How other people affect our
thoughts, feelings and
behaviours
Influence of groups and culture
How groups/culture around
us affects our thoughts,
feelings and behaviour
Milgram (1963)
Aim
To measure how obedient
participants would be when ordered
to give electric shocks to innocent
person
Sample
40 adult male
volunteers,
advertisement in
newspaper
Procedure
Participants told they were taking part in a study on the effect of
punishment on learning. In a fixed lottery participant always given role
of teacher and the stooge was the learner. Participant read out word
list and had to shock learner when they gave a wrong answer. Shocks
ranged from 15v to 450v - no shocks were actually given. Learner went
silent at 315v. If teacher refused to continue 'prods' used to encourage
them. Obedience measured by how far the participants went.
Results
100% went
up to 315v,
65% went
up to 450v
Conclusion
Obedience due to situational
factors rather than deviant
personality
Variation Studies
Leaner could not be seen/heard - 100% went to 450v
Learner could be seen and heard - 40% went to 450v
Evaluation
Strengths
V.reliable - participants thought
experiment was real so behaviour
was real
Has experimental validity
Weaknesses
No ecological validity
No population validity - only used
American adult males
Broke ethical guidelines - protection of
participants, withdrawl, deception,
consent
Meeus and Raaijmakers (1985)
Aim
To test
obedience where
harm would be
done
Procedure
Based on Milgram's study. Participants ordered
to harass a job applicant (a stooge) to make
them nervous while sitting a test
Results
92% obeyed, most said they thought it was
wrong (moral strain)
Conclusion
People will obey an authority
figure even if they think it is
morally wrong
Evaluation
Strengths
Ecologically valid
Weaknesses
Ethical guidelines broken -
deception, protection of
participants
Carried out in a lab
setting -
contradicts
ecological validity
Agency Theory (Milgram 1976)
Proposed that we have evolved to obey authority
Two social states:
Autonomous state - we act
independently, have free will
Agentic state - see
ourselves as agents those
in authority, don't believe
we are responsible for our
actions, surrender free will
Moral strain - occurs when we are asked to do
something we know is morally wrong
Evaluation
Strengths
Helps to explain moral strain
Has support from studies like Milgram
and Holfing et al
Could help protect against
being destructively obedient
Weaknesses
Not everyone obeys
authority
Could be used as an excuse
for bad behaviour
Predjudice
Usually negative pre-judgement towards a
person/group based on appearance
Discrimination
Acting on prejudice feelings
Social Identity Theory (Tajfel 1970)
The act of being placed into a group
will lead to prejudice against other
groups
Happens in 3 stages:
1. Social categorisation - we
categorise ourselves and others into
different groups
2. Social identification - we identify with a
certain group and adopt behaviours of this
group
3. Social comparison - we compare
our group to others; must compare
well to help self-esteem
Evaluation
Strengths
Supported by Sherif et al
Explains real world behaviour
Weaknesses
Simplifies complex human reactions
Hofling et al (1966)
Aim
To find out what happens when a
nurse is given orders which go
against professional standards
Sample
22 nurses in two hospitals, third
hospital used as a control
Procedure
Boxes of placebo capsules
labelled '5mg of Astrofen' placed
on wards, indicated that 5mg was
normal dose and 10mg was max
daily dosage. While nurses were
alone on the ward they got a phone
call from an unknown doctor
calling himself 'Dr Smith'.
Instructed them to give a patient
20mg of Astrofen as he was in a
hurry and would be over to sign
prescrption later
Results
21/22 nurses complied, 11/22 didn't
notice the dosage, 10 did but gave it
anyway
Conclusion
Nurses obeyed the 'doctor' because they
thought he was a legitimate authority
figure
Evaluation
Strengths
High ecological validity
High experimental
validity - nurses thought it
was real
Weaknesses
Low reliability
Broke ethical guidelines - consent,
deception, protection of participants
Low population validity -
only female nurses from
USA
Sherif et al (1961)
Aim
To see whether it's possible to create
prejudice between similar groups
Sample
22 boys split into two groups
Procedure
Neither group knew each other. Did a series of
tasks in order to bond as a group. Told about
other group after first week. Felt the other group
had invaded their territory which led to prejudice.
Both groups made to compete for prizes - strong
prejudice and discrimination resulted.
Results
Strong 'in-group' preference
shown, 93% only had friends in
their own group
Conclusion
Once group identities had formed
introducing competition led to
discrimination and prejudice
Evaluation
Strengths
High ecological validity
High experimental validity
Weaknesses
Broke ethical guidelines - consent,
deception, protection of participants,
withdrawl
Low population validity
Obedience during conflict
Soldiers trained to obey orders from authority
How far should this be used as an excuse for carrying out atrocities?
My Lai Massacre, Vietnam 16th March 1968
26 US soldiers massacred the village of My Lai, killing between
350-500 women, children and old men
Soldiers charged with murder but only one was convicted
Lt. William Calley the leader of the 1st Platoon
Defence was that he was only obeying orders from superiors