obedience?
Milgram
Nazi Germany & Holocaust

30. Explanations of Obedience Why do people obey authority?
Situational explanations
Agency Theory.
Graduated commitment
Legitimacy
Justifying obedience
The role of buffers
Dispositional explanations
Authoritarian personality

31. How to DISCUSS Explanations
Don’t forget that structure for answering Qs:
State explanation and DEFINE what it is
Suggest the effect on obedience (increase/decrease obedience) and say WHY you expect it to have this effect
Explain evidence investigating this explanation (including results)
Use this evidence – what does it reveal about the explanation
Any other relevant evidence or perhaps a real life example to illustrate the point.

32. 1. Agency Theory (see hand out on moodle)
Who is `responsible`
When we follow the instructions of an authority figure we feel less responsible for our actions- we are in an ‘agentic shift’ (acting as ‘agents’, lack a sense of personal responsibility)
When experimenter left the room- autonomous state- feeling responsible
Real life: ‘simply following orders’

33. 2. Graduated commitment Committing to obedience in small steps
Milgram: Shocks started at 15V and then slowly increased in 15V steps
Small steps= hard to back out
FEW would obey if it started on 300V
“Foot in the door technique”
Method of starting with small request &
gradually increasing
Often used as sales technique
Crimes of obedience: Gradual stages from the
acceptable into the unthinkable!!

34. 3. Legitimate authority
How much power the person asking has.
We learn that we are more acceptable if we obey those who have authority over us (parents, teachers etc)
Can be because we TRUST them
Can be because they may punish us
Some examples
Milgram at Yale ppt more obedience than in shop in NY.
Setting influenced trust levels
Hofling -21/22 willing to obey – power of Drs. Nurses often obey even when orders are dubious!

35. 4. Justifying obedience
In Milgram’s study there was an initial justification that the shocks were part of an experiment because science wants to help improve their memory through the use of reward and punish
People more likely to surrender their freedom of action if the cause is justified.
5. Role of buffers
Similar to the factor of proximity to victim- if the ‘teacher’ is protected (buffered) from seeing the consequences obedience increased.

36. Dispositional Explanations
Disposition relates to `personality`
Basically suggests there is an Authoritarian personality, which can explain why people obey.
Milgram didn’t believe there was any dispositional explanation, but Adorno proposed an authoritarian personality.
Studied over 2000 American students, interviews about political views and childhood experiences.
Projective tests (presented with a neutral stimuli and asked to describe what going on)- to assess racial prejudice

37. Adorno’s Authoritarian Personality
Adorno investigated the notion using questionnaires and found that the Authoritarian personality was supported and such a person is characterised by 4 traits:
Hostility to ppl believed to be of lower status
Respect for people perceived to be of higher status
A preoccupation with power
Blind respect for authority

38. Social Influence Evaluation of Explanations
Mandel (1998): Milgram’s explanations are too simple when applied to the Holocaust and Nazi Germany. He ignored many other plausible explanations.
Goldhagen (1996) – Anti Semitism was the main motivation in the Holocaust, not obedience. This was countless and unnecessary cruelty.
There is a major difference between Milgram’s participants and the Holocaust guards. The perpetrators of the holocaust carried out duties over months and years and knew they were going to cause physical harm/death. The participants in Milgram’s study were obeying for half an hour and were told that no permanent damage would be caused. Therefore, Milgram’s explanations cannot be applied to all real life situations of obedience!
The suggestion that Holocaust perpetrators were just obeying orders, is distressing for those affected by it. Obeying orders is not a good enough reason for committing crime!

39. Real life implications
Abu Ghraib
In 2003 The USA invaded Iraq under the belief from CIA intelligence that there were weapons of mass destruction present in the country. US troops took control of Abu Ghraib prison near Bagdad in April of 2003, then in January of 2004 Army Specialist Joseph Darby handed over a computer disc to a military investigator containing pictures of abuse taking place at Abu Ghraib. In April 2004 CBS decided to broadcast the pictures of the abuse, this caused an international uproar with the Bush administration condemning the abusive soldiers as a few bad eggs.
The abuse which took place at Abu Ghraib was similar to behaviours which were seen during Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison experiment.
Milgram’s (1963) obedience study can also be used as a possible explanation for why the behaviour of the soldiers at Abu Ghraib was so extreme. The soldiers claimed that they were told by superiors to ‘soften up’ the prisoners; however the army denied this
obedience-and-abu-ghraib/

40. Social Influence Task: Elaboration Ladders 15 minutes
For each explanation of Obedience complete an elaboration ladder.
Make a Point – Describe the Explanation
State the Evidence – What evidence is there from Milgram’s study?
Elaborate on how this explains obedience to authority.
Elaborate
Evidence
Point

41. Social Influence Task: Elaboration Ladders 15 minutes
Milgram’s evidence supports the idea that individuals will only obey if they believe the reason for doing it is for a purpose, such as for science.
Elaborate
In Milgram’s study, the participants were initially told they were delivering electric shocks because they wanted to investigate if people could learn through reward and punishment. It was in the name of science. The participants who were less likely to obey were told to take orders because ‘the experimenter requires it.’
Evidence
Justification of Obedience. People are more likely to obey to orders if they feel they are doing it for a good cause or the reason is important.
Point