474 group influences, conformity, obedience, aggression upPresentation Transcript
We are social creatures who areby nature susceptible to socialinfluence Requires understanding of socialinfluences, influences of thegroup Group and social influences canresult in either highly desirable orhighly undesirable behaviors (Political) aggression as a socialactivity influenced by groups andgroup context Genocide, mass killings and otherforms of aggression are oftenfacilitated by psychological andsocial processes
Considers effects of group settings on: attitudes, opinion expression, behavior Largely based on experimentalresearch Stems in part from interest incompliance and obedience toauthority in 1930s and 40s Sherif’s (1935) studies of norm formation Asch - compliance experiment Milgram - obedience experiment Zimbardo’s - prison experimentWannsee Conference, Berlin, January 1942 to implementthe “final solution.” The codification of murder in orderto expedite existing policy. Attended by Hitlers chieflieutenants, Göring and the SS chief Heinrich Himmler.
Conformity--a change in behavior or belief as aresult of real or “imagined” group pressure. It is not simply acting like others, but also being influencedby how they act. You “consciously” act differently from the way you wouldact alone. Unlike obedience, conformity does not require commandsor coercion by an authority.
Are you a conformist? We all think we are "standing alone in a crowd ofsheep.” Are labels influenced by a cultural context?
1. Compliance - involves publicly acting inaccord with social pressure while privatelydisagreeing. Why do we do this? We comply to receive a reward or to avoid apunishment. Obedience: compliance to an externalcommand.
2. Acceptance - involves both acting andbelieving in accord with social pressure. We may decide to discriminate or not todiscriminate against others because our groupviews such behavior as morally right
Dramatic simulation of prison life conducted in1971 at Stanford University Planned two week full role-playing by collegestudents randomly assigned as guards orprisoners Had to be ended after just six days In only a few days, guards became sadistic andprisoners became depressed, signs of extremestress
Milgram advertised for participants to getpaid for completingYale study on memory. 2 people showed up to psychology lab.One was true S & the other a confederate. A stern experimenter in a lab coat,explained that study was interested in theeffect of punishment on learning.
The S was to play the role of “teacher;” theconfederate, the role of “learner.” “Teacher” was to read word pairs to the“learner” who was in another room hookedup to shock leads. With each missed word, the S was to shockthe “learner.”
The shock panel had switches rangingfrom 15 to 450 volts in 15-volt increments. Switches were labeled: “slight shock,”“very strong shock,” “danger: severeshock,” etc.How many Ss went on shocking the“learner” all the way?
Everyone thoughtthey would stop atsome point Experts predictedno more than 1 or2 percent wouldgo all the way
65-66% of Ss continued shocking “learner” tofull capacity.
1. Emotional distance of victim 2. Closeness & legitimacy of the authority 3. Institutional authority 4. Common man 5. Disobedience
Hofling et al. (1966) Unknown doctor called nurses and asked them toadminister 20 milligrams of the drug "Astroten" toa patient on the ward.Violated Astroten“ hospitalpolicy. 21/22 (95%) of the nurses were about toadminister the drug, before being stopped anddebriefed by one of the researchers
The researchers told a group of nurses andnursing students about the study and askedthem how they would react. Nearly all said they would not have given themedication as ordered.
Replicated Milgram exactly, except that▪ (a) participants were male & female college students,▪ (b) victim was a "cute, fluffy, puppy," and (c) the shockswere real. Participants instructed to deliver a shock eachtime the puppy failed to learn a discriminationtask, which was actually unsolvable Percent delivering the maximum amount of shocksimilar to percent in Milgram’s studies.
Thomas Blass Examined Milgram studies andreplications during a 25-year period from1961 to 1985. Correlated year of 25-publication and the amount of obedience. No significant correlation between year and% obedient.
Individual characteristics Right-wing authoritarianism & submission to authority Education High self-monitors But, situational pressures are more important Can greatly increase or decrease obedience levels byaltering situational characteristics Also, extremist acts of violence are nearly alwayscommitted by groups as opposed to individuals wherepressures to conform are much greater▪ Need to study groups in explaining genocide and mass killings
1. Group size- 3-5 people will elicit moreconformity than 1 or 2 people. Beyond 5 people- conformity drops off.
An individual who disagrees with a group,& punctures the group’s unanimitydeflates its social power. Ss will voice their own views if just 1 personhas done so.
The Lucifer Effect:Understanding How Good PeopleTurn Evil
23 volunteers recruited from local newspaperads, randomly assigned to either prisoner orguard
Consider the psychological consequences ofstripping, delousing, and shaving the heads ofprisoners or members of the military.Whattransformations take place when people gothrough an experience like this?Texas prison
Deindividuation Prisoners soon took on a depraved role, andguards became sadistic and cruel. The experiment was scheduled to run 2weeks but was terminated after 5 days. Difference between Zimbardo and Milgram?
In 2003 U.S. soldiers abused Iraqi prisoners held at Abu Ghraib, 20miles west of Baghdad.The prisoners were stripped, made to wearbags over their heads, and sexually humiliated while the guardslaughed and took photographs. How is this abuse similar to ordifferent from what took place in the Stanford Prison Experiment?
The Pentagon blamed the whole thing on a “fewbad apples.” Zimbardo was an expert witness for Sgt. ChipFrederick, who was ultimately sentenced toeight years for his role at Abu Ghraib. The C.I.A., civilian interrogators, militaryintelligence were saying to the Armyreservists, “Soften these detainees up forinterrogation.” Zimbardo: What is the lesson here?