Authority and Aggression
• social influence
• social norms
• learned, socially based rules
• reciprocity norm
• not universal nor unchanging
Conformity
• Conformity: behavior or beliefs changed
to match group.
• unspoken group pressure, real or imagined
• Public conformity (cf. compliance= grant
request)
• socially desirable, behavior
• Private acceptance
• group is right, beliefs and behavior
Conformity
• Behavior changes because of a request
• Sherif’s (1937) study of norm formation, and
the autokinetic effect
• Asch’s (1956) study of conformity to an
incorrect norm
Sherif (1936)
Establishment of Group Norms
Asch Conformity
All Trials = 33%
Some Trials = 75%
When Did People Conform?
• More ambiguity
• size of the majority (3+)
• consistent minority (single correct
dissenter 5% conformity)
• collectivistic > individualistic
• less so when others can’t hear answers
• minimal gender differences
Conformity responses %
Group Size
40
20
0
0
2
4
6
Group Size
8
10
number of non-conforming
responses
Minority
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Control
Inconsistent minority
Experim ental Condition
Consistent minority
Obedience
• How far will people go to obey authority?
Obedience
• Response to a demand from an authority
figure
• Milgram’s obedience experiments (direct
commands)
• Stanford Prison (“roles” as authority)
Studying
Obedience
in the
Laboratory
Results of Milgram’s Initial
Obedience Experiment
How far will people go?
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Actual
Predicted
1560
75- 135- 195- 255- 315- 375- 435120 180 240 300 350 420 450
Level of Shock (Volts)
Factors Affecting Obedience
• experimenter status and prestige
• behavior of other people (model quits)
• personality characteristics
• authoritarianism
• proximity to subject
Elements of Authoritarianism
• Acceptance of conservative values
• Unquestioningly follow authority
• Act aggressively
Back
CONFORMITY VARIES
PERCENT FULLY CONFORMING
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
65%
62.5%
40%
30%
POUND
YELL
SEE
TOUCH
20%
10%
0%
Next
Evaluating Obedience Research
• How relevant today?
• Were his experiments ethical?
• What do Milgram’s dramatic results mean?
Milgram Replication (2009)
“Game of Death”
• Even higher obedience rates
• Clip
Willing participants?
Within 20 minutes he was reduced to a
twitching, shuddering wreck, who was
rapidly approaching nervous collapse. He
constantly pulled on his ear lobe, and
twisted his hands. At one point he pushed
his fist into his forehead and muttered ‘Oh
God, lets stop it’. An yet he continued to
respond to every word of the
experimenter, and obeyed to the end.
How did you feel about your
participation in this experiment?
Defiant
Obedient
Very glad
40
48
Glad
44
36
Neither
15
15
Sorry
1
1
Very sorry
0
1
Milgram’s Conclusion
• “Human nature cannot be counted on to
insulate man from brutality at the hands of
his fellow man when orders come from
what is perceived as a legitimate authority”
Groups and Deindividuation
• Characteristics:
•
•
•
•
•
“submerged in the group”
loss the sense of individuality
not personally accountable for one’s actions
attention diverted from internal thoughts
Examples, Jim Jones and the “Peoples
Temple”, 900 dead
Stanford Prison
• Zimbardo’s Study
• assigned roles as guards or prisoner
• prisoners arrested at home, strip searched,
and finger printed by real officers
• guards enforce rules
• rebellion quashed
• discontinued after few days
• Prisoner #8612 began suffering from acute
emotional disturbance, disorganized thinking,
uncontrollable crying, and rage
Helping and Altruism
• Any act intended to benefit another (help)
• Unselfish concern/action (altruism)
Why?
• learning to be helpful
•
•
•
•
young children need reward
adults gain social approval
role of cultural norms
reciprocity
Arousal: Cost-Reward Theory
• unpleasant arousal from suffering victim is
reduced
• helping costs
• not helping costs
Arousal Theory
• clarity of the need for help
• presence of others
• Bystander effect
• Diffusion of responsibility
• personality of helper
Murder of Kitty Genovese (1964)
•
•
•
•
•
•
38 witnesses
none helped
35 minute attack
slow to report
some watched
others closed
windows
• relevant today?
Other Approaches
• Empathy-Altruism Theory: feel empathy
toward the person in need
• Evolutionary: helping others is adaptive
(not at all altruistic)
• helping relative
• help group
Group Processes
• Cooperation: work together to attain a
goal
• Competition: winner gets goal, loser gets
nothing
• Conflict: Other agent interferes with the
attainment of a goal
Social Dilemmas
• Best action best for each individual will, if
adopted by others, create a loss for all
• Reflects conflicts between:
• individual versus group
• short-term and long-term interests
Prisoner’s
Dilemma
Effects of Group
• Social Facilitation: improvement
• Social Impairment: reduction
• Social Loafing: less effort
• Presence of Others
• On well• On new or
• Physiological Arousal
learned
complex
or simple
tasks, the
tasks,
dominant
the
• Well-Learned Responses
response
dominant
is often
response
wrong
is correct
• Improved
Performance
• Impaired
Performance
Leadership Styles
• Task-Oriented: close supervision, gives
orders, no discussion.
• Person-Oriented: loose supervision,
responds to group members’ ideas
feelings.
• One style is not better than the other.
Groupthink
Groupthink
• group makes more drastic choices
• Particularly likely:
•
•
•
•
group is isolated
time pressure
limited evaluation of alternative solutions
strong leader with agenda
Groupthink (cont’d)
• Consequences
•
•
•
•
closed-minded
alternatives quickly dismissed
suppression of dissent
infallibility
• Ways of avoiding groupthink
• member plays the “devil’s advocate”
• encourage diverse opinions