Social Influence

Obedience

Milgram’s Study (1963)

The aim of Milgram’s study was to test whether ordinary Americans would obey an unjust order and inflict pain on another person because they were instructed to do so by an authority figure.

The procedure involved 40 American males aged between 20 and 50 years who responded to an advertisement in a newspaper for an experiment into memory and learning. They were paid 4.50 dollars for participating.

Participants were greeted by two confederates, one acting as the experimenter wearing a white lab coat, and the other playing the role of the learner. The participant was always allocated the role of the teacher.

The teacher sat in front of a shock generator in an adjoining room, which ranged from 15 volts to 450 volts and included labels such as “severe shock”.

The learner was required to answer questions. Each time the learner gave a wrong answer, the teacher had to administer a shock, increasing the voltage by 15 volts each time. Any non-response was treated as a wrong answer.

The learner deliberately gave three wrong answers to every correct answer. He made no protest until 300 volts, shouted at 315 volts, and then made no further noise.

There were four standardised prods used by the experimenter: “Please continue”, “The experiment requires that you continue”, “It is absolutely essential that you continue”, and “You have no other choice, you must go on”.

The findings showed that all participants continued to at least 300 volts, and only five refused to continue beyond this point. A total of 26 participants, which is 65 percent, continued to the maximum of 450 volts.

The conclusion was that obedience is more likely to be explained by situational factors rather than dispositional ones, as most people would obey authority in such situations.

Evaluation of Milgram’s Research

One strength of Milgram’s research is its ecological validity. Although some have criticised the study for not reflecting real-life situations, Hofling (1966) conducted a study in a hospital setting and found similar levels of obedience, with 21 out of 22 nurses administering what they believed to be a dangerous dose of medication when instructed by a doctor.

A limitation concerns ethics. Milgram deceived participants about the true aim of the study and gave them the impression that they could not withdraw due to the use of prods. Many participants showed signs of stress and guilt. However, Milgram reported that 83.7 percent of participants were glad they had taken part when asked during the debriefing.

Another limitation relates to internal validity. Orne and Holland (1968) suggested that participants may not have believed the situation was real, and therefore their obedience may not reflect genuine behaviour. However, Sheridan and King (1972) found that participants were willing to administer real electric shocks to a puppy, suggesting that Milgram’s findings were genuine.

Explanations for Obedience

Situational Explanations

The agentic state is when a person obeys orders from an authority figure and does not feel responsible for their actions. This occurs because the individual shifts from an autonomous state to an agentic state.

Legitimacy of authority refers to the perception that the person giving orders has the right to do so. Factors such as uniform and location can increase this perception of authority.

Situational Variables

Proximity refers to the physical closeness of the authority figure or victim. When the learner is in the same room as the teacher, obedience decreases. Similarly, when instructions are given over the phone, obedience also decreases.

Location refers to the setting in which the study takes place. When the experiment is conducted in a less prestigious environment, such as a run-down office, obedience decreases compared to a prestigious university setting.

Uniform refers to the clothing of the authority figure. The presence of a uniform, such as a lab coat, increases obedience because it signals authority. When the experimenter does not wear a uniform, obedience decreases.

Variations of Milgram

When someone else administered the shock instead of the participant, obedience increased to 92.5 percent.

When the study was conducted in a run-down office block, obedience dropped to 48 percent.

When the teacher and learner were in the same room, obedience dropped to 40 percent.

When instructions were given over the phone, obedience dropped to 21 percent.

When the authority figure was replaced by an ordinary man in plain clothes, obedience dropped to 20 percent.

Evaluation of Situational Explanations

A limitation of the agentic shift explanation is that it cannot account for all situations. For example, Rank and Jacobson (1977) found that 16 out of 18 nurses disobeyed a doctor’s order to administer an excessive dose of a drug, suggesting that situational explanations alone are insufficient.

A strength of legitimacy of authority is that it is supported by research evidence. Bickman (1974) found that people were more likely to obey instructions, such as picking up litter, when the person giving the order was dressed as a security guard rather than in ordinary clothing.

There are issues with cultural validity. Although some of Milgram’s findings have been replicated in other countries, there is still limited research conducted in non-Western cultures, making it difficult to generalise the findings globally.

A limitation is that these explanations may be seen as excusing harmful behaviour. Mandel (1998) argued that such explanations could be used to justify actions such as those carried out by the Nazis, as they focus too heavily on situational factors and ignore dispositional influences.

Dispositional Explanations

Authoritarian Personality

Adorno et al. (1950) developed the F-scale to measure the authoritarian personality in a sample of 2000 white middle-class Americans. Individuals who scored highly on this scale tended to identify with strong authority figures and showed contempt towards those seen as weaker.

Such individuals tend to have rigid and inflexible beliefs, seeing the world in black and white terms. They also display strong respect for authority and are more likely to obey authority figures.

It is believed that this personality develops as a result of a harsh upbringing, leading to resentment towards parents. This hostility is displaced onto minority groups later in life.

Evaluation of Authoritarian Personality

There is some support for the authoritarian personality explanation. Elms and Milgram (1966) found that participants who were more obedient in Milgram’s study scored higher on the F-scale than those who were more disobedient.

However, not all obedient individuals show the characteristics of an authoritarian personality. Some participants in Milgram’s study who were obedient did not report having harsh childhoods, suggesting that other factors may be involved.

A further limitation is that it is unrealistic to assume that entire populations share the same personality traits. For example, it is unlikely that all individuals in Nazi Germany possessed an authoritarian personality.

 

Resistance to Social Influence

Social Support

Social support occurs when the presence of others who resist social influence increases an individual’s confidence to do the same. This reduces the fear of rejection and allows individuals to act independently.

In Asch’s study, the presence of a confederate who gave the correct answer reduced conformity to 5 percent.

In Milgram’s variation, when participants were paired with two other individuals who refused to continue, obedience dropped significantly to 10 percent.

Evaluation of Social Support

There is research support for the role of social support. Allen and Levine (1971) found that conformity decreased when there was a dissenting individual, even if that person appeared unreliable.

Gamson et al. (1982) found that when participants were asked in groups to take part in unethical behaviour, 88 percent resisted, suggesting that group support increases resistance.

There is also real-world application. Albrecht et al. (2006) found that adolescents who had a supportive peer were less likely to begin smoking, showing that social support can influence behaviour outside laboratory settings.

Locus of Control

Locus of control refers to an individual’s perception of control over their behaviour and life events. It ranges from internal to external.

Individuals with an internal locus of control believe that they have control over their own actions and are therefore more likely to resist social influence. They tend to be more independent, confident, and achievement-oriented.

Individuals with an external locus of control believe that their behaviour is controlled by external factors such as luck or authority, making them more likely to conform and obey.

Oliner and Oliner (1998) found that individuals who resisted orders during Nazi Germany were more likely to have an internal locus of control.

Evaluation of Locus of Control

There is supporting research for locus of control. Holland (1967) found that individuals with an internal locus of control were more likely to resist obedience in a replication of Milgram’s study.

However, other research contradicts this. Schurz (1985) found that locus of control did not always predict obedience, as many participants still administered high levels of shocks.

Longitudinal research by Twenge et al. (2004) found that although people have become more resistant to social influence over time, they have also become more external, which contradicts expectations.

Rotter (1982) suggested that locus of control is only a factor in new situations, and that past experiences may influence behaviour more strongly.

 

Minority Influence

Minority influence occurs when a small group influences the majority to change their views or behaviours.

Commitment refers to the extent to which a minority demonstrates dedication to their position. This may involve making personal sacrifices, which draws attention to their cause. This is known as the augmentation principle.

Consistency refers to the minority consistently expressing the same view over time. This includes synchronic consistency, where all members agree, and diachronic consistency, where they maintain the same views over time.

Flexibility refers to the minority’s willingness to compromise and consider alternative viewpoints. A balance must be maintained, as being too rigid may appear unreasonable, while being too flexible may appear inconsistent.

Evaluation of Minority Influence

There is supporting research for minority influence. Moscovici (1969) found that participants were more likely to agree with a minority when it was consistent compared to when it was inconsistent.

A meta-analysis by Wood et al. (1994) also found that consistency is an important factor in minority influence, after analysing a large number of studies.

Research has also shown that people are more likely to agree with a minority in private rather than in public, suggesting that minority influence may lead to internalisation.

However, there are issues with ecological validity. Many of these studies involve artificial tasks, such as judging colours, which may not reflect real-life situations where decisions have greater consequences.