C82SAD: Obedience and Conformity Power and Influence

1. C82SAD: Obedienceand Conformity Power and Influence • Power is the capacity or ability to exert influence (Hogg & Vaughan, 2005) • Raven’s (1965) Sources of Power: • Reward power • Coercive power • Informational power • Expert power • Legitimate power • Referent power

2. Power and Influence • No real attempts to support reward and coercive power, assumed (Collins & Raven, 1969) • Information can potentially have the power to influence but not all information, depends on a number of factors e.g. source authority (see persuasion) • Good example: Bochner & Insko (1966) experiment on sleep using a Nobel prize-winner vs. YMCA instructor • Legitimate power is based on obedience (see later)

3. Power and Influence • Other models of power provided by Moscovici (1976) • Power vs influence • Power = control by domination that produces compliance and submission • Influence = process of changing attitudes, persuasion is a form of influence • People in power need not resort to ‘influence’; they have it already • Power is also a social ‘role’, people take on the role of ‘leader’ and can influence group members

4. Power and Influence • Stanford prison experiment (Haney, Banks, & Zimbardo, 1973) • UG students volunteered to participate in the study 2-week study • Randomly assigned to roles of prisoners and guards • Guards given power over prisoners – control of resources, mete out rewards and punishment

5. Power and influence • Entire basement of Stanford University Psychology Department used to setup a ‘mock’ prison • Prisoners were ‘arrested’ at their residences, made to wear prison issue uniforms (‘dresses’), placed in cells, limited freedom to exercise, interact • Guards observed to resort to tyranny and anti-social behaviours to keep prisoners in line

6. Power and influence • Brutality of the ‘guards’ and suffering of the prisoners resulted in the experiment being abandoned after only 6 days • Suggestion that guards were depersonalised in the group and their ‘role’ losing their individuality • Therefore ‘tyranny’ was ‘embedded’ in the psychology of powerful groups – group of people in ‘social roles’ create ‘group norms’ and comply with them • Group norms = acceptable beliefs and behaviours in a group

7. Criticisms of The Stanford Prison Experiment 1. Findings not been fully reported in scientific publications, can only be evaluated through limited footage and website material 2. Evidence of resistance by the prisoners and some of the majority of the guards did not act tyrannically has largely been ignored 3. Claims that guard tyranny was a spontaneous product of the role and the norms were overstated, Zimbardo’s leadership may have been influential “Guard aggression was emitted simply as a consequence of being in the uniform of a guard and asserting the power inherent in that role” (Haney et al., 1973, p. 62)

8. Criticisms of The Stanford Prison Experiment It seems that Zimbardo’s briefing of the guards gave them some license to behave tyrannically: “You can create in the Prisoners feelings of boredom, as sense of fear to some degree, you can create a notion of arbitrariness that their life is totally controlled by us, by the system, you, me and they’ll have no privacy…They have no freedom of action they can do nothing, say nothing that we don’t permit. We’re going to take away their individuality in various ways. In general what this all leads to is a sense of powerlessness” (Zimbardo, 1989)

9. Psychology of Tyranny:‘The Experiment’ • Do all powerful groups resort to tyranny (as the Stanford Prison experiment suggests)? • Haslam and Reicher (2003) conducted an additional experiment to study whether Zimbardo’s findings could be replicated • Gave minimal instructions to participants about ‘roles’ of ‘guard’ and ‘prisoner’ • Set of ‘rules’ including non-violence • Control and power over resources, punishment given to ‘guards’ – would they be prepared to use them? • Careful control over experiment at all times – ethical considerations

10. Psychology of Tyranny:‘The Experiment’ Findings of the experiment: • Power can be exerted through clear and consistent dissent and group ‘impermeability’ • Interpretation of roles and internalisation of group norms important (‘prisoners’ initially more consistent and cohesive than ‘guards’) • Guard ‘control’ initially satisfactory through use of ‘promotion’ • Cohesive ‘prisoner’ group exploit the inconsistent, uncohesive ‘guard’ group to exert power

11. Social influence processes • Milgram (1963): Classic but controversial study of compliance under duress from an ‘expert’ experimenter • Near lethal electric shocks applied to ‘stooge’ connected to apparatus in mock learning study. • Milgram (1974) explained that subjects felt under pressure but did not believe that the experimenter would allow harm to come to ‘stooge’. • ‘Nothing is bleaker than the sight of a person striving yet not fully able to control his own behaviour in a situation of consequence to him’ (Milgram, 1974, pp. xiii) . Obedience and Compliance

12. What would you predict? % Subjects Administering Shock to Confederate

13. Social influence processes • Milgram’s study replicated in both male and female groups • Replicated in many countries: • Spain and Holland = 90% compliance rate (Meeus & Raaijmakers, 1986) • Italy, Germany, Austria = 80% (Mantell, 1971) • Australian men = 40%, Australian women = 16% (Kilham & Mann, 1974) Obedience and Compliance

14. Social influence processes Obedience and Compliance: Explanations • One explanation is that people have committed themselves to an action that was difficult to overturn • Immediacy is an influential factor – how close a person is to the ‘learner’: • Unseen and unheard: 100% compliance • Pounding on the wall: 62.5% • Visible during experiment: 40% • Holding hand to electrode: 30%!

15. Social influence processes Obedience and Compliance: Explanations • Cultural norms also influential • Smith and Bond (1998) recognised a significant cultural variation in conformity • Collectivist cultural norms places more importance on the group, interdependent view of the self (e.g., Asia, Africa) • Individualist norms are oriented about the individual, independent view of the self (e.g., North America, Western Europe) • Bond and Smith’s (1996) meta-analysis of 133 studies using Asch’s paradigm found that conformity was significantly higher in collectivist cultures.

16. Social influence processes Obedience and Compliance: Explanations • Legitimacy of power: Yale University, lab coated experimenter, Milgram saw a reduction when the experiment was conducted in ‘industrial setting’ • Experiments had implications for people’s obedience without considering: • What is being asked • Consequences for others • Could this experiment be done today?

17. Social influence processes Obedience and Compliance: Explanations • Recent studies using the ‘Milgram paradigm’ use perceptions of ‘teacher’ • Experimental participant views scenes (vignettes) of the Milgram experiment on a video (actually played by actors) • Known as ‘person-perception vignette methodology’ • Perceptions of teacher behaviours is the dependent variable • Levy and Collins (1989) and Collins and Brief (1995) ratings of teacher behaviours during Milgram paradigm • Polite, violent, and control dissenters to the experiment

18. Social influence processes • Other classic studies on compliance and normative influence • Sherif (1935): Individual vs. group condition in ‘moving light’ or ‘autokinetic’ experiment. In group conditions there was a tendency for estimates to converge and individual re-tests suggested internalization of the group norm • Asch (1952): Line comparison experiment, conflicting perceptual information and social pressure

19. Social influence processes Sherif (1935): Condition (a) starting alone then group situation Inches of estimated movement

20. Social influence processes Sherif (1935): Condition (b) starting alone then group situation Inches of estimated movement

21. Social influence processes How groups change the way we behave Asch (1952):Classic experiment examining normative influence effects. Estimation of line lengths by individual in group comprised of experimenter’s confederates

22. Social influence processes How groups change the way we behave Results: 37% gave erroneous errors compared to 0.7% in control group. Powerful effects of conformity but dependent upon a number of factors: • The ambiguity of the task • The group structure (one or more ‘deviants’) • Individual differences • Cultural expectations of conformity

23. Theories of Social Influence • Social influence is affected by NORMATIVE influence e.g. Asch’s (1952) experiments • NORMATIVE influence is conforming to the positive expectations of others = behavioural compliance in group contexts • INFORMATIONAL influence refers to the adoption of objective/external sources of information (Deutch & Gerrard, 1955)

24. Conformity and uncertainty/perceived pressure Source: Deutsch & Gerard (1955)

25. Theories of Social Influence Effects Normative and Informational Influence on Group Behaviour • Turner et al. (1987) suggested that ‘self-stereotyping’ occurs for individual group members using informational and normative influences in tandem

26. Group Polarization • Polarization refers to the enhancement of the dominant group perception or opinion after discussion/negotiation (Moscovici & Zavalloni, 1969) • People become more polarized from initial starting position e.g. Myers and Bishop (1970) prejudice levels after a group discussion

27. Group Polarization Three Theoretical Explanations • Normative influence: People maintain their beliefs in the socially desirable direction so as not to ‘stand out’ • Informational influence: (Isenberg, 1986) New information is made available and the shift is a function of the proportion of arguments in favour of one side, their clarity and novelty. • Social Identity: (Turner et al., 1989) People construct a ‘group norm’ and then conform to that norm, results in a polarised ‘in-group’ norm. Processes of self-categorisation and deindividuation occur.

28. Minority vs. Majority Minority Influence • Moscovici (1969) demonstrated that a minority can influence the majority perceptions if the minority were consistent and perceived as viable (couldn’t be explained away in terms of dogma, eccentric, weird) • Mugny & Papastamou (1980) found that minority groups can be influential if their message is consistent yet flexible and open to reach compromises c.f. Film about jurors “12 Angry Men”

29. Minority vs. Majority Minority Influence Conformity (% ‘green’ responses) Experimental condition (Type of minority influence) Moscovici et al. (1969)