SOCIAL INFLUENCE (CONTINUE……):Crimes of Obedience, Predictions

<< SOCIAL INFLUENCE (CONTINE………):Normative influence, Informational influence

AGGRESSION:Identifying Aggression, Instrumental aggression >>

Social Psychology (PSY403)

Lesson 33

SOCIAL INFLUENCE (CONTINUE......)

Aims

Introduce the concept of obedience in reference to social influence

Objectives

Describe the classic studies of obedience

Describe factors that influence obedience

Obedience

· Many social influences are hidden and subtly employed. For example, conformity generally refers

to complying with an implicit norm.

Obedience is different from other types of influences because it is overt and easily recognized as an

exercise of power.

If the order would cause serious health risks, then there is a chance for disobedience.

Obedience is based on the belief that authorities have the right to make requests.

Crimes of Obedience

"Crimes of obedience" can occur when the demands of authorities are immoral or illegal

The "Eichmann defense" refers to Adolph Eichmann's claim that he was "just following orders" when

he supervised the murder of 6 million Jews in Nazi Germany

Milgram's Experiments (1963)

· A study to investigate the effects of punishment on learning of word pairs.

· Participant as teacher, confederate as `learner' (of word pairs)

· Confederate points out that he is 50 years old with heart problems!

· Experimenter explains this is no problem and straps him into a chair in an adjacent room

· Confederates making deliberate mistakes

· Each time the learner makes a mistake he is given an electric shock, which increases each time a

mistake is made

· Participant receives a real 15 volt shock to enhance realism (none of the subsequent shocks are

real)

· Confederate (answering through an intercom) makes deliberate mistakes

· At any query from participant, the experimenter just says `please continue'

· At 150 volts he demands to be released, shouting, `Experimenter! That's all! Get me out of here.

My heart's starting to bother me now. I refuse to go on!'

· At 180 volts he shouts that he can no longer stand the pain

· At 300 volts he refuses to give any more answers - which the experimenter treats as incorrect

answers!

· Screams of agony at each shock

· At 330 - silence...

· The last switch - 450 volts - labeled `XXX - danger severe shock'

Predictions

College students, middle class adults and psychiatrists all predicted that participants would refuse to

continue well before the 450 volt limit.

134

Social Psychology (PSY403)

Psychiatrists predicted that 0.1% participants would obey the experimenter completely, while 65%

of participants (24 out of 40) obeyed up to the maximum 450 volts.

All obeyed up to 300 volts - where the psychiatrists predicted 96% refusal

And these were `normal' people with no personality disorders who all experienced intense stress

during the experiment. Some people explained this by interpreting that the participants were

inadvertently recruited sadists. However, they were observed sweating, trembling, stuttering, biting

their lips, and groaning, as they struggled through the experimental procedure.

Table 1: Shock level and percentage of obedience

Inflicting psychological harm

Shock Level (mv)

% obeying

on victims

Because the findings were

0-240

(slight to very strong)

100

unexpected, Milgram carried

out a number of experiments to

255-300 (intense)

better understand the conditions

under which obedience or

315-360 (extreme intensity)

otherwise would be most likely.

The results showed same level

375-420 (Danger: severe shock)

of obedience with men and

women, and college student

435-450 ("XXX")

participants.

World-over findings of obedience level:

· Australia= 68% (Kilham & Mann, 1974)

· Jordan= 63% (Shanab & Yahya, 1977)

· Germany= 85% (Mantell, 1971)

· Other experiments by Milgram (in run-down office building than in Yale or with ordinary

experimenter rather than a professor/ scientist, 1965)= 48% and 20% respectively

A series of studies by Meeus and Raaijmakers (1995):

Students sometimes note that the Milgram studies are now quite outdated, and wonder whether in these

modern times the level of obedience would be as high. A series of studies by Dutch psychologists

Meeus and Raaijmakers (1995) is relevant in this reference. Meeus and Raaijmakers used a procedure

in which the real subjects were asked to serve as the experimenter's assistant in a study of people's

ability to work under stress. They were told that they would help to interview a job candidate, actually

a confederate of the experimenter, who was taking a test as part of the interview. The test was

described as crucial to the job: if the job candidate passed, they would get the job. However, the

ability to withstand stress was described not as crucial to the job but as part of the researcher's

academic project. The subject's role was to make 15 negative remarks ("stress remarks") that would

place the job applicant under strain. A series of four prods was given to the subject if they refused to

carry on; the experiment was discontinued after refusal of all four. A control group was not prodded

and could stop making the stress remarks at any point in the procedure. In the replication intended to

most closely parallel the original Milgram experiment, 91% of the participants obeyed the experimenter

until the end and made all the stress remarks. None of the control subjects went all the way to the end.

A group of subjects given a written description of the procedure expected that 9% would complete the

procedure.

This level of obedience is even higher than that achieved in the Milgram study. Meeus and

Raaijmakers describe their obedience as "mediated violence" in that the participants would only

"indirectly observe the negative consequences to the victim" in comparison to the more physical

violence of the Milgram experiment, and expected thus higher level of obedience. In all, they

completed 19 studies, many of which paralleled the Milgram variations, and consistently reported

levels of obedience that were higher than those found by Milgram. The highest level of obedience

(100%) was found in a condition that the experimenters had anticipated would decrease obedience:

135

Social Psychology (PSY403)

participants were provided with information about the experimental procedures well in advance. In this

condition, participants were significantly more critical of the experiment than in other conditions, but

their level of obedience was as high. Other variations (ones that substantially decreased the level of

obedience) focused on the subject's legal liability for the consequences. In these conditions, obedience

was much lower (30%, and down to 20% when combined with advance information), but was not

eliminated.

Finally, in two variations, the Milgram experiment was replicated exactly, with the addition of advance

information indicating that the participant would administer either "painful shocks" or "deadly shocks."

Obedience in these two conditions was 57% and 43% respectively, a significant decrease from

Milgram's 65%, but still substantial. Other replications of the Milgram experiment have been

summarized by Smith and Bond (1994). Their summary of a dozen studies performed from the 1960s

to the late 1980s suggested that obedience is still quite high --and contrary to student expectations,

experiments performed with students as participants showed more rather than less obedience than those

performed with the general population. Some cultures (Germany and Austria) show significantly

greater obedience than the U.S. (85%) and some, notably Australia and, to a lesser extent, the United

Kingdom, show less. Taken together, these studies suggest that, today when technology allows us

violence that is more "mediated" and distant than ever before, we might expect greater, not lesser levels

of obedience in deadly situations. It is expected that in Pakistan the obedience level shall be quite high

considering the fact that obedience of authority is very much appreciated and expected here.

Variations in conditions affecting obedience

Variations increasing obedience

· Watching a peer give shocks

· Two other teachers continue

Variations decreasing obedience

· Increasing distance of experimenter

· Two other teachers quit

Observing others defy authority greatly reduces obedience

Milgrm's Experiments present a very bleak picture of mankind's ability to resist destructive orders

from authority. Perhaps Milgram's experiments had special circumstances. The researchers asked that

what happens if antisocial orders are delivered to an entire group?

William Gamson et al. (1982) asked 9 participants to indulge in a discussion videotaped by an oil

company

A previous manager had sued the company, for being fired on living with a women without

marriage

A confederate either taking a more or less active role in mobilizing rebellion against the oil

company's actions

Coordinator asked all (in steps) participants to act as if they were offended on manager's immoral

act

Then coordinator asked them to sign an affidavit for court hearing

Without the help of confederate, participants began to rebel. Some said that they will confiscate the

camera and present in court, and because of that experiment had to be terminated.

The conditions affecting obedience are illustrated in the graph given below:

136

Social Psychology (PSY403)

Figure 1:

Percentage of participants who fully obeyed

20 40 60 80 100

Baseline - males

Baseline - females

Run-down office building

Ordinary person as experimenter

Participant and victim in same room

Participant required to touch victim

Experimenter gives orders by phone

Participant with fully obedient confederates

Participant with openly rebellious

confederates

Compliance

Factors fostering compliance

Compliance: Publicly acting in accord with a direct request. As compliance involves a direct route, it

generally induces more thinking and critical analysis than conformity. What strategies you can employ

to increase the likelihood that others will grant your request? Following are the conditions associated

with good compliance:

Positive mood

People in good mood are more active; less critical; pleasant mood activates pleasant thoughts

Reciprocity

The expectation that one should return a favor or a good deed; first do them favor, then other will be

obligated to return

Giving reason

Langer et al. (1978) found evidence for the power of reason; A "placebo reason" ("Can I use the copier

now because I have to make copies?") increases compliance over no reason, and almost as much as a

real reason ("because I'm in a rush"). Without giving reasons, compliance was 6% as compared to

when request was made with providing reason. It worked because people have habitual desire to

explain others' behavior and use of heuristic

Two-step Compliance strategies

· Foot-in-the-Door Technique. Meta- analysis by Cialdin & Trost (1998)) shows its effectiveness

o First make a small request, then a large one.

Door-in-the-Face Technique; usually adopted by charities and organizations.

o First make an unreasonably large request, then a smaller one.

137

Social Psychology (PSY403)

Low-Ball Technique (Cialdini et al., 1978)

o First make a reasonable request; then reveal further costs

That's-Not-All Technique; don't give the opportunity to reject: buy one get one free

o First make a large request, then offer a bonus or discount

Social impact theory (Latane, 1981):

A theory that attempts to unify and explain the findings from conformity and obedience research:

Physical presence of the authority figure is important

Social impact theory can explain the `leveling off' effect in Asch's (1956) conformity study - each

successive individual adds less and less to the overall effect (one light bulb has more of an effect

than the second, but adding the 15th bulb to 14 already lit would not make any noticeable

difference). Latane states it is because the individual impact decreases with so many people.

Social support means any effect of an influencing group is diffused.

Persuasion: expertise and credibility of the authority are important. In Milgram's experiment,

researcher/ scientist was obeyed more.

The amount of social influence that others have depends on:

o Number - the number of people in the group exerting power

o Strength - status, power, expertise

o Immediacy - how close the group exerting power is in time and space

Reading

· Franzoi, S. (2003). Social Psychology. Boston: McGraw-Hill. Chapter 9.

Other Readings

· Lord, C.G. (1997). Social Psychology. Orlando: Harcourt Brace and Company. Chapter 8.

· David G. Myers, D. G. (2002). Social Psychology (7th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

138

Table of Contents: