Topic 5: Social influence Revision Notes

What is Obedience to Authority?

Obedience to authority is a type of social influence where individuals comply with the demands of an authority figure. It differs from conformity as it involves a direct order rather than indirect pressure from a group. People often obey due to fear of consequences, respect for legitimacy, or belief in the authority figure's expertise. Historical events like the Holocaust highlight the destructive potential of unquestioning obedience, prompting significant psychological research into its underlying mechanisms.

Factors Affecting Obedience: Personality and Situation

Personality factors, such as having an authoritarian personality (characterised by rigidity, conventionalism, and submissiveness to authority), have been linked to higher levels of obedience. Situational factors are also crucial: proximity to the victim, proximity to the authority figure, the perceived legitimacy of the authority, and the presence of dissenting or obedient peers all profoundly impact an individual's willingness to obey. For example, Milgram's variations showed that obedience decreased when the experimenter was not in the same room as the participant or when the participant had to physically touch the 'learner'.

Psychological Evidence and Research Methods

Stanley Milgram's classic experiments on obedience involved participants ('teachers') administering what they believed were increasingly strong electric shocks to a 'learner' (an actor) under the instruction of an 'experimenter' (an authority figure). His findings demonstrated alarmingly high levels of obedience, with 65% of participants administering the maximum 450-volt shock. Milgram used a controlled observation in a lab setting. His research, while highly influential, has faced significant ethical criticisms regarding deception and potential psychological distress caused to participants. Other studies, like Hofling et al. (1966), examined obedience in a naturalistic setting, showing nurses obeying an unknown doctor's dangerous instructions.

Ethical Considerations in Obedience Research

Research into obedience raises significant ethical dilemmas. Key ethical guidelines include informed consent, the right to withdraw, protection from harm, and debriefing. Milgram's study, for example, is often criticised for its use of deception (participants believed they were shocking a real person), the lack of a clear right to withdraw (prods were used to encourage continuation), and the potential for psychological harm (participants exhibited distress). Debriefing is crucial to explain the true nature of the study and mitigate any negative effects, but its effectiveness after such stressful experiences remains debated.

Evaluation of Obedience Studies

A strength of Milgram's research is its high control over variables due to the lab setting, increasing internal validity by allowing a cause-and-effect relationship between authority and obedience to be inferred. However, the artificial nature of the task (administering electric shocks) and setting leads to questions about ecological validity and generalisability to real-life situations. The use of deception and psychological distress raises serious ethical concerns. Despite these, Milgram's findings have been replicated in various cultures, suggesting some cross-cultural validity, and have enhanced our understanding of destructive obedience.

Aim and Procedure

Piliavin et al. (1969) aimed to investigate the effect of several variables on helping behaviour: the type of victim (drunk or ill), the race of the victim (black or white), the presence of a model helper, and the size of the group of bystanders. The study was a field experiment conducted on a New York City subway train. Teams of student researchers staged an emergency where one 'victim' collapsed in a subway car. The victim was either carrying a cane (ill condition) or smelt of alcohol and carried a bottle wrapped in a paper bag (drunk condition). After 70 seconds, if the victim had not received help, a 'model' confederate would intervene. Other confederates acted as observers, recording data such as the number of initial helpers, their race, and comments from passengers. The scenario was repeated numerous times across different trains over several months.

Findings and Conclusion

The study found that the 'cane' victim (ill) received spontaneous help 95% of the time, compared to the 'drunk' victim who received help 50% of the time. Help was offered more quickly to the cane victim. There was no significant difference in helping behaviour based on the victim's race, particularly in the cane condition. The number of bystanders had no significant effect on help given, contradicting the 'diffusion of responsibility' hypothesis in this setting. The study concluded that situational factors, such as the victim's apparent responsibility for their predicament, influence helping behaviour. The perceived cost of helping (e.g., potential danger from a 'drunk' individual) might also play a role, as does the cost of not helping (e.g., guilt or distress from witnessing someone in need). The researchers proposed the 'arousal: cost-reward model' to explain these findings, suggesting bystanders weigh the emotional arousal of witnessing an emergency against the perceived costs and rewards of intervening or not intervening.

Strengths

A major strength of the study is its high ecological validity, as it was a field experiment conducted in a real-life setting (a subway train) where participants were unaware they were being observed. This means the observed behaviour was likely natural and involuntary, increasing the generalisability of the findings to real-world emergencies. The use of multiple trials and different victims/models also contributed to the reliability of the results. The combination of quantitative data (e.g., frequency of help, time to help) and qualitative data (e.g., bystander comments) provided a rich and detailed understanding of the phenomenon.

Weaknesses and Ethical Considerations

A key ethical weakness is the lack of informed consent from the participants, who were unaware they were part of a study and could not withdraw. They were also exposed to a potentially distressing situation (witnessing someone collapse), which could cause psychological harm, and were not debriefed. This raises concerns about the ethical treatment of participants. Methodologically, despite its natural setting, the study lacked control over extraneous variables (e.g., individual personalities, prior experiences of passengers), which might have influenced helping behaviour. The sample was also limited to New York City subway users, potentially reducing generalisability to other populations or cultures.

Strategies to Prevent Blind Obedience

Preventing blind obedience involves fostering independent thought and ethical awareness. Key strategies include: encouraging critical thinking and questioning authority, teaching about the psychological mechanisms of obedience (e.g., Milgram's findings), promoting personal responsibility, and establishing environments where dissent is supported. The presence of disobedient role models or social support for defiance is highly effective, as it breaks the perceived unanimity of the situation and reduces the pressure to conform or obey.

Psychological Evidence and Ethical Considerations

Milgram's obedience experiments (1963) demonstrated that many people would obey harmful instructions from perceived authority. Variations of his study showed that factors like proximity to the victim, proximity to the authority figure, and the presence of rebellious confederates could influence obedience levels. For instance, when two other confederates defied the experimenter, participant obedience dropped significantly. Ethically, understanding how to prevent blind obedience is crucial for protecting individuals from harm and promoting responsible decision-making. However, research into these mechanisms must be conducted ethically, ensuring participant welfare and informed consent.

Defining Society and Social Issues

Society is a large group of individuals living together with shared organisations, laws, and traditions. Social issues are problems within a society affecting many people, often stemming from social structures, norms, or interactions. Examples include prejudice, crime, and public health concerns. Psychology explores how these issues influence individual and group behaviour.

Understanding Culture

Culture refers to the shared characteristics of a group, encompassing their customs, arts, institutions, and values. It includes language, beliefs, traditions, and learned behaviours passed down through generations. Culture shapes an individual's worldview, perception, and behaviour. Cross-cultural research helps psychologists understand the impact of culture on various psychological phenomena.

Social Influence and Cultural Explanations

Social influence theories (e.g., conformity, obedience) are used to explain how social and cultural factors affect individual behaviour. For example, cultural norms can dictate expected behaviours, leading individuals to conform. Understanding these mechanisms helps address social issues like stereotyping or groupthink, where cultural values might reinforce certain behaviours or beliefs.

Research and Ethics in Social & Cultural Psychology

Psychological research on social and cultural issues uses various methods, including surveys, observations, and experiments, to collect evidence. Ethical considerations are paramount due to the sensitivity of topics, requiring informed consent, protection from harm, and confidentiality. Evaluating research involves considering the methodology's appropriateness and the generalisability of findings across diverse populations.