Crown House AQA Psychology E-Book

Nigel Holt

• Herausgeber: Crown House Publishing
• Kategorie: Bildung
• Sprache: Englisch
• Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2015

Beschreibung

This new edition of the Holt and Lewis AQA Psychology textbook offers comprehensive coverage of the new AQA syllabus. Written by two experienced teachers, examiners and textbook authors, this revised edition accommodates the changes to the English AQA specification, with thorough coverage of both AS level and A level year 1. 'Ask an examiner' hints and tips, glossaries, web links and exam-style practice questions provide everything students need to learn and succeed.This easy-to-read, visually engaging textbook also features: evaluations of key studies to encourage reflection and critical analysis, aid understanding and give context; detailed exploration of research methods to help develop analytical and mathematical skills; 'Ask an examiner' hints and tips, practice questions and a section on exam preparation and revision, providing everything students need to prepare for their exams; lists of key terms, QR codes and web links to help explain key issues; carefully chosen images to promote debate and discussion and help ideas stick, colour-coded material for ease of use and checklists to break down everything you need to know for each topic; and clearly identified A level only material, enabling it to be easily distinguished from AS material.

Leseprobe

A level year 1 and AS

AQA Psychology

Nigel Holt and Rob Lewis

Crown House Publishing Limited

www.crownhouse.co.uk

First published byCrown House Publishing LtdCrown Buildings, Bancyfelin, Carmarthen, Wales, SA33 5ND, UKwww.crownhouse.co.ukandCrown House Publishing Company LLC6 Trowbridge Drive, Suite 5, Bethel, CT 06801, USAwww.crownhousepublishing.com

© Nigel Holt and Rob Lewis 2015

The right of Nigel Holt and Rob Lewis to be identified as the authors of this work has beenasserted by them in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. Except as permitted under current legislation no part of this work may bephotocopied, stored in a retrieval system, published, performed in public, adapted, broadcast,transmitted, recorded or reproduced in any form or by any means, without the prior permissionof the copyright owners. Enquiries should be addressed to Crown House Publishing Limited.

Crown House Publishing has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs forexternal or third-party websites referred to in this publication, and does not guarantee thatany content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.

An extension of this page appears on page 274.

British Library of Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue entry for this book is available from the British Library.

Print ISBN 978-184590974-1ePub: 978-1-78583003-7Mobi: 978-1-78583002-0

LCCN 2015947711

contents

INTRODUCTION 4

SECTION 1. INTRODUCTORY TOPICS IN PSYCHOLOGY 6

SOCIAL INFLUENCE 8

MEMORY 30

ATTACHMENT 54

PSYCHOPATHOLOGY 86

SECTION 2. PSYCHOLOGY IN CONTEXT 114

APPROACHES IN PSYCHOLOGY 116

BIOPSYCHOLOGY 148

SECTION 3. RESEARCH METHODS 176

SECTION 4. YOUR EXAM 240

Bibliography 248

Appendix of URLs 261

Index 264

Image credits 274

4| AQA PSYCHOLOGY: A LEVEL YEAR 1 AND AS

INTRODUCTION

AQA Psychology: A level year 1 and AS

Authors: Nigel Holt and Rob Lewis

Nigel Holt works in the Department of Psychology at Aberystwyth University, and Rob Lewis worksin the School of Education at Cardiff Metropolitan University. They are always happy to hear fromstudents and teachers, so if you have any questions or would just like to say hello, please feel free toget in touch – their email addresses can be found on their respective institutional websites.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Nigel and Rob would like to thank Kate and Nic. We could not possibly engage in ridiculoustasks like writing textbooks without their continued good humour, patience and support.

Rob would like to dedicate this book to his friends and travelling companions– Bryan, Malcolm and Rhys. Many happy returns!

INTRODUCTION | 5

HELLO STUDENTS

Psychology is one of the broadest and newest ofthe sciences. It is extremely popular in schoolsand colleges and at university – it is one ofthe largest A levels and undergraduate degreeprogrammes. This book is, first and foremost,for students. We know teachers and thoseinterested in psychology from other professionsread textbooks like this, but this particular bookis designed carefully with students in mind.Specifically, it has been written for studentspreparing for the AS and A level psychology withthe AQA examining board.

This is not a book with the bare minimumof information. We know from experience thattextbooks are often written with teachers inmind, and frequently contain content moresuited to teachers than students. Textbookauthors know that teachers help students tounderstand difficult material in the classroomand so are often guilty of not explaining thingsas carefully and as thoroughly as they might.We are teachers ourselves and know how vitala good teacher is to education. However, wealso wanted to help student understanding byproviding a textbook which thoroughly coveredthe specification and which was accessibleoutside the classroom.

Everything required to get a top grade inthe AQA AS and A level exams is included inthis book. We have taken an approach whichwe hope will encourage students to read,and allow them to access ideas that are oftenhard to understand. We know from our workat university how important reading is to arounded and successful education, and we alsoknow that this wonderful ‘habit’ begins beforeuniversity. We have not designed this book asa scattered assembly of facts or as somethingwhich resembles a comic. In fact, we have beenterribly traditional in our approach. Sometimes,things were done a certain way in the pastbecause that way was just better.

USEFUL FEATURES

The AS and A level Year 1 specifications areslightly different. If you are doing Year 1 of a fullA level then all of this book is for you. If youare an AS level student then you do not need tocover the material indicated by the pale yellowhighlights. We have indicated this content on the‘What you need to know’ pages of each chapter,and down the sides of the A level only pages.

Watch for the pale yellow bars andhighlighting. This tells you which content isA LEVEL ONLY.

We have minimised features which break uptext, but we have added boxes which we hopewill help understanding and enrich the readingexperience. Sometimes these boxes expand onresearch in order to give a little more detail aboutstudies we think are particularly important.Another kind of box expands a featured pointmade in the text to aid understanding and to givegreater context, or occasionally because we thinkit is just relevant and interesting.

Sometimes, seeing and hearing can domore for understanding than mere words ona page. There are many useful video clips onthe internet, and we have included QR links tosome of the more useful ones in this book. Ifyou do not have access to a smartphone witha scanner app, you will find their URLs in anappendix at the back of this book.

An expert perspective is always useful, andat AS/A level the experts are the examiners, sowe have included occasional ‘Ask an Examiner’boxes to focus the reader on examination issues.

Internet forums are a notorious sourceof misinformation and bad advice - bestavoided or, like anything else on theinternet appearing helpful to your studies,approached with extreme caution ...

Section 1

IntroductoryTopics inPsychology

Social Influence

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW

Types of conformity:

Internalisation

Identification

Compliance

Explanations for conformity:

Informational social influence

Normative social influence

Variables affecting conformity asinvestigated by Asch:

Group size

Unanimity

Task difficulty

Conformity to social roles asinvestigated by Zimbardo

Explanations for obedience:

Agentic state

Legitimacy of authority

Situational variables affectingobedience as investigated by Milgram:

Proximity

Location

Uniform

Dispositional explanation forobedience: the authoritarian personality

Explanations of resistance to socialinfluence:

Social support

Locus of control

Minority influence:

Consistency

Commitment

Flexibility

The role of social influence processesin social change

10| SOCIAL INFLUENCE

Social Influence

Every aspect of our lives is affected by social influence. What others think, feel and do is veryimportant to us. We use this information as a guide to our own thoughts, feelings and actions.We want to feel part of social groups, to believe we hold the ‘right’ views and opinions, and tobehave in ‘appropriate’ ways. Such social forces are well understood and can be used to explain,for example, why some songs become more successful than others without necessarily beingbetter. It also explains the attempts by companies to manufacture popularity for products bycreating videos that they hope will go ‘viral’.

Humans are social creatures so it should not be surprising that we influence one another’sbehaviour, why sometimes we go along with what others do and why, on other occasions,we behave in ways that convince others to follow our lead. Social psychologists have longbeen interested in how groups reach agreement and why their members so readily accept theinfluence of others, why people are prone to do improper things when authority figures tell usto and even how some hardy individuals champion a minority view and, in the face of enormoussocial pressure, change the views of society.

CONFORMITY

Altering our behaviour to match more closely thebehaviour of the majority of others around us is anormal and everyday occurrence. So normal in fact that wehardly even notice it happening. This is conformity – what Aronson(1976) defines as ‘yielding to group pressure’. This pressure to ‘givein’ and do as others do might be real (perhaps a group of friendsencouraging a person to join in with their smoking) or it might beunspoken or imagined. For instance, you might regard it as ‘expected’ bysociety to behave in a certain kind of way. These expectations, or norms,are seldom written down. We just ‘know’ how to behave, and often feela pressure to conform to the behaviour of those around us.

Conformity is part of the glue holding societytogether and it can be seen as highly functional.If we did not conform to social norms theworld around us would be very difficult to livein – we would be unable to predict how otherswere going to behave and this would result ina high degree of uncertainty. So conformity isnot always a bad thing: any cost of conformityis ultimately small given the important benefitsto the wider social group. To conform is notnecessarily a sign of weakness – rather, it can beseen as a sign of trust and of relying on othersfor information and support.

TYPES OF CONFORMITY

According to Kelman (1958) there are threetypes of conformity: compliance, identificationand internalisation.

1.Compliance: This involves going along withthe group without a change in attitude. Wemight behave as others in a group are behavingbut we don’t necessarily agree with or believein the group behaviour. This is not necessarily along-lasting change in behaviour – basically, it

lasts for as long as the group pressure is exerted.For example, we may feel pressured by peers tosmoke whilst in school. We may be forced orbullied until we do so.

2.Identification: This is where conformityoccurs because we want to be like the primaryinfluence. The more attractive the influence, themore long term the conforming behaviour. Ineffect, we see others in a group as role modelsand try to be like them. We may want to beliked or accepted by a particular group whodress in a certain way, and so we too may beginto dress accordingly.

3.Internalisation: This is the most permanentform of conformity. The group opinion orbehaviour is accepted as a belief by theindividual and becomes part of their ownthinking. Here, conformity occurs without anyparticular conscious effort. Religious belief couldbe described in terms of internalisation. Theopinion of those in a person’s family may betaken on board and internalised. Their viewsare accepted and integrated into an individual’sown thinking and they conform.

12| SOCIAL INFLUENCE

ASCH’S STUDY OF CONFORMITY

An early classic experiment by Muzafer Sherif(1935) dramatically demonstrated the powerof groups to affect the thoughts and behavioursof its members (see box ‘Early studies ofconformity’). The social influence demonstratedby Sherif also has long-lasting effects. Rohrer etal. (1954) replicated Sherif’s study and retestedthe participants a year later and found that theystill used the consensus distance arrived at bythe group. This suggests that participants hadinternalised the group norm.

A problem with the Sherif study, however, isthat there is no correct answer to the autokineticeffect – which is an illusion that producesunique responses from individuals. The distance

you think the spot moves will probably bedifferent from the distance your friends thinkit moves. Asch (1951) argued that becausethe task was ambiguous, it was not clear thatSherif was demonstrating conformity at all. Aschcarried out a series of studies to demonstrateconformity when the task was unambiguous.

He found a tendency to conform to the majorityview in a line judgement task where the answerof the majority was clearly wrong. Asch foundthat nearly one-third of his participants calledout the majority wrong answers and three-quarters of his participants conformed at leastonce. The participants appeared to be displayingcompliance (i.e. although they went along withthe majority view, they still believed that theywere correct).

Asch’s conformity study

The participant was seated at a table with a number of others(who were all confederates, instructed by Asch to respond ina certain way and make the wrong choice in the task). Thegroup was shown three lines (Figure 1.1a), then a fourth line(Figure 1.1b), which Asch described as the ‘standard’. Eachperson in turn was required to say which of the first threelines matched the standard line. The participant was alwaysnext to last to do this. Some 123 participants were tested inthis way 18 times. On 12 of these trials the confederates gaveidentical wrong answers (these were the critical trials duringwhich conformity was measured).

Asch found that 75% of the participants gave the wronganswer at least once (i.e. conformed on at least oneoccasion). Overall, there was a 32% conformity rate towrong answers, and 5% of participants conformed on allcritical trials. He also found that on 63.2% of all trials, wherethere was a clear and unambiguous difference in lines,participants did not conform.

Asch concluded that people show a tendency to conformeven though in doing so they are compromising what theyknow to be true. He also concluded that there is a resistanceto this tendency to conform, as shown in the number oftrials where a non-conforming answer was given.

Figure 1.1a: Comparison lines.

Figure 1.1b: Standard line.

CONFORMITY |13

Evaluation of Asch’s experiments

1. It has been argued that the high levels ofconformity found in the Asch studies reflectsthe norms of US society at the time. The 1950swas a time of high conformity in the UnitedStates. For example, the Cold War with theSoviet Union was just beginning and activitiesregarded as ‘un-American’ were frowned uponand actively discouraged. People were veryconcerned about stepping out of line andappearing to be different. Using an Asch-typeset-up Perrin and Spencer (1981) found virtuallyno conformity in British university students,suggesting that the changed social climate ofthe 1980s did less to encourage conformitythan the 1950s in the United States. It shouldbe noted though that the Perrin and Spencerstudy has itself been criticised on the groundsthat it used engineering students as participants– individuals who are inclined to make exactmeasurements and so are less susceptible tosocial influence in these circumstances.

2. Crutchfield (1955) thought that the degreeof conformity found in the Asch studies was aresult of the procedures used – in particular,the closeness to others in the line decision taskexaggerated the degree of conformity. Using aprocedure which isolated participants, he foundlower levels of conformity than Asch. Allen andLevine (1968) suggest that conformity variesaccording to whether participants are requiredto respond to objective or subjective stimuli.

For example, using the type of apparatusdeployed by Crutchfield, they found thatparticipants were far less affected by the majoritywhen the task involved expressing a politicalopinion (which is subjective) as opposed toa line judgement (which is objective). It hasbeen pointed out, however, that the artificialexperimental setting of Crutchfield-typestudies, rather than the style of question,might contribute in some way to variations inconformity.

3. Given that social norms vary from cultureto culture, it might be expected that the valueplaced on conformity might also vary accordingto culture. Smith and Bond (1996) compared133 Asch-type conformity studies conductedin 17 countries. They found that althoughconformity was, on average, lower than in theAsch studies, rates of conformity were notsignificantly different. They also suggestedthat variations in conformity between culturesdepend on whether the culture is collectivist orindividualist.

You could be asked specifically aboutthe Asch study, so be sure to learn theprocedure and findings. Just as importantthough is to link this learning to yourunderstanding of research methods and ethicalconsiderations.

It’s not what you do,it’s the way that you do it

Crutchfield (1955) thought that Asch’sresults may have had something to do withthe procedures he used. He tested this ideaby requiring the participants in his studyto engage in an Asch-type perceptual taskwhilst sitting in separate booths. Participantswere required to respond to stimulusmaterial, presented on a screen, by flickingone of five switches representing possibleanswers. Conformity was encouraged bygiving participants what they thoughtwere the responses of participants in otherbooths – in reality, all participants receivedexactly the same information from a ‘bogusmajority’. Crutchfield was able to test 600participants in this way. Crutchfield foundlower levels of conformity (30%) thanthose found by Asch, which is still quitehigh considering that participants wereresponding in private.

14| SOCIAL INFLUENCE

EXPLANATIONS FORCONFORMITY

Why people yield to the will of a majority hasbeen a matter of debate in psychology for manyyears. There is general agreement, however,that there are two main reasons for conformity:normative and informational influence.

Informational social influence

In some situations we lack sufficient informationabout how to act. Think of your first experienceof a nightclub, for instance. In unfamiliarsituations like this we need information aboutthe right thing to do and we look to othersfor this: where to stand, where to sit and howto behave so as not to look too stupid! Thebehaviour of others can often provide us withvery persuasive information. When it is notclear what the correct response should be,people look to others as a guide to their ownresponses. This idea is supported by studieswhich show that conformity varies accordingto the ambiguity of the task that participantsare given – for example, Sherif’s (1935) studyusing the autokinetic effect. Asch (1956) foundthat conformity increased when he made hisline comparison task more difficult by reducingthe differences between the lengths of the lines.It appears that the more uncertain people are,because of a lack of information, the more likelythey are to conform.

Normative social influence

Normative influence occurs because of the basicneed we have to be accepted as a member of agroup. Interestingly, this group does not have tobe meaningful to us in any way. For example, itcould be a random group of people who mightnever meet each other again. The importantthing is the need for acceptance and approvalfrom this group, which encourages agreementwith the norm, or central view, of the group. Itisn’t necessarily important to actually agree with

Early studies of conformity

Two of the earliest studies into conformityboth clearly demonstrate informationalsocial influence. Considered to be the firstdemonstration of conformity in research,Jenness (1932) gave his participants the taskof estimating the number of jelly beans in ajar. Clearly, there is not an obvious answerto this task. Having made private individualestimates, participants were then requiredto work in groups of varying sizes to agreea group estimate. After this, they had toonce again privately estimate the number ofjelly beans. Jenness found that the secondestimate tended to move towards theestimate arrived at as a group.

Another famous study was conducted bySherif (1935). He used an optical illusioncalled the autokinetic effect (if you stare at aspot of light in a darkened room it will appearto move, though it doesn’t actually move). Hisparticipants were first required to estimatehow far they thought the light moved, then,following this, to estimate again but this timein small groups. Sherif found that individualstended to change their estimates to moreresemble those of the group.

the group, there just needs to be the appearanceof agreement or harmony. This is the likelyexplanation for conformity in the original Aschstudies. Even though the right answer in theline judgement task was clear (so informationalinfluence could not be operating), people wentalong with the majority by giving the wronganswer in order to ‘belong’.

It can be effective when describingexplanations to link them to examplesfrom research, e.g. Sherif’s study showsinformational, Asch’s study shows normativesocial influence.

CONFORMITY |15

VARIABLES AFFECTINGCONFORMITY

Whilst Asch’s classic study clearly demonstratesthe strong pressure to conform to majorityviews, everyday experience tells us thatconformity is not inevitable in all situations oreven to the same degree. Many factors havebeen found to influence group pressures toconform.

Group size

According to Stang (1976), rates of conformitydo not rise inevitably as the group size increases.Group conformity is at its greatest when themajority number between three and five people.After that, increasing the size of the majorityhas little effect on rates of conformity. In onevariation of his study, Asch varied the size ofthe group to include 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 10 and 15confederates. He found that conformity was verylow when there was just one confederate (3%).With two confederates conformity rose to 13%,and with three confederates it rose to 33%.There was little change in conformity beyondthis, and there was even some reduction inconformity with higher numbers. One possiblereason for this is suspicion of collusion – afterall, it is not that common for all members oflarger groups to be unanimous in their views.

It appears, however, that the nature of thejudgement is an important factor interactingwith group size. For example, there is greaterlikelihood of conformity increasing with groupsize in circumstances of informational socialinfluence (i.e. when there is no objectivelycorrect answer).

Group unanimity

It appears that if the people making up themajority do not seem to hold the same view(i.e. they are not unanimous), it is easier forindividuals in the minority to resist pressureto conform. It does not seem to matter how

the unanimity of the majority is broken. Aschfound that just one other group memberagreeing with the judgement of the participantwas enough to greatly reduce conformity(from 33% down to 5.5%). However, groupdissent does not have to be supportive of theminority view for conformity to be reduced.For example, an incorrect but different viewfrom a group member reduces conformity, asdoes a dithering response to questioning. Evenwhen the competence of the ‘supporter’ isquestioned (e.g. by being visually impaired),conformity is still reduced. As soon as theunanimity of the majority group is weakened,or even in some circumstances put intoquestion, non-conformity is more likely toemerge as a response.

Task difficulty

In one variation of his study, Asch made thecomparison task more difficult by makingthe differences in line lengths much smaller.This increased rates of conformity, probablyby adding informational social influence tothe existing normative social influence – notonly do participants want to be accepted asmembers of the group, but the ambiguity ofthe task causes them to seek information aboutthe correct response from others. However, theeffects of task difficulty on conformity are notstraightforward. For example, it has been shownthat conformity is influenced by the extent towhich an individual believes they are capableof doing the task (known as self-efficacy).Individuals who have more confidence in theirabilities on a task are less likely to be influencedby the wrong answers of others.

Many factors have been found toinfluence conformity but you only need tolearn these three. Just make sure you canlink them back effectively to Asch’s research.

16| SOCIAL INFLUENCE

CONFORMITY TO SOCIAL ROLESAS INVESTIGATED BY ZIMBARDO

Social roles are behaviours that are expected ofus in certain circumstances. These roles carrywith them expectations – people expect you tobehave in a way consistent with your role. Theyexert pressure on people’s thoughts, emotionsand behaviours. Roles are powerful and theirinfluences are often subtle – we usually do notknow how our behaviour is being influencedby the role we occupy. For example, there aresocial roles associated with being a student ora teacher, although we are rarely aware of thepressures on us to conform to the expectationsof these roles.

Zimbardo et al. (1973) were interested in thepower of social roles in influencing conformity,and their Stanford Prison Experiment becameone of the most controversial in psychology.Zimbardo constructed a mock prison in thebasement of the Stanford University psychologybuilding. Participants were randomly assignedto one of two roles: prisoner or guard. It wasfound that prisoners quickly became passiveand depressed, whilst the guards became harshand frequently brutal. It seems Zimbardo’sparticipants readily conformed to their powerfulnew social roles, emphasised by appropriateclothing and a realistic environment.

Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment

Twenty-four men were recruited from the student population, and paid US$15 a day for up to twoweeks. Each was checked carefully for both physical and psychological well-being and assignedrandomly to the role of either prisoner or guard. ‘Prisoners’ were ‘arrested’ by a real police officer,blindfolded and taken from their homes to the ‘prison’ that had been set up in basement rooms atthe psychology department. They were subjected to all the things a real prisoner would be, such asdelousing to ensure cleanliness, searching and removal of their possessions, including their clothes.They were given overalls bearing their prisoner number to wear and confined to 2 x 3 metre cells fora large part of the day. The guards were given mirror sunglasses and official-looking uniforms, andcarried whistles and clubs. The guards and the prisoners experienced life in these roles in the prison for24 hours a day, with the guards working eight hour shifts. No names were used, with prisoners beingreferred to by their numbers and guards as ‘Mr Correctional Officer’. Unknown to participants, theirbehaviour was closely monitored.

The behaviour of the guards towards the prisoners surprised everyone involved. They quickly becametyrannical and sadistic (what the researchers referred to as the ‘pathology of power’). Prisoner ‘rights’(e.g. going to the toilet) were considered privileges and frequently withheld, punishments were appliedwithout justification and some guards became verbally aggressive. The effects of imprisonmentwere severe. A range of negative behaviours developed, including passivity (being overly obedient)and dependence (not doing anything unless told to). Half the prisoners showed signs of depression,including crying, anxiety and anger. Zimbardo allowed one prisoner to leave during the experimentbecause he feared for the participant’s psychological well-being. Despite being timetabled to run fortwo weeks, the experiment was stopped before it got too out of hand after only six days.

It was clear that it was the situational factors (where they were) that influenced behaviour more thanthe disposition of the participants (what kind of person they were), with ordinary, otherwise good-natured and intelligent young people behaving in a very unexpected way once given powerful socialroles to which to conform.

CONFORMITY |17

Evaluation of Zimbardo’s experiment

1. The Stanford Prison Experiment has beencriticised for not being realistic. For example,unlike real prison guards, the participants in thisstudy were not given a code of conduct whichreal prison guards would have been. Withoutthese rules, the ‘guards’ were not limited andcould behave in more extreme ways. Similarly,they knew they were taking part in a study andallowed the researchers to take responsibility fortheir actions instead of themselves, so an ‘If I’mnot being stopped I can’t be doing anything thatbad’ mentality began to emerge. It was almost asif the lack of interference amounted to approvalof the behaviour by the researchers.

2. In 2002 the BBC broadcast a TV series calledThe Experiment which could be described as apartial replication of the prison simulation study.Their results tended to contradict Zimbardo’s– for example, guards refused to show punitiveauthority and the prisoners soon took charge ofthe prison. Psychologists Haslam and Reicher,who led the study, point out that whilst, asZimbardo claims, the situation is important,other things must be taken into considerationalso, such as social and cultural factors. Forinstance, brutality in prisons is sometimesfocused on particular groups – something whichmight be expected if the situation (i.e. prison)was the only factor. Also, Haslam and Reicherargue that people don’t react mindlessly tosituations – they often think and reflect beforeacting. This can result in resistance rather thanoppression, as seen in their study.

3. It has been claimed that the findings are notnecessarily related to the researchers’ carefuldesign, but have more to do with an expectationof how the participants should behave. Makingsome participants ‘prisoners’ and some ‘guards’introduced strong demand characteristics. Theparticipants knew how they were supposed tobehave, so the observed behaviour may have

been a reflection of this expectation rather thana display of real behaviour. This puts the validityof the experiment into question. Also, Zimbardowas closely involved in the experiment, playingthe part of prison warden. He was not, perhaps,ideally placed to be impartial in decisionsrelating to the conduct of participants in thestudy. He could not be said to be truly impartial.

4. The ethical issues surrounding the prisonstudy are clear to see. The ‘prisoners’experienced psychological harm and were clearlydistressed. It seems likely that the experimentwill also have caused the ‘guards’ distress – forexample, that they were capable of brutality. Inhis defence, Zimbardo could not possibly haveforeseen the extremely unusual result. He alsofollowed up on the participants over the yearsthat followed and found no long-term effects.

‘What’s bad is the barrel’

In 2004 news broke that prisoners in AbuGhraib, Iraq had experienced beatings, sexualabuse and psychological torture at the handsof some of their American military guards.Zimbardo (2007) directly compared theevents at Abu Ghraib to his own prison study.In both situations the guards were poorlytrained but in very powerful and stressfulsocial roles. There was a lack of an authorityfigure to control the guards’ behaviourand uniforms dehumanised the guards andprisoners. Zimbardo pointed out that theguards were no different to the rest of us.They were not ‘bad apples’ but rather thebarrel was rotten – the situation they foundthemselves in made it impossible for someguards to resist the power of the social role.

OBEDIENCE

Whilst some social influence appears subtleand indirect, it can also be straightforwardand direct. For example, a teacher instructs herstudents to do a particular piece of work and they do asthey are told, or a parent tells a child to behave and shedoes so. These are examples of obedience – individualsare acting in direct response to an authority figure.

For the most part, obedience to authority isbenign and can be viewed as another of thenorms that glue societies together. However,obedience is a very powerful social influenceand sometimes people are urged by an authorityfigure to do things which are actually or morallywrong. History gives us many examples ofthe destructive effects of obedience authority.For example, Nazis and concentration campguards during the Second World War used thedefence that they were ‘only following orders’to justify or excuse their terrible actions. Itwas this example of apparent blind obediencewhich influenced Stanley Milgram to designa now notorious series of experiments in theearly 1960s. Milgram thought that if a figurehad legitimate authority then ordinary peoplewould obey their demands to do extraordinarythings, even though these demands were clearlymorally wrong. Moreover, he believed acts ofevil were not necessarily carried out by evilpeople, but the acts were, at least in part, dueto the situation in which individuals foundthemselves. A person’s personality (i.e. theirdisposition) might influence their decision, buttheir actions depend on the context in whichan authority figure has given them what theybelieve to be a legitimate order. These situationaland dispositional factors are both importantinfluences on whether people obey authority.

SITUATIONAL VARIABLESAFFECTING OBEDIENCE

Milgram’s initial study demonstrated the powerof an authority figure. He did, however, carryout a further 18 variations of the obedienceexperiments in order to discover what it wasabout the situation a person finds themselves inthat influences their obedience to authority. Theeffects of varying proximity, location and uniform(authority) are summarised in Figure 1.2.

Proximity

In Milgram’s original experiment, the teacherand learner were in different rooms, meaningthat the learner could be heard but not seen.In one variation Milgram put the learner inthe same room as the teacher. The obedience

Figure 1.2: Percentage of fully obedient participants inexperiment variations relating to location, proximity anduniform.

OBEDIENCE |19

Milgram’s experiment into obedience

Milgram (1963) recruited his participants byadvertising for volunteers to take part in a studyto see how punishment influenced learning andmemory. They would be paid for their time andwere told that even if they quit the study theywould still receive the money. The procedurewas relatively simple. Milgram employed twoconfederates whom he called an ‘experimenter’(the authority figure dressed in a lab coat) anda ‘learner’ (who looked like a perfectly normalindividual). The learner was wired to an ‘electric

shock machine’. The participant (the ‘teacher’) sat in an adjacent room beside the controls forthe machine. The participant (who would be administering the shocks) was required to giveshocks of increasing intensity to the learner each time they got a question wrong. Of course,the shocks were fake and the fake learner would receive no shock at all, but the participantwould believe that he had administered a real voltage.

Milgram had instructed the learner to give wronganswers and to remain silent in response to thefake shocks until they reached 300 volts (V). Atthis level the learner then banged on the wallbetween himself and the participant. The learnergave no response after 315 V, but the teacherwas required to continue asking questions andadminister electric shocks up to 450 V. If at anytime the participant demurred or asked to stop,the fake experimenter would tell the participant,‘You have no choice’, ‘You must go on’ or ‘It isessential that you go on’.

Despite a line marked ‘Danger: severe shock’ on the apparatus at 420 V, 65% of participantswent past this to the machine’s maximum voltage – 450 V. A small proportion (12.5% – just 5of Milgram’s 40 participants) stopped at the 300 V level, where the learner had begun to objectto the shocks.

Prior to the experiment,it had been estimatedthat only 3% wouldgo to the maximumshock level. Milgram’sobedience studies clearlydemonstrate how muchimpact an authorityfigure can have onour behaviour and thedestructive potential ofblind obedience.

Figure 1.3: The results of Milgram’s 1963 study of obedience.

20| SOCIAL INFLUENCE

rate (i.e. the number of participants who wentto the maximum shock level) fell to 40%. Inanother variation the learner and teacher werebrought into even closer proximity. Here, theteacher was required to hold the learner’s handon the metal plate that delivered the shock.

Puppies have feelings too

Criticisms of Milgram’s findings, such as‘pact of ignorance’ and weak ecologicalvalidity, led Sheridan and King (1972) towonder what participants would do if theyactually had to deliver a real electric shock.Of course, they couldn’t electrocute a humanso instead they used what they described as‘a cute fluffy puppy’.

The participants (the ‘teachers’) were 13 maleand 13 female undergraduates. They weretold that the ‘learner’ (the puppy) was beingtrained to discriminate between a steady anda flickering light. If the puppy failed to moveas it should in response to each type of light,then it was to receive increasing shocks viathe metal cage floor. The puppy was on theother side of a one-way mirror in full view ofthe teacher and really did receive the shocks.The shocks had limited amperage so whilstvery painful (predictably causing howling,crying, yelping, jumping, etc.), no lastingphysical damage was caused.

They found that six of the male participantsrefused to continue before reachingthe maximum 450 V, whilst all femaleparticipants obeyed the authority figure andwent to the maximum level. All participantsshowed distress during the procedure – forexample, puffing, pacing and crying. Someparticipants attempted to coax the puppy toescape the shock (even though they couldnot be seen) and some attempted to secretlylimit the duration of the shock. The findingsclearly support Milgram’s conclusions that,under certain conditions, people are willingto follow what are obviously ‘repugnant’commands.

Obedience rates fell to 30%. Milgram alsomanipulated the proximity of the authorityfigure. In one variation the experimenter didnot stay within a few metres of the teacher asin the original experiment, but left the roomand gave orders by telephone. The obediencerate fell to 21%, and it was noted that someparticipants secretly gave weaker shocks thanthey should have. These findings suggest thatpeople are less compelled to obey when theorder from an authority figure is less direct andthe consequences of obeying the order are lessimmediate.

Uniform

Authority figures are often identifiable by howthey dress – for example, a head teacher maywear a smart suit or a police officer a uniform.In Milgram’s original study the authorityfigure wore a white lab coat. To investigate theimportance of uniform, Milgram conducteda variation where the experimenter received aphone call at the start of the procedure thatrequired them to leave. Their place was taken bywhat the participants thought was an ordinarymember of the public, wearing normal everydayclothes and no lab coat. He was, of course, aconfederate. Obedience levels fell to 20%, thelowest of any of the variations.

Location

Milgram noted that the location of theexperiment may have influenced level ofobedience as it gave the impression that theauthority was legitimate. After all, Yale is aprestigious university so its scientists are boundto know what they are doing! To test this,Milgram conducted the obedience experimentin a run-down inner city office building. Findingthat obedience dropped to 47.5%, Milgramconcluded that location contributed to butdid not entirely explain the occurrence ofobedience.

OBEDIENCE |21

Evaluation of Milgram’s experiments

1. It has been claimed that the ‘teachers’ (i.e. thereal participants) did not really believe that the‘learner’ was receiving electric shocks. Orne andHolland (1968) called this a ‘pact of ignorance’.On the face of it, this criticism seems reasonable.For example, how could an employee of YaleUniversity, a prestigious institution, allow suchharm to be inflicted? Or why was the teacherneeded at all? A researcher could easily haveconducted the memory test and administeredthe shocks without the need for an intermediary.However, films made of some of the studies andpost-experimental interviews show participantsunder extreme stress which suggests the realityof the situation for participants.

2. It has been claimed that the extreme levels ofobedience seen in Milgram’s study were in some

way due to the artificial nature of the laboratorysetting (i.e. it lacked ecological validity).However, research by Hofling et al. (1966)suggests that obedience is observable in settingsother than the laboratory. Their participantswere 22 nurses working at different hospitalswho were not aware that they were taking partin a study. The nurses were telephoned by afictitious ‘doctor’ and instructed to administera potentially dangerous medication. Despite thefact that the telephone instruction clearly brokeseveral hospital rules, all but one of the nurseswere willing to carry out the order.

3. Evidence in support of Milgram comesfrom Burger (2009). He attempted to replicateMilgram’s study and found comparable levelsof obedience (see box ‘Obedience lite’ – areplication of Milgram’s study).

‘Obedience lite’ – a replication of Milgram’s study

Milgram’s research was strongly criticised on ethical grounds, something which prevented replicationof his procedure. Burger (2009) conducted the first obedience study in the US in 30 years, only alteringthe procedure to bring Milgram’s experiment within the bounds of current ethical standards. LikeMilgram, Burger recruited participants through advertisements in newspapers and leaflets. He filteredout those with knowledge of psychology and Milgram’s research in particular. Burger found thatobedience rates were only slightly lower than in Milgram’s study conducted decades before.

ETHICAL ISSUE: PREVENTION FROM HARM

Whilst Milgram did follow-up interviews which satisfied him that there were no long-termpsychological effects on participants, he did not ensure that vulnerable individuals were excludedfrom participation. Burger addressed this by screening all participants and excluding anyone whomight have a negative reaction to the experience. He also limited distress by stopping shocks at150 V – his logic being that Milgram’s participants went all the way once they got that far anyway,so in all likelihood his participants would too. Burger also ensured that a thorough debrief wasprovided as quickly as possible following the experiment.

ETHICAL ISSUE: RIGHT TO WITHDRAW

Whilst Milgram’s participants were told they could leave the study and keep their money, theorders of the authority figure clearly indicated that participants could not simply stop. Burgerinformed participants on three separate occasions during the procedure that they could withdrawat any time.

22| SOCIAL INFLUENCE

EXPLANATIONS FOR OBEDIENCE

The findings of Milgram’s experiments cannotbe explained by arguing that the participantswere somehow uncaring and heartlessindividuals. On the contrary, they pleaded tobe allowed to stop and expressed concern forthe learner’s suffering. Neither were participantsseeing through Milgram’s deception. Theyappeared to show a great deal of emotionaldistress during the procedure. A number ofpossible explanations have been proposed – justtwo are outlined here.

Legitimacy of authority

Society assigns legitimate authority to certainindividuals, and Milgram (1974) believed thatthe norm of obedience to authority compels usto act upon their commands. We are, in effect,socialised to obey the orders of individualsthat society has given the right to demandobedience – for example, teachers, policeofficers and parents. However, an authorityfigure must somehow send the message thatthey are the one with the status and powerand should be obeyed. This can be conveyedby things like posture, tone of voice and facialexpression. This is also done through more overtsymbols, such as formal dress (e.g. a suit) or auniform (e.g. a police uniform). The effect oflegitimate authority can be seen in Milgram’s

experiment, with the increased obedience whenthe experimenter wore a white lab coat. Whenthe orders were given by someone without thissymbol of scientific authority, obedience ratesfell. He also found that obedience was highestwhen there was the greatest credibility andlegitimacy – for example, when the experimentwas conducted at the prestigious Yale Universityrather than a shabby office. The power ofoutward signs of authority like uniforms wasdemonstrated in a field experiment by Bickman(1974) (see box ‘The uniform – a symbol oflegitimate power’).

Normative and informational socialinfluences

Normative social influence made it difficultfor participants in Milgram’s study to refuse tocontinue. By agreeing to take part, participantshad entered into a social contract – a normof which required them to continue doingwhat they had agreed to in order to please theexperimenter. Informational social influence alsoplayed a part. Participants found themselves in aconfusing situation they had never experiencedbefore. We know that informational socialinfluence is especially strong in ambiguoussituations. Unsure about exactly what wasgoing on, participants used others to guide theirbehaviour – the expert who was instructingthem to continue administering shocks.

The uniform – a symbol of legitimate power

Bickman (1974) had a researcher approach people passing by on the street and ask them one of threethings: to pick up a piece of litter, to give a dime (the equivalent of a 10 pence coin) to a strangeror move away from a bus stop. The researcher was dressed either as a civilian, a milkman or a guard.Bickman found that 14% obeyed the milkman, 19% the civilian and 38% the guard. In order to furtherinvestigate the power of the guard, he conducted another experiment where the guard, after havingmade the request, either stayed to watch what the passer-by did or walked away. Bickman found thatpeople continued to obey the guard even when he was not there to see them comply. For Bickman, thisdemonstrated the power of a visible symbol of authority – the uniform.

OBEDIENCE |23

Agentic state

Milgram proposed that individual socialconsciousness can operate in two ways: theautonomous state is when individuals assumeresponsibility for their actions. Because anindividual’s own values and beliefs are guidingtheir behaviour they are more likely to behavein moral and pro-social ways. The agentic stateis when individuals feel they have diminishedpersonal responsibility because they are the‘agents’ of others (i.e. they act on someoneelse’s behalf). In this state of mind they arelikely to feel less conscience and guilt aboutthe consequences of their own actions, and aremore likely to engage in antisocial acts. Milgram(1974) called the move away from autonomy toagency the ‘agentic shift’. It is triggered by thepresence of someone perceived to have greaterlegitimate power.

The agentic state has probably evolvedbecause it serves useful social functions. Forexample, it allows us to live successfully inhierarchical societies where we give up controlover aspects of our lives to other legitimateauthorities, such as teachers or police officers.The agentic state is something which developsearly in life. Parents encourage their childrento obey, follow rules and respect other’sauthority. As we grow we are encouraged totake more responsibility for ourselves, thus tobe autonomous. In the context of obediencestudies, people who are obeying the authorityfigure, the experimenter, are in an agentic state– they are agents of an external authority. Thosewho remain independent, and thus disobedient,are consequently expressing autonomy ratherthan agency.

Dispositional explanation for obedience:the authoritarian personality

Milgram (1974) suggested that individualdifferences in obedience can be linked to anaspect of an individual’s disposition calledan authoritarian personality. People with an

authoritarian personality are most likely toobey orders and give the largest shocks. Oftenresulting from an upbringing by dogmatic anddistant parents, the authoritarian personalitytends to be intolerant of others, feels securein their opinions and beliefs, and is obedientand submissive to those they see as being inauthority (Adorno et al., 1950). The attitudestowards authority formed as a child (i.e. thatpeople with more power and authority have tobe obeyed) continue into adulthood and formpart of a person’s disposition. It is clear whythe theory of the authoritarian personality wasso attractive to those seeking a dispositionalexplanation for acts of obedience.

The concept of an authoritarian personalityhas been widely criticised, however, andmany psychologists consider the authoritarianpersonality as proposed by Adorno et al. to befundamentally flawed. Milgram himself said, ‘Iam certain that there is a complex personalitybasis to obedience and disobedience. But Iknow we have not found it yet’ (Milgram,1974, p. 205). Decades later and research hasyet to demonstrate a convincing associationbetween obedience and the authoritarianpersonality, or indeed between obedience andany personality variable. Sutton and Douglas(2013) suggest that the situational forces at playare usually powerful and therefore overwhelmany dispositional factors that may influenceindividual responses. Where a person’sdisposition might influence behaviour is insituations where social influence is particularlyweak. Whilst personality is unlikely to be animportant factor influencing behaviour inspecific instances of social influence (e.g. anexperiment into obedience), it might emergewhen behaviour is considered as an averageacross a range of different situations.

24|