1. What have we have covered so far?
Types of conformity
Explanations of conformity
Research into conformity
Variables affecting conformity
Times essay: Tuesday
Spider diagram of all the points we have covered so far.

2. What have we have covered so far?
Conformity
Types of conformity
Compliance
Identification
Internalisation
Explanations of conformity
Normative social influence
Informational social influence
Research into conformity
Asch (1956) opinion and social pressure
Zimbard0 (1973)
Variables affecting conformity
Size of group
Unanimity
Task difficulty
Times essay: Tuesday
Spider diagram of all the points we have covered so far.

3. Starter: exam questions page 34
Identify and briefly discuss two reasons why people have criticised Zimbardo’s prison study
Outline the procedures and findings of Zimbardo's research into conformity to social roles.

4. Identify and briefly discuss two reasons why people have criticised Zimbardo’s prison study.
One disadvantage of Zimbardo’s experiment is that it was highly unethical. For example, participants showed signs of psychological harm –The fact some prisoners had to be released early due to displays of a mental breakdown Additionally, guards who were particularly unpleasant may have felt guilt after leaving the experiment. However, there is question as whether or not the distress should have been anticipated in an experiment of this nature. Furthermore, Zimbardo has been criticized for his dual role of superintendent in the experiment. Zimbardo himself took part in the action and through his role became a participant observer. Zimbardo’s own behaviour affected the way in which events unfolded, thus the validity of the findings could be questioned

5. Briefly discuss two criticisms of Zimbardo's research into conformity to social roles.
Ethical issues: lack of informed consent, whether or not the consent gained was sufficiently informed; deception; lack of protection from psychological harm – whether or not the distress should have been anticipated.
Zimbardo playing a ‘dual-role’. 
Methodological issues: sample bias; demand characteristics/lack of internal validity; lack of ecological validity/mundane realism and their implications for the findings.

6. Outline the procedures and findings of Zimbardo's research into conformity to social roles.
Procedure: details of the sample, the basic set-up, how participants were recruited, processes used to deindividuate/establish roles, etc.
Findings: increased passivity of the 'prisoners' in the face of increased brutality of the 'guards'; study abandoned before 2 weeks; pathological reactions of the prisoners, etc.

7. Social influence Milgram (1963)

8. What are we covering next?
Obedience
Research into obedience
Milgram (1963)
Explanations of obedience:
The agency theory
Legitimate theory
Situational variables
Dispositional factors

9. Conformity and Obedience
Define conformity?
Form of social influence that refers to how an individual or small group change their behaviour and/or attitudes as a result of the influence of a larger group.
Define obedience?
Form of social influence whereby somebody acts in response to a direct order from a figure with perceived authority.
Compliance with authority
Submissive behaviour
Fulfilling commands

10. Factors that affect obedience Individual vs. situational explanations
Individual explanation: a person will behave in a particular way because of his/her own personality, genes, etc. (his/her disposition).
Situational explanation: a person’s environment leads them to behave in a particular way.

11. “Germans are different” hypothesis
Milgram set out to test whether:
Germans have a basic character flaw which is a readiness to obey authority without question (dispositional) OR
Given the right environmental cues, extreme obedience could be produced in anybody (situational)
Wanted to disprove the “Germans are different” hypothesis.

12. Experimental scenario…
Imagine you and another participant arrive at a laboratory for an experiment called "The Effects of Punishment on Learning." You’ll be paid for participating. After an experimenter greets you, he randomly assigns you to be the "teacher" and the other participant to be the "learner."

13. The learner is led to another room and hooked up to a machine that will give the learner a shock for each mistake that they make. Your job as teacher is to read a list of word pairs to the learner, and the learner’s job is to remember these pairs.

14. After reading the list of word pairs, you will go back through the list and read the first word of the pair followed by several word options. The learner will attempt to come up with the right answer. If the learner gives the right answer go onto the next word pair.

15. If the learner gives the wrong answer, you must press a lever on the shock generator. With each mistake the learner makes, you are to move to the next lever, which will give him a higher shock.

16. Question…
At what voltage level would you refuse to continue shocking the learner?
Discuss with the people around you. When you’re done, stick your post-it note in the appropriate column on the chart.

17. As you are watching, make notes on the:
Milgram (1963)
As you are watching, make notes on the:
Aim
Method
Results
Conclusion

18. Video

19. Milgram Research ignited by WW2 and Nazi Germany
Aimed to measure the nature of obedience and the ‘Germans are different’ hypothesis -an example of dispositional attribution, that is, the cause of the behaviour is thought to have resulted from the person’s own personality or characteristics.

20. Aim
The aim of the experiment was to investigate what level of obedience would be shown when subjects were told by an authority figure to administer electric shocks to another person.

21. Sample of Participants
40 males aged between 20 and 50 years of age, were drawn from the New Haven area.
They were obtained by responding to a newspaper and direct mail advertisement which asked for volunteers to participate in a study of memory and learning at Yale University.

22. The experiment

23. Procedure
The naive participant was asked to draw a slip of paper from a hat to determine which role he would play.
The draw was rigged so the participant was always the teacher and Mr. Wallace (the confederate) was always the learner.

24. Procedure
Each study would involve one teacher and one learner, the ‘teacher’ being the participant. The ‘teacher’ was taken into a room where the learner was strapped into an electric chair, to prevent excessive movement when the shocks were delivered.
An electrode was attached to the learner’s wrist and also attached to a shock generator in the next room. The experimenter advised the learner, ‘although the shocks can be extremely painful, they cause no permanent tissue damage’.

25. The Learning Task
The ‘teacher’ was asked to read a series of word pairs to the ‘learner’, and then read the first word of the pair along with four terms. The ‘learner’ had to indicate which of the four terms originally went with the first word.

26. The Shock Generator
This machine had 30 switches each labelled with a number starting from 15 to 450 volts; there were also labels to describe intensity.
In order to convince the subject that the shocks were genuine, they were given a sample shock of 45 volts on their wrist.
The ‘teacher’ was told to give a shock for a wrong response and announce the voltage each time, reminding the participant of how intense the shocks were.

27. The Experimenter’s standardised prods
If the teacher asked the experimenter if the learner would suffer any permanent physical injury, the experimenter replied as follows, followed by the prods:
Although the shocks may be painful, there is no permanent tissue damage, so please go on…..
Whether the learner likes it or not, you must go on until he has learned all the word pairs correctly, so please go on…..
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.

28. Results
All 40 of the participants obeyed up to 300 volts at which point 5 refused to continue.
Four more gave one further shock before refusing
two broke off at the 330 volts level and one each at 345, 360 and 375 volts.
Therefore, a total of 14 (35%) participants defied the experimenter
26 (65%) obeyed and gave shocks up to 450 volts
For many of the subjects, the crucial ‘prod’ which allowed for their internal authority (their conscience) to triumph over the external authority (the experimenter) was when the experimenter said “You have no other choice, you must go on.”.

29. Results
Participants sweated, trembled, stuttered, bit their lips, groaned, dug fingernails into their flesh, and these were typical not exceptional responses.
Quite a common sign of tension was nervous laughing fits (14 out of 40 participants), which seemed entirely out of place, even bizarre.
Full-blown uncontrollable seizures were observed for three participants.
With few exceptions, participants were convinced of the reality of the situation,
In the post-experimental interview, participants were asked: ‘How painful to the learner were the last few shocks you administered to him?’ On a printed 14-point scale ranging from 1 (‘not at all painful’) to 14 (‘extremely painful’), the modal response was 14, with a mean of

30. Debriefing
The extensive debriefing was carefully carried out with all of the participants.
During the debriefing:
they were reunited with the unharmed Mr. Wallace
They were assured that no shock had been delivered
Obedient participants were assured that their behaviour was entirely normal and that their feelings of conflict and tension were shared by other subjects, while defiant participants were supported in their decision to disobey the experimenter
All participants received a comprehensive report when all the experiments were over detailing the procedure and the results, and they were also sent a follow-up questionnaire regarding their participation.
Nearly 84% of participants said that they were glad or very glad to have participated
Less than 2% said they were sorry or very sorry to have participated.
80% felt that more experiments of this kind should be carried out.
74% had learned something of personal importance.

31. Conclusions
High levels of obedience can be brought about in any individual with the appropriate situational conditions.
The “German’s are different” hypothesis can be rejected.
The conflict experienced by the p’s that created the tension/stress was the desire not to harm other people and the tendency to obey those in authority.
Obedience is a deeply ingrained behaviour tendency often overriding ethics, training, sympathy and moral conduct.
Milgram commented on two findings:
1. The strength of the obedient tendencies
2.The extraordinary tension/stress generated by the procedures

32. Being paid increased the sense of obligation.
Milgram put forward nine possible features of the experiment which may explain why such high levels of obedience occurred even when such extreme tension was created by the procedure:
The fact that the experiment took place at the prestigious Yale University lent the study and procedure credibility and respect.
The participant believed that the experiment was for a worthy purpose - to advance knowledge and understanding of learning processes.
The participant believed the victim had volunteered to be in the study and therefore has an obligation to take part even if the procedures become unpleasant.
The participant felt himself to be similarly obligated to take part in the procedures as planned.
Being paid increased the sense of obligation.

33. ·As far as the participant was concerned, the roles of learner and teacher had been allocated fairly, by drawing lots. Thus the learner could not feel aggrieved that he had been unfairly assigned his role.
·As most participants had never been a participant in a psychology experiment before, they had little idea about the rights and expectations of experimenter and participant. The situation was novel and there were no norms operating and nobody with whom to discuss ambiguities and doubts.
The participants had been assured that the shocks were ‘painful but not dangerous’. This short-term pain was balanced with the possibility of long-term scientific gain.
The victim responded to all of the questions until the 300 volt level was reached. They had thus indicated their willingness to take part.

34. Lacks ecological validity
Strengths
Showed how easily people obey without question .
Replicable design
Control of variables
Real world applications
Internal validity
Causation
Application
Weaknesses
Lacks ecological validity
Demand characteristics
Ethics!!
Population validity
Socially sensitive

35. Still evident today?

36. Milgram Evaluation

37. Starter
Describe the method of one study looking into obedience (6 marks)

38. Should a psychological study...
Put the participants wellbeing first?
Put the knowledge and understanding of human behaviour first...?
Which is the most important thing??

39. As we know, Milgram’s experiment is one of the most controversial psychological studies ever carried out.
It is incredibly unethical by today’s standards of research and has been heavily criticised.
Psychiatrist Bruno Bettelheim argued; “These experiments are so vile, the intention with which they were engaged in is so vile, that nothing these experiments show has any value.”
But do you agree?

40. However... Psychologists must weigh up the costs against the benefits.
They must ask; “What are the costs to the participants versus the benefits of understanding that can be gained from the results?”

41. Evaluation: Milgram
Page 39

42. Your brief
Groups of four and decide who will take each of the four roles: Milgram, the psychologist, the prison specialist and the lay person. The roles are described in the box below left.
Consider ‘Some things each person should think about’ (see box below right). Prepare either your argument (if you are Milgram) or questions (if you are member of the ethics committee).
Milgram will be given two minutes to state his case for being allowed to go ahead with his research and then the ethics committee will have a further three minutes to question him.
Based on the arguments, the three members of the ethics committee should then vote as to whether they would allow Milgram to go ahead.
The final decision must be a Yes or No and written on the Post-it provided.

43. Activity: page 38 Identify two ethical issues in Milgram’s research:
For each issue state
The Issue (1):
Say why this is an issue in this research (refer to details of the study)
How could this issue have been dealt with? (name a technique and describe how it would work)

44. Milgram put forward nine possible features of the experiment which may explain why such high levels of obedience occurred even when such extreme tension was created by the procedure:
The fact that the experiment took place at the prestigious Yale University lent the study and procedure credibility and respect.
The participant believed that the experiment was for a worthy purpose - to advance knowledge and understanding of learning processes.
The participant believed the victim had volunteered to be in the study and therefore has an obligation to take part even if the procedures become unpleasant.
The participant felt himself to be similarly obligated to take part in the procedures as planned.
Being paid increased the sense of obligation.

45. As far as the participant was concerned, the roles of learner and teacher had been allocated fairly, by drawing lots. Thus the learner could not feel aggrieved that he had been unfairly assigned his role.
As most participants had never been a participant in a psychology experiment before, they had little idea about the rights and expectations of experimenter and participant. The situation was novel and there were no norms operating and nobody with whom to discuss ambiguities and doubts.
The participants had been assured that the shocks were ‘painful but not dangerous’. This short-term pain was balanced with the possibility of long-term scientific gain.
The victim responded to all of the questions until the 300 volt level was reached. They had thus indicated their willingness to take part.

46. Milgram’s Variations (Activity 3)
In pairs estimate the rate (%) of obedience to authority for each of the variations of the study.
Write it in the estimate box. The estimate reflects the percentage of participants who administered the highest level shock.
Think about why you think those estimates as well!
Leave the other boxes blank. We will fill these in as a class!

47. Plenary: Variation of Milgram’s study
% giving 450V
Original study
Location (Office block)
Proximity
(Teacher & Learner present in the room)
(Teacher hold learners hand on shock plate)
Distant authority figure (over a telephone)
Conflicting experimenters
How many out of the 40? 65%
47.5% (office block)
40% (in the same room as one another)
30% (held learners hand on plate)
20.5% (over telephone)
0% (went against each others instructions)

48. (legitimate authority/ situational variable: location)
Variation 3: The experiment took place in a run down office rather than a prestigious university.
(legitimate authority/ situational variable: location)
48%
In the original study, the experimenter was conducted in a prestigious institution (Yale university)
But in this variation the experiment was moved to a seedy office and the experimenter was just a member of the public.
Supports the view that greater prestige = higher obedience rate

49. 40% Variation 1: The Teacher and Learner were in the same room.
(situational variable: proximity)
40%
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 being inflicted on the learner directly.

50. 30% Variation 4: Teacher forces learners hand onto plate.
(situational variable: proximity)
30%
In the original study, the teacher and the learner were in a separate room
But in this variation the teacher had to force the learners; hand onto an electrode plate to deliver the shock.
Supports the view that when the teacher is faced more directly with the consequences of their actions, obedience is less likely.

51. (situational variable: proximity)
Variation 2: The experimenter left the room and issued instructions by telephone.
(situational variable: proximity)
21%
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.

52. (situational variable: location)
Variation 5: Experimenter was played by an ordinary member of the public
(situational variable: location)
20%
In the original study, the experimenter was conducted in a prestigious institution (Yale university)
But in this variation the experiment was moved to a seedy office and the experimenter was just a member of the public.
Supports the view that greater prestige = higher obedience rate

53. 65% Variation: 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.
How many out of the 40? 65%
47.5% (office block)
40% (in the same room as one another)
30% (held learners hand on plate)
20.5% (over telephone)
0% (went against each others instructions)

54. 40% Variation: 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.

55. 2.5% Variation: 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.