Authority and Aggression social influence social norms learned, socially based rules reciprocity norm not universal nor unchanging.

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

All Trials = 33%Some Trials = 75%

Asch Conformity

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

0

20

40

0 2 4 6 8 10

Group Size

Confo

rmit

y re

sponse

s %

Group Size

Minority

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Control Inconsistent minority Consistent minority

Experimental Condition

nu

mb

er o

f n

on

-co

nfo

rmin

gre

spo

nse

s

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?

0

10

2030

40

50

60

7080

90

100

15-60

75-120

135-180

195-240

255-300

315-350

375-420

435-450

Level of Shock (Volts)

Actual

Predicted

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

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%P

ER

CE

NT

FU

LL

Y C

ON

FO

RM

ING

POUND

YELL

SEE

TOUCH

65%

62.5%

40%

30%

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

Glad

Neither

Sorry

Very sorry

40 48

44 36

15 15

1 1

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

• Well-Learned Responses

• Physiological Arousal

• Improved Improved PerformancePerformance

• Impaired Impaired PerformancePerformance

• On well-On well-learned learned or simple or simple tasks,tasks, thethe dominant dominant response response is correctis correct

• On new or On new or complex complex

tasks, the tasks, the dominant dominant response response

is often is often wrongwrong

• Well-Learned ResponsesWell-Learned Responses• Well-Learned ResponsesWell-Learned Responses

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