PSY 301 - 2 Discussion Questions

Digital Vision/Thinkstock Learning Objectives By the end of the chapter you should be able to:

• Explain Solomon Asch’s study of conformity • Differentiate injunctive norms from descriptive norms and normative influence from informa- tional influence • Describe how conformity may result in either acceptance or compliance • Explain the power of minorities • Describe Milgram’s study of obedience and the factors that make obedience more or less likely to occur • Explain factors that predict disobedience Conformity and Obedience 8 Chapter Outline 8.1 Conformity • Norms • Normative and Informational Influence • Minority Influence 8.2 Obedience to Authority • What Predicts Obedience? • Disobedience • Ethics of Obedience Research 8.3 Leadership Chapter Summary • Describe the ethical issues with Milgram’s study and Milgram’s response to those concerns • Define leadership and differentiate the three main types of leadership • Define implicit leadership theories fee85798_08_c08_171-192.indd 171 7/16/13 10:02 AM Section 8.1 Conformity In 1956, Jim Jones, an untrained but charismatic pastor, started the “People’s Temple,” a racially integrated, socially minded church in Indiana. Ten years later, he and his congregation moved to California and grew in size and power. Here, pressures toward conformity helped align individuals’ behavior with group expec- tations. Jones used social influence in services to punish members for u\ ndesirable behavior, bringing members up during gatherings and publicly shaming them for their actions. Church members were expected to obey Jones’ edicts without ques - tion. Feeling persecuted for the good work he was doing Jones moved his \ entire church to Guyana, in South America, to a settlement he named Jonestown. He dreamed of creating a utopian community, where young and old were treated with dignity and respect and the color of one’s skin did not matter. But Jones became increasingly paranoid and controlling. Members worked long days, often listen - ing to Jones speak over the loudspeaker, and were not allowed to leave. Concerned families back home asked U.S. Representative Leo Ryan to check out the situation.

In November 1978, Ryan, some of his staff, and a news crew traveled to Guyana to meet with Jones and members of the People’s Temple. Some of the Jonestown resi - dents decided to leave with the congressman and as they waited for the planes to be readied other members of Jonestown attacked the group, killing the congressman and several others. Fearing retaliation Jones asked his followers to commit suicide in what he called a revolutionary act. They mixed up vats of flavored drink laced with cyanide and gave it to the children first, then the adults. Those who refused were encouraged by guards with guns. In the end, 918 people died, either in\ the attack at the airport or in the mass suicide. Jones died of a gunshot to\ the head (Hall, 1987). The People’s Temple relied on pressure from the group and obedi- ence to authority to do its work and to grow. The story of Jonestown is a dramatic example of the power of conformity and obedience, forces we will explore in greater depth in this chapter. 8.1 Conformity Y ou have been invited to be a participant in a research study. When you show up, you find that seven other participants have already arrived. All of you are seated around a table and are asked to be part of a study that, at least by appearances, is investigating visual perception. You are shown a line, called the stimulus line, and are asked which of three other lines the stimulus line matches. This looks to be a simple task\ ; you expect to be a little bored. For the first couple of rounds, the study goes as expected, with each person around the table choosing the line that obviously matches the stimulus line. Then something odd happens. The first person chooses the wrong line. You are sur - prised; the line the person chooses is obviously not the right one. You wait for the second person to choose the right line. But the second person agrees with the first person. The third and fourth also agree. The fifth person chooses the same wrong line and then the sixth. Finally, it is your turn. You need to decide whether to go along with the group, a group that is unanimous, or trust your eyes and choose what you perceive is the right line.

What do you do? fee85798_08_c08_171-192.indd 172 7/16/13 10:02 AM CHAPTER 8 Section 8.1 Conformity This scenario was experienced by partici- pants in Solomon Asch’s (1958) study of conformity. Conformity can be defined as going along with a group’s actions or beliefs. The study was designed to pit individuals against a unanimous group to see whether people would go along with the group or stick with what their senses were telling them was right. In this study, one third of judgments made by partici - pants went along with the majority opin - ion. Looking at how likely individual participants were to conform, Asch found that one quarter of all participants never went along with the majority. On the other side, one third of participants conformed 50% of the time or more. The rest of the participants showed at least occasional conformity. Altogether, three quarters of participants conformed to the group judg - ment at least once. See Figures 8.1 and 8.2 for more on the specific test Asch used and the results.

Participants who did not go along with the group were not unaffected by the fact that their judgments were going against the group. Some seemed confused or hesitant in their answers, but persevered anyway.

Even those who were more certain of their judgments were chagrined at their own deviance. Of those who went along with the group, some thought that the answers they and the group were giving were wrong, but nevertheless went along with the group. Others came to believe that the group was right.

Asch followed up his original study with a few variations. When he varied the size of the group, he found that a unanimous group of one or two others was not as persuasive as three, but there were only minimal gains after adding the third person. He also had a variation in which another person in the group gave an accurate judgment. The presence of another person who went against the group and gave the right answer decreased con - formity. Even when it goes against the majority opinion, having one other perso\ n around who agrees with us gives us more confidence to express what we believe is right. Figure 8.1: Visual perception test Asch used this visual perception test.

Participants were asked which comparison line was the same length as the standard line. The participants were unknowingly mixed with confederates. The confederates purposefully agreed on the wrong answer. Asch measured how many participants agreed with the confederates (even though they were wrong) and how many did not.

From Asch, S. E. (1955). Opinions and social pressure. Scientific American, 193, 31–35. doi: 10.1038/scientificamerican1155-31 Standard Comparison fee85798_08_c08_171-192.indd 173 7/16/13 10:02 AM CHAPTER 8 Section 8.1 Conformity Conformity occurs in all cultures, although rates may be slightly different.

In independent cultures, we generally find less conformity than in interdepen- dent cultures (Bond & Smith, 1996). One caveat to this is the rates of conformity in Japan. In a study using a similar confor - mity task to Asch’s, rates of conformity were lower in Japan than in the United States, a surprising finding given that Japanese culture is more interdependent than U.S. culture (Frager, 1970). Later researchers found that in Japan, when the group was made up of friends, con - formity was much higher (Williams & Sogon, 1984). It seems that in an interde- pendent culture, people conform more to the ingroup but less to the outgroup.

Conformity has declined slightly since Asch did his study in the early 1950s, perhaps because of a cultural shift increasingly emphasizing individuality and the questioning of authority (Bond & Smith, 1996). Test Yourself • Did all of the participants in Asch’s study go along with the group?

No. About a quarter of the participants never went along with the group. The rest con - formed at least once . • What effect did the presence of someone else who went against the group have on the participants in Asch’s study?

When there was another person who did not conform, conformity of the participant declined as well. Norms Even though most of us do not find ourselves in a room with a group of people answer - ing targeted questions, we can still develop ideas based on what the collective group is thinking or doing. For example, you might believe that the majority of p\ eople brush their teeth at least twice a day, and that most people are against removing educational services Figure 8.2: Participant conformity rates with confederate(s) When participants were grouped with a single confederate in Asch’s study, they were generally as accurate as if they had been alone. When they were grouped with four confederates, they agreed with the incorrect confederates more than 30% of the time.

Adapted from Asch, S. E. (1955). Opinions and social pressure. Scientific American, 193, 31–35. doi: 10.1038/scientificamerican1155-31 Pe rcent who conformed and ans wered incorrectly One confederat eFour confederates 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 fee85798_08_c08_171-192.indd 174 7/16/13 10:02 AM CHAPTER 8 Section 8.1 Conformity for children with disabilities. These beliefs about what the group is thinking or doing are called norms.

Two types of norms may influence our behavior. Norms for what is approved or disap- proved of are called injunctive norms. Norms describing what most people do are descriptive norms (Cialdini, Kallgren, & Reno, 1991). Sometimes these two types of norms are in conflict; for example, a high school student may believe that the m\ ajority of people are not in favor of underage drinking (injunctive norm) but may also bel\ ieve that the majority of teens engage in underage drinking (descriptive norm). Ofte\ n the injunctive and descriptive norms are similar. Most people agree that we should not steal from one another (injunctive norm) and that most people do not steal (descript\ ive norm). We can also be wrong about one or both of these norms. The high school student may be right that most people disapprove of underage drinking but wrong that most students engage in it (Borsari & Carey, 2003).

One place we get information about norms is the environment itself. For example, if you are in a public place and see trash all around, the descrip - tive norm the environment is provid- ing is that everyone litters. This may lead you to litter as well (Cialdini, Reno, & Kallgren, 1990). If the injunc - tive norm against littering were more prominent, for example, if there were signs asking you not to litter and eas - ily accessible trash cans were avail - able, you may not litter (Cialdini et al., 1990; Reno, Cialdini, & Kallgren, 1993). Norms that come from the environment will differ from place to place and culture to culture.

Telling people about descriptive norms can be helpful in encouraging posi\ tive behaviors.

In a study of energy consumption, households that used more than the average amount of energy reduced energy consumption when informed of the descriptive norm. How - ever, households that were below the average for energy consumption actually increased consumption when told about the descriptive norm, creating a boomerang effect. This can be moderated by including the injunctive norm along with the descriptive norm. House - holds that were told they were lower than average in energy consumption (told of the descriptive norm) and then praised for their conservation (indicating an injunctive norm) maintained their low rate of energy consumption (Schultz, Nolan, Cialdini, Goldstein, & Griskevicius, 2007). An advertising campaign in Montana that targeted drinking and driv - ing among 21-to-34-year-olds used information about social norms to encourage this age group to reduce drinking and driving, and encourage the use designated drivers (P\ erkins, Linkenbach, Lewis, & Neighbors, 2010).

General descriptive norms about positive behaviors are helpful for encouraging those behaviors, but more specific norms are even more helpful. If you have stayed in a hotel recently, you have probably seen a sign about towel reuse. The hotel will replace your ©2008 Getty Images/Chris Clinton/Lifesize/Thinkstock If recycling is a norm in your neighborhood, you might be more likely to recycle. fee85798_08_c08_171-192.indd 175 7/16/13 10:03 AM CHAPTER 8 Section 8.1 Conformity Social Psychology in Depth: Drinking Norms Drinking on college campuses is an epidemic. Nearly 80% of college students report drink- ing. Despite a minimum legal drinking age in the United States of 21, almost 60% of stu- dents aged 18 to 20 report drinking. Much of this drinking is binge drinking, which involves consuming at least four drinks (for women) or five drinks (for men) in a 2-hour period.

More than 40% of college students report binge drinking at least once in a 2-week period (National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 2011). In addition to alcohol poison - ing, such behavior contributes to injuries, assaults, unsafe sex and sexual assault, academic problems, and vandalism (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2010; National Insti- tute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 2011).

Alcohol use for college students depends, in part, on perceived injunctive and descriptive norms (Park, Klein, Smith, & Martell, 2009). Approval of drinking is an injunctive norm; the perception of how much drinking is being done is a descriptive norm. Not all norms are created equal. Researchers have found that people closer to a student are more likely to influence that student’s behavior. Perceived approval for drinking (injunctive norm) by close friends and parents is more important than the approval for drinking of typical students, even same-sex students (Lee, Geisner, Lewis, Neighbors, & Larimer, 2007; Neighbors et al., 2008). Similarly, students’ beliefs about how much their friends drink has more of an impact than the perceived behaviors of others (Cho, 2006; Lee et al., 2007). Descriptive norms seen on social media (Facebook) predicted alcohol-related thinking patterns that are related to alcohol use (Litt & Stock, 2011). In other words, believing that others in one’s social network are drinking makes you more willing to drink, have more positive attitudes toward drinking, and perceive your own use of alcohol as more likely.

Norms involve what we believe others approve of or are doing, but beliefs are not always accurate. In the case of norms about drinking, U.S. and Canadian students overestimate the quantity and frequency of drinking by other students. Along with this, personal alcohol use is more influenced by the inaccurate norm than by the real norm for drinking on campus (Perkins, 2007; Perkins, Haines, & Rice, 2005).

Does correcting these misperceptions reduce drinking? Overall, yes. At schools where the perceived norm is more in line with the lower actual norm, there is less problematic drinking (Perkins et al., 2005). Campaigns to change social norms tend to change perceived norms and bring down problematic drinking behaviors (Perkins et al., 2010). For binge drinkers, the descriptive norms for friends influence behavior more than descriptive campus norms or injunctive norms. People who were not binge drinkers were more influenced by campus descriptive norms (Cho, 2006). Unfortunately, interventions with those most at risk, high binge drinkers, can backfire if students perceive the messages as restricting their freedom to do as they like (Jung, Shim, & Mantaro, 2010).

towel but, if you want to save water and electricity, you can choose to reuse your towel.

Does it matter if you know what others do in this situation? When told t\ hat the majority of other guests in the hotel reuse their towels, guests were more likely to reuse their towels.

But this can be strengthened with greater specificity. When told that 75% of people who stayed in their specific room (e.g., Room 201) reused their towels, guests were more likely to reuse their towels than if they were told 75% of people staying in the hotel reused their towels (Goldstein, Cialdini, & Griskevicius, 2008). Greater specificity of a norm leads to greater conformity to that norm. fee85798_08_c08_171-192.indd 176 7/16/13 10:03 AM CHAPTER 8 Section 8.1 Conformity Normative and Informational Influence Why do we conform? Conformity may occur because we believe that a group has some knowledge we do not. Imagine yourself at the zoo. You walk up to the lion enclosure and notice there are a lot of people standing over on the right side, and no one is on the \ left. If you want to see the lion, where do you go? Your best bet is to the right, where all the people are. It’s likely that no one is on the left because the lion not there. The crowd knows something you do not—where the lion is—and so by following the crowd you are more likely to see the lion. When we conform because we believe the crowd knows something, we are experiencing informational influence (Castelli, Vanzetto, Sherman, & Luciano, 2001). Conformity may also occur because we want to be liked and accept\ ed by the group.

In high school, you might have worn a certain style of clothing or acted\ in a particular way not because you believed it was the right thing to do but because you wa\ nted to be liked and accepted. When we conform because we want to be liked and accepted b\ y others, we are experiencing normative influence (Deutsch & Gerard, 1955).These different forms of influence can lead to different types of persua- sion. If you believed the group knew information, you would likely act as the group does, as well as come to believe as the group does. If you were in a theater and suddenly everyone started running for the exits yelling “Fire!,” you may follow the crowd, truly believing there is a fire some - where, even if you have not seen any evidence of it. When we both behave and believe as the group does we have experienced acceptance of the social norm. We more often find acceptance in the case of informa - tional influence. On the other hand, if you were in that theater following iStockphoto/Thinkstock Informational influence might compel you to join a crowd of onlookers—these people may know something you don’t. Test Yourself • When a friend tells you everyone is doing it so you should too, that friend is talking about what kind of norm?

Descriptive norm. Descriptive norms are norms that describe what most people are doing . • What is the difference between an injunctive and a descriptive norm?

Injunctive norms focus on what people think you should do—what is approved of, while descriptive norms focus on what most people are actually doing. fee85798_08_c08_171-192.indd 177 7/16/13 10:03 AM CHAPTER 8 Section 8.1 Conformity everyone as they rushed toward the exits but you did not believe there was a fire, you would be acting in a way that goes along with the group norms while privately disagree- ing. Such action without belief is called compliance. We find more compliance in the case of normative influence. In the case of the tragedy at Jonestown it seems\ both of these were at work. Based on recordings made during the mass suicide in Jonestown it appears many of Jim Jones’ followers truly believed in him and in his dire predictions, readily and willingly drinking the poisoned beverage. These people accepted the soci\ al norm. Others seem to have drunk the cyanide while not truly believing that such an act was necessary (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1978).

Advertisers use conformity to their advantage. By telling us how many people switched their car insurance, an insurance company is suggesting that these other\ people know something we do not. If everyone else discovered cheaper insurance, perhaps we should join them and switch too; informational influence is at work. Another advertiser might show us a lot of happy people wearing a particular brand of jeans, sugge\ sting that if we want to fit in we should buy and wear these jeans. When we buy what othe\ rs do to be liked or accepted, we are conforming due to normative influence. There are times when we are more susceptible to conformity pressures. For example, individuals are more likely to go along with the crowd when they are in a good mood (Tong, Tan, Latheef, Selamat, & Tan, 2008) and are more involved with the topic at hand (Huang & Min, 2007). Normative influence can help self-managed teams in businesses to manage themselves\ . Team mem - bers who feel they belong and are committed to the team can show greater productivity (Stewart, Courtright, & Barrick, 2012). Test Yourself • How are acceptance and compliance related to normative and informational influence?

When we conform because of informational influence we are more likely to show accep - tance, not just compliance. Compliance is more likely with normative influence because we are going along with the crowd to be accepted, but not necessarily because we believe the crowd is right. Minority Influence So far, this chapter has discussed the ways in which norms can have a powerful influ- ence on the individual, causing them to go along with what everyone else\ is doing. But individuals are not powerless. When an individual goes against the majority, that action can influence the majority. In the 1957 film 12 Angry Men, one juror persuades the other 11 jurors to his side of thinking. While, at the beginning of the film, he is \ the only one who believes in the innocence of the accused, by the end they all believ\ e the young man fee85798_08_c08_171-192.indd 178 7/16/13 10:03 AM CHAPTER 8 Section 8.1 Conformity Test Yourself • When are minorities more persuasive? In other words, what qualities in the minority make it more likely to persuade the majority to change?

Minorities who offer a distinctive viewpoint, are consistent in their viewpoint, and gain defections from the majority are most persuasive. • Without convincing members of the majority to their side do minorities do anything to or for the majority by holding a minority view?

Minorities create more creativity and complexity in the majority, even when the major- ity does not change its viewpoint.

accused of the crime is not guilty. The majority is more likely to find a minority viewpoint persuasive if the minority viewpoint is distinct and the position is hel\ d consistently. When a minority holds one point of difference from the group but agrees with the majority on other points, this creates distinctiveness. If a friend shares your beliefs concerning school reform except for the use of student achievement for teacher evaluation, you might be more willing to entertain that friend’s perspective and potentially be c\ onvinced by his arguments (Bohner, Frank, & Erb, 1998). Consistently held positions are also more persua - sive. If your friend waivered in his beliefs about teacher evaluations, you would be less willing to hear his arguments (Moscovici & Lage, 1976). Minorities can also become more persuasive when there are defections from the minority. If your friend were to convince someone who used to agree with you to now agree with his line of thinking, you would be more likely to also change your opinion (Clark, 2001).

Whether or not minorities actually lead the majority to change beliefs, \ minorities do cre - ate greater creativity and complexity in the thinking of the majority (Legrenzi, Butera, Mugny, & Perez, 1991; Nemeth, Mayseless, Sherman, & Brown, 1990). The alternative per - spective of the minority causes the majority to consider other viewpoint\ s and approaches to an issue. The minority viewpoint allows them to think about their ide\ as from other angles they may not have accounted for before. When minorities do change the opinion of the majority, that changed belief tends to be more stable and more resistant to future change (Martin, Hewstone, & Martin, 2008). In this way, minorities perform a service for the majority, even if they do not convince anyone in the majority to their way of thinking.

Having a group move from agreeing with you on an issue to disagreeing with you is an unsettling experience. Individuals who began in the majority and maintai\ n their opinion as the rest of the group joins the minority opinion tend to have hostile feelings toward the group. On the other hand, those who began in the minority and have a group adopt their opinion tend to like the group more and expect positive interactions with the group in the future (Prislin, Limbert, & Bauer, 2000). Being in the minority is an uncomfortable experi - ence that can improve if others come to see things as we do. fee85798_08_c08_171-192.indd 179 7/16/13 10:03 AM CHAPTER 8 Section 8.2 Obedience to Authority 8.2 Obedience to Authority I t began like many other research studies. Having answered a newspaper advertise- ment, male research participants entered the research laboratory and were told they were going to be part of a study of performance and punishment. Each participant was paired with another participant, and both were told they would each be taking on the role of teacher or the role of learner. These roles were chosen randomly, from little slips of paper in a hat. The learner was brought to a separate room. Electrodes were connected to the learner ’s arm and the learner was strapped to a chair. Learners were told, in the presence of the teacher, the shocks would be painful but they would cause no permanent damage. The teachers returned with the experimenter to the other room and were told they would be teaching the learner a series of words, using electrical shocks to punish the leaner for wrong answers.

As the teacher and learner worked through the word list, the teacher increased the shock level by 15 volts for every wrong answer, as instructed by the experimenter. At first the experiment was uneventful, but at 75 volts the learner uttered an “Ugh!” after the shock.

After several more of these sorts of verbalizations from the learner at the 150-volt level, the leaner said “Ugh! Experimenter! That’s all. Get me out of here. I told you I had heart trouble. My heart’s starting to bother me now. Get me out of here please. My heart’s starting to bother me. I refuse to go on. Let me out” (Milgram, 1974, p. 56). When the teacher asked the experimenter what to do, the experimenter replied that he should go on.

After that, if the teacher continued the learner protested until the 330-volt level. After the 330-volt level the learner fell silent, not providing any further protests, but also not answer - ing any questions. The highest shock level possible was 450, a level den\ oted with XXX, past the denotation of Danger: Severe Shock.

Before the study began, psychology undergraduates, adults, and psychiatrists were asked to predict how far on the shock generator the teachers would go. They predicted that only 1 in 1,000 would go all the way to the end of the shock generator, with about 4% even mak - ing it to the 300-volt level (Milgram, 1974). In the study, 62.5% of the participants (25/40) went to the end. Many teachers protested along the way, showing signs of extreme stress, but continued to the end. None of the teachers dropped out before the 135-volt level, and 80% continued to give shocks until the 285-volt level, having given \ 18 shocks and heard 14 separate protests by the learner. What the participants did not know was that the learner was not getting any electrical shocks; he was working with the e\ xperimenter, his “random” assignment as learner was rigged, and his verbalizations throughout the study were recordings. The study was designed to investigate obedience, and the primary \ inter - est of the researcher was whether the participant (the teacher) would obey, even when it meant harming another person.

Milgram undertook his study, in part, to try to better understand the events that occurred in Nazi Germany, where many ordinary people went against their own moral codes and their own ethics and participated in the degradation, imprisonment, and \ killing of Jewish fee85798_08_c08_171-192.indd 180 7/16/13 10:03 AM CHAPTER 8 Section 8.2 Obedience to Authority Test Yourself • In Milgram’s study, did most of the participants obey or did most disobey?

In Milgram’s original study more than half, 62.4% or 25/40, obeyed and gave powerful electrical shocks to an innocent victim. • Were the findings of Milgram’s study expected by people asked to predict the results?

No. People told about the study but not the results predicted very few would obey to the end.

civilians and other innocent people (Milgram, 1963). Milgram argued that one reason for that behavior was obedience. But could obedience be so powerful? Milgram\ ’s study sug - gests it is. Even given immoral orders to continue to hurt another person, people tend to obey. Many, including Stanley Milgram, the researcher, found these results surprising (Milgram, 1963). The findings of this study suggest that people are willing to harm another person if told to do so by an authority. They may protest, express disapproval, and ask the authority figure to let them stop, but when the authority figure says they should continue, they will.

Obedience is a deeply engrained ten - dency—one that we are taught early on in life. Most of the time, obedience is a positive behavior. Driving your car through an intersection at a green light, you hope that those stopped for the red light on the cross street will obey traffic laws and stop. Obedience to authority prevents many thefts, murders, and kidnappings. In fact, we may wish for more obedience in regards to violent and nonviolent crimes. But, as Milgram showed, and as history has taught us, there is also a dark side to obedience. This dark side can be clearly seen in the events at Jonestown. Jim Jones demanded obedience from his followers and, in the end, received ultimate obedience from many—they killed themselves on his command. iStockphoto/Thinkstock We are required to display obedience on a daily basis.

For example, drivers are expected to stop at red lights and pedestrians must wait for a signal before crossing an intersection. fee85798_08_c08_171-192.indd 181 7/16/13 10:03 AM CHAPTER 8 Section 8.2 Obedience to Authority Social Psychology in Depth: Bad Apples or Vinegar Barrels? When we hear about some of the bad events that happen in our world, we often describe the perpetrators as “bad people.” Yet prominent psychologist Philip Zimbardo argues that we apply such terms too liberally, failing to recognize the capacity for evil that we all hold, given the right set of circumstances (Zimbardo, 2004; 2008).

Take, for example, the Abu Ghraib prisoner-abuse scandal. In 2004, pictures began to emerge of U.S. prison guards (Army reservists) at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq abusing the Iraqi prisoners. The images were graphic. Prisoners were shown naked, in humiliating poses, on leashes, and being threatened by dogs. Our initial instinct is to say the guards were bad people—bad apples who should never have been allowed into the Army (Shermer, 2007).

In making such a conclusion we make a fundamental attribution error, ignoring situational factors and blaming dispositional factors for behavior.

Milgram’s experiment shows us how powerful situational factors can be. Normal, ordinary Americans were willing to inflict great harm on another person simply because of the orders of a man in a white lab coat. If such behavior can be elicited in a relatively short period in a largely innocuous psychology laboratory situation, might even more brutal behavior be expected over a longer period in a frightening and unfamiliar scenario?

Despite focusing on the situation in explaining evil events, Zimbardo does not advocate excusing bad behavior. Understanding the situation that brought about the behavior does not condone it. Those who do bad things should be punished for what they have done. But without some attention to the situation, more people will engage in the behaviors, creating more pain and suffering in the world.

Zimbardo (2004) writes:‘While a few bad apples might spoil the barrel (filled with good fruit/peo- ple), a barrel filled with vinegar will always transform sweet cucumbers into sour pickles—regardless of the best intentions, resilience, and genetic nature of those cucumbers.’ So, does it make more sense to spend our resources on attempts to identify, isolate, and destroy the few bad apples or to learn how vinegar works so that we can teach cucumbers how to avoid undesirable vinegar barrels? (p. 47) What Predicts Obedience?

Milgram (1974) completed a variety of related experiments to learn what factors contrib - ute to obedience. Unlike many studies in social psychology, Milgram used community members for his research, not college undergraduates. His participants were from a vari - ety of education levels, ranging from not completing high school to having obtained doc - toral degrees, and varied from age 20 to age 50. Milgram’s original studies used only male participants; when Milgram expanded his study to include women, though, he found Expand Your Knowledge: Zimbardo on Evil Phillip Zimbardo described the social psychological factors in destructive behaviors in his book The Lucifer Effect . Although obedience is only a part of the expla - nation, if you are interested in learning more about why people act in ways that hurt others, read this book. Zimbardo also wrote two shorter pieces on this topic: a chapter in an edited book titled The Social Psy- chology of Good and Evil: Understanding Our Capac - ity for Kindness and Cruelty and a short article for the magazine Eye on Psi Chi . The book chapter explores what Zimbardo calls a situationist perspective on evil.

Proximity of the Victim Milgram found that the prox- imity between the learner (the victim) and the teacher (the participant) was an impor - tant factor in obedience. In one study, the learner was in another room and had no communication with the teacher, except in providing answers and, at the 300- and 315-volt level, banging on the wall. In this instance, obedience was rai\ sed only to 65% (26 out of 40 participants) from 62.5% in the first study. In another study, the learner was in the same room as the teacher. In another, the learner and teacher were next to one another. In this second experiment the learner had to touch a shock plate every time he got an answer wrong. He eventually refused to touch the plate and the teacher had to physi - cally move his hand and force it down on the shock plate. In these studies, Milgram found that the closer the learner was to the teacher, the lower the obedience. When the learner was far removed, obedience was very high; more than half of the participants obeyed the experimenter. When the learner was in the same room as the teacher, obedience declined to 40%, and it further declined to 30% when physical contact was required. When someone is ordered to hurt another, the closer the victim is the lower the likelihood of obedience.

Would we harm those we know well? In one of Milgram’s studies, partici\ pants brought a friend along. The friend was enlisted as the experimenter ’s helper and fulfilled the role of learner, including giving all the protests the confederate learner had offered in the original study. The researchers found much lower obedience in this condition. Only 15% (3 out of 20) of participants were willing to go all the way to the end of the shock generator when their friend protested (Rochat & Modigliani, 1997). Proximity of the Authority In another set of studies, the distance between the experimenter (the a\ uthority figure) and the teacher was varied. In one study, the experimenter provided directions by telephone or through a prerecorded message. When the authority figure was distant, the participants What Predicts Obedience?

Zimbardo, P. G. (2008). The Lucifer effect: Understand- ing how good people turn evil . New York: Random House. Information on the Lucifer Effect is available at http://www.lucifereffect.com/ . fee85798_08_c08_171-192.indd 183 7/16/13 10:03 AM CHAPTER 8 Section 8.2 Obedience to Authority were less likely to obey. The legitimacy of the authority was also varied. Milgram moved the study to an office building in Bridgeport, Connecticut, out of the Yale University labo- ratory he had been using. Participants believed they were participating in a study for the “Research Associates of Bridgeport” and saw no connection of the study to prestigious Yale University. In this study obe - dience declined some, from 65% to 48%. Other research - ers found similar results with an authority figure without legitimate authority (Mantell, 1971; Rosenhan, 1969). The implications are frightening:

nearly half of participants still obey immoral orders from authority figures who have very little legitimacy.

The appearance of authority can be enough to convince us to obey. Outside of the laboratory setting, this con- cept was demonstrated in a study of nurses in a hospital in the 1960s. In this study, a physician, who the nurses on duty were not familiar with, called on the phone and asked them to give a patient what they would hav\ e known to be an unsafe level of a drug. The study found 95% of the nurses obeyed before being inter - cepted on their way to give the drug (Hofling, Brotzman, Dalrymple, Graves, & Pierce, 1966). If a security guard asked you to stand on the other side of a bus stop sign, would you do it? Even though the request was not part of the security guard’s domain, most people asked by a uniformed person to do a simple act, did so (Bickman,\ 1974).

Compliant or Defiant Others When groups of people were part of the study, Milgram found that compliant others led to compliant participants, and defiant others led to defiant participant\ s. In these studies Milgram had confederates who appeared to be other participants do a variety of teaching tasks. In one study the participant watched as a confederate gave shocks. In this study 90% of participants were fully obedient. In another study two confederates and one par - ticipant were assigned to give shocks. At the 150-volt level, when the learner makes his first long protest, the confederate giving the shocks refused to continue. The second con - federate was then given the job of giving shocks. At the 210-volt level this second confed - erate joined in the protest, getting up from his chair near the shock generator and refusing to continue the study. At that point the actual participant was asked to continue the study on his own. When the two other teachers (the confederates) quit, obedi\ ence declined sig- nificantly, to 27.5% (Milgram, 1965). Expand Your Knowledge: Video Clips of Obedience The Heroic Imagination project provides an interest - ing set of clips on obedience. The collection includes some archival footage from Milgram’s study and vid - eos of obedience in situations where the authority fig- ure had little authority, including an amusing Candid Camera clip asking people at a lunch counter to fol- low the directions of a light for when they could and could not eat. http://heroicimagination.org/research /situational-awareness/social-influence-forces /obedience-to-authority/ fee85798_08_c08_171-192.indd 184 7/16/13 10:03 AM CHAPTER 8 Section 8.2 Obedience to Authority Culture Culture can also contribute to obedience. In the United States, independence i\ s a domi- nant value and parents tend to pass on those values to children through childrearing.

For example, researchers found that when mothers encourage their children to recount a story, U.S. children are encouraged to describe events that illustrate their own opinions and qualities, while Chinese children are encouraged to describe activities that they did with others or that relate them to others (Wang, 2006). Because social harmony is highly valued in interdependent cultures like Chinese culture, children are more socialized to be obedient (Xiao, 1999). Even within cultures there are variations in the value of obedi - ence. Researchers find that middle-class parents in the United States are more likely to be concerned with emphasizing independence in their children, while working-class par - ents tend to focus more on obedience (Gecas & Nye, 1974; Xiao, 2000). In cultures where authority is highly valued, we are more likely to see the kind of destructive obedience that Milgram studied—obedience without critical examination—that is evi\ denced in genocide and other violent human acts (Staub, 1999). Test Yourself • What effect did the closeness of the learner/victim have on obedience in Milgram’s study?

The closer the teacher was to the learner/victim the lower the obedience . • In situations of obedience do we conform to the actions of others in their obedience to authority?

Yes. In studies where confederates posing as participants also obeyed, the participant obeyed as well. In studies where confederates posing as participants disobeyed, fewer participants obeyed the authority figure. Disobedience In Milgram’s original study, 35% of participants disobeyed the authority figure and dis - continued the study. There are times in life when disobedience is a more just and moral choice than obedience. Can we predict who will disobey? In many ways, obedient and disobedient participants are indistinguishable. In later studies on obedience, no difference in stress levels were found—all participants showed physical and psychological markers of stress as the study continued. As participants continued to be obedient, they tended to reach a point of compliant resignation, offering fewer and shorter disagreements and continuing to engage in the behavior. However, when the amount of time people were part of the study was taken into account (disobedient participants obvi\ ously finished more quickly), the number of disagreements were no different between those who continued to fee85798_08_c08_171-192.indd 185 7/16/13 10:03 AM CHAPTER 8 Section 8.2 Obedience to Authority be obedient and those that disobeyed. No differences in personality were found between obedient and disobedient participants (Bocchiaro & Zimbardo, 2010; Bocchiaro, Zimbardo, & Van Lange, 2012).

Disobedience tends to occur at a critical juncture. In studies using Milgram’s paradigm, participants who disobeyed tended to do so when the confederate first pr\ otested or when the confederate’s protests changed in content or tone (Meeus & Raaijmakers, 1986; Packer, 2008). After disobeying, most participants believed they did what others would \ have done. In other words, they did not see their behavior as unusual, showing false consensus,\ and were surprised that anyone would have continued to obey. Participants reported they made a quick decision when they chose to disobey; for some it was a moral or an ethical decision. These participants mentioned that it would not be right or fair to continue when the other person is clearly suffering. Other participants worried about the other person, or felt empathy for his/her suffering. Others simply did not see the point of continuing within the situation (Bocchiaro & Zimbardo, 2010). Overall, it is difficult to predict who will disobey and who will obey authority in these types of situations. I\ t appears decisions are made quickly at critical points within a situation, and are made for a variety of rea - sons. These reasons are not reflective of personality differences, or differences in reactivity to stress. Future research on obedience is needed to help us better predict disobedience.

One type of disobedience that occurs in response to potentially illegitimate authority is legal disobedience. Legal disobedience may take the form of conscient\ ious objection, civil disobedience, or outright rebellion against a government or leader (Herr, 1974; Raz, 1975).

This form of disobedience occurred as people in communist countries in Central and Eastern Europe overthrew their governments in 1989 and in a variety of Arab countries in 2011, which came to be known as the Arab Spring. Conscientious objections and civil disobedience helped free India from rule by the British Empire, bring about civil rights in the United States in the 1960s, and help end the Vietnam war in the 1970s. In such circumstances, people may feel an entitlement or a responsibility to disobey as an act of citizenship (Rattner, Yagil, & Sherman-Segal, 2003). In fact, people most committed to democracy are often those who are most likely to disobey in the face of potentially illegitimate authority (Passini & Morselli, 2011). For these people democracy pro - vides both an opportunity and a responsibility to disobey when democracy is threated. This dis - obedience prevents authoritarian governments to take hold, preserving or bringing about demo - cratic rule. William Warren/Science Faction/SuperStock In an act of civil disobedience, Vietnam veterans protest against the war. fee85798_08_c08_171-192.indd 186 7/16/13 10:03 AM CHAPTER 8 Section 8.2 Obedience to Authority Ethics of Obedience Research The participants in Milgram’s studies underwent an experience that wa\ s very stressful.

According to an observer of the study:I observed a mature and initially poised businessman enter the laboratory smiling and confident. Within 20 minutes he was reduced to a twitching, stuttering wreck, who was rapidly approaching a point of nervous col - lapse. He constantly pulled on his earlobe, and twisted his hands. At one point he pushed his fist into his forehead and muttered: “Oh God, let’s stop it.” And yet he continued to respond to every word of the experimenter, and obeyed to the end (Milgram, 1963, p. 377).

When entering into an experimental situation, research participants put themselves into the hands of the experimenter. After Milgram’s study, other researchers asked if placing unsuspecting people into these kinds of situations was ethical. The main\ problems identi - fied were that participants had a very stressful experience, and that they would have to live with the knowledge of the lengths to which they would obey, all within a situation based on trust (Baumrind, 1964).

Milgram (1964) responded to these criticisms by noting that the findings of his studies and the reactions of the participants were unexpected. When he asked psychologists and oth - ers what to expect, they did not believe participants would go all the w\ ay to the end of the shock generator and be as obedient as they were. At the end of the experimental session, the experimenter reunited the confederate with the participant so the participant could see that he was not harmed in any way. The experimenter was supportive of whatever decision the participant made in terms of obedience.

The study involved a great deal of deception. The participants were lied to about the purpose of the study, about the complicity of the other participant, and about what was actually happening. Critics of the study argued that this type of deception may have an impact on the participants themselves, as they feel duped by the researcher. This form of deception in psychological experiments can potentially impact the genera\ l public’s view of psychological research. When researchers use deception a great deal, the public may become suspicious of all research studies, and wary of participating in research, even Test Yourself • How are those who disobey different from those who obey authority?

For the most part they are not different. There is no difference in personality or in the distress they show or the protests they make. fee85798_08_c08_171-192.indd 187 7/16/13 10:03 AM CHAPTER 8 Section 8.3 Leadership research that does not in fact involve deception. Milgram (1974) contacted p\ articipants after their participation to ask how they felt about the study. The vast majority said they were glad or very glad to have been part of the study (83.7%). Only 1.3% of the partici- pants reported being sorry or very sorry to have participated. Almost three fourths of par- ticipants reported learning something of personal importance. Test Yourself • What were some ethical issues with Milgram’s study?

Participants in Milgram’s study experienced a great deal of distress and were deceived about the nature of the study in a situation of trust. In the end, they may have learned something unpleasant about their own tendencies that they would have to live with . • Did Milgram find any long-term negative effects in the participants who were part of his study?

For the most part, no. In follow-up work he found that most people were happy to have been part of the study. 8.3 Leadership T he influences of conformity and obedience sway our beliefs and actions. \ Cult leader Jim Jones expected obedience from his followers and used conformity to keep his followers in line. Leaders—good and bad—make a difference in what people think and do, contributing to or breaking from conformity. Obedience to leaders has led to some of the most inspiring and heartbreaking events in history. Leadership involves influenc- ing a group and its members to contribute to the goals of the group and coordinating and guiding those efforts (Kaiser, Hogan, & Craig, 2008). If leaders are good leaders who make good decisions, then obedience is appropriate.

What makes a good leader? When are leaders most effective? A number of models for describing types of leadership exist. One model offers two main categories of leader - ship: transactional and transformational leadership. In transactional leadership, lead- ers can lead by offering an exchange of rewards for effort from followers. By contrast, some leaders offer their followers a common purpose and ask that individual interest be put aside so the group can work together toward that goal. This leadership style is called transformational leadership (Bass, 1985). An additional type of leadership, called laissez-faire leadership, is characterized by a hands-off approach, with the leader sim - ply allowing the followers to do what they would like without substantial input from the leader (Yammarino, Spangler, & Bass, 1993).

Transactional leaders focus on contingent rewards and active management. These lead - ers work out agreements with their followers that will satisfy both parties. People obey\ transactional leaders because they desire the rewards the transactional leader can provide.

Contingent rewards are provided once the followers have fulfilled their end of the bargain. iStockphoto/Thinkstock Leaders can use different strategies and tactics to achieve goals. fee85798_08_c08_171-192.indd 188 7/16/13 10:03 AM CHAPTER 8 Section 8.3 Leadership This type of leadership may also involve active management, where the leader monitors what the fol- lower is doing to redirect, if needed, and enforce the rules that have been agreed upon. Transactional leaders do not always actively manage their followers. At times, they take a pas- sive management approach, inter- vening when problems are brought to their attention (Bass, 1997). These leaders do not necessarily inspire their followers, but they do get the job done. Many leaders of busi- nesses, coaches of sports teams, and politicians would best be described as transactional leaders.

Transformational leaders are characterized by charisma, inspirational motivation, intel - lectual stimulation, and individualized consideration. Charisma, in this context, means influence toward an ideal that can be accomplished through the leader displaying convic - tion about the goal, presenting and taking stands on important issues, and emphasizing trust. When leaders clearly articulate a vision, provide encouragement, and show opti - mism, they display inspirational motivation. Nelson Mandela, anti-aparth\ eid leader and former president of South Africa, was such a transformational leader, as was Winston Churchill, prime minister of the United Kingdom during World War II. Intellectual stimu - lation within transformational leadership is modeled by leaders in their\ welcoming of new ideas and perspectives. Finally, transformational leaders tend to focus on individual gifts, abilities, and needs, offering individual consideration for followers (Bass, 1997). Along with these qualities, transformational leaders are generally self-confident and are able to handle pressure and uncertainty well. Optimistic and self-determined, such leaders are able to cast a vision for their followers (van Eeden, Cilliers, & van Deventer, 2008). Not all transformational leaders bring about peace and reconciliation. Jim Jones would likely fit in the category of transformational leadership. Jones attracted his foll\ owers to his vision for a color-blind world where people worked together to create a modern-day utopia.

People differ in what they consider to be ideal in a leader. Because of past experiences, values, and personality differences, people develop schemas for what they consider good leadership qualities and these schemas are relatively stable over time (Epitropaki & Martin, 2004; Keller, 1999; Keller, 2003; Kriger & Seng, 2005). These schemas are called implicit leadership theories . Individuals who show qualities that people expect in lead - ers—those that fit the implicit leadership theories people hold—ar\ e more likely to be viewed as leaders (Melwani, Mueller, & Overbeck, 2012). Interactions between a fol - lower and a leader will be largely impacted by the follower ’s implicit leadership theories (Epitropaki & Martin, 2005; Fraser & Lord, 1988). Some leaders may be considered bad leaders not because they intend to do any harm to their followers or bec\ ause they are inherently bad leaders, but because the implicit leadership theories of the f\ ollowers do not match the leadership qualities and actions of the leader (Peus, Bra\ un, & Frey, 2012). 8.3 Leadership T he influences of conformity and obedience sway our beliefs and actions. \ Cult leader Jim Jones expected obedience from his followers and used conformity to keep his followers in line. Leaders—good and bad—make a difference in what people think and do, contributing to or breaking from conformity. Obedience to leaders has led to some of the most inspiring and heartbreaking events in history. Leadership involves influenc- ing a group and its members to contribute to the goals of the group and coordinating and guiding those efforts (Kaiser, Hogan, & Craig, 2008). If leaders are good leaders who make good decisions, then obedience is appropriate.

Contingent rewards are provided once the followers have fulfilled their end of the bargain. iStockphoto/Thinkstock Leaders can use different strategies and tactics to achieve goals. fee85798_08_c08_171-192.indd 189 7/16/13 10:03 AM CHAPTER 8 Section 8.3 Leadership Success of a leader can be defined in a variety of ways. Successful lead\ ers might be those who have helped their followers to reach a goal (Kaiser & Hogan, 2007). Even without reaching or moving toward obtaining a goal, leaders might be defined as successful if their group is satisfied or motivated or, simply, if followers rate the leader as successful (Tsui, 1984). Looking from a strict monetary perspective, 14% of the variance in the finan- cial results of a business is due to the leadership provided by the CEO (Joyce, Nohria, & Robertson, 2003). Although we often think of transformational leaders as better leaders, generally there are no overall differences in effectiveness of transformational versus trans - actional leaders (Judge, Piccolo, & Ilies, 2004). Test Yourself • A leader who seeks to inspire followers and cast a vision for where those followers might go is using what type of leadership?

Transformational leadership . • Joe believes a leader should be kind and compassionate to followers. Marcus thinks leaders should be clear about expectations but uninvolved in the lives of their followers.

Joe and Marcus are different in what way?

Joe and Marcus are different in their implicit leadership theories, they have different schemas regarding the appropriate qualities of leaders . Conclusion Conformity affects our everyday behavior. We might follow what everyone else is doing or what we think others would like us to do. We might follow because the crowd seems to know something we do not know, or because we want acceptance from the crowd. But minority groups can also influence behavior, particularly when they maintain a consistent, distinctive position. Overall, people tend to be obedient, a positive tendency that allows for a well-ordered and safe society. But rates of obedience are often still high even when it involves harming others, as found in Stanley Milgram’s famous study o\ f obedience. Obe - dience is even more common when the authority figure is close, the victim is distant, and others are also obeying. Milgram’s studies were attacked for being unethical, as his par - ticipants were put under extreme stress and were deceived within a context where trust is important. Authority figures or leaders come in a variety of styles, showing effectiveness in their roles depending on expectations of followers and the situation in which t\ hey lead. fee85798_08_c08_171-192.indd 190 7/16/13 10:03 AM CHAPTER 8 Critical Thinking Questions Chapter Summary Conformity When we do as others do, we are conforming to the behavior of the group. At times our conformity is due to what we believe others want us to do. In this insta\ nce we are influ- enced by injunctive norms. Descriptive norms refer to what most people do, not necessar - ily what most people approve of. When we conform we may do so to be liked or accepted by the group. Normative influence produces this type of conformity. When we conform to be liked or accepted we may act as others do without believing that a\ ction is right; we show compliance to the social norm. Informational influence brings about confor - mity because we believe the group knows something we do not. At such times we may act and believe as the group does, showing acceptance of the social norm. Majorities are powerful, but minorities can have an influence too. Minorities with dist\ inctive positions, that are consistent in their position, and that gain defections from the majority are most persuasive.

Obedience to Authority Stanley Milgram completed a study of obedience where participants were asked to follow the orders of an experimenter despite the protests of a victim. In his study, 62.5% of partic- ipants were fully obedient. When Milgram varied the distance of the authority figu\ re from the participant, obedience declined as the authority figure’s presence was less prominent.

The victim’s presence led to a decrease in obedience. When the legitimacy of the authority figure was lessened, obedience was lower, although still quite high. More recent research has shown that obedience has not declined significantly. Disobedience is hard to predict on the individual level, although some situational factors do predict when people are likely to disobey. Milgram’s study of obedience placed participants in a situation of \ great stress in an environment of trust. Milgram’s follow-ups with his participants indicated that most were happy to have participated and had no long-term ill effects from the study.

Leadership Leadership styles may involve a transaction of rewards for effort, known as transactional leadership, or inspiration toward a common goal and purpose, known as transforma - tional leadership. Laissez-faire leadership involves leadership without substantial input from the leader. Followers have particular ways of thinking about leadership, influencing how they evaluate leaders. Generally, leaders do matter and a variety of leadership styles are potentially effective.

Critical Thinking Questions 1. Have you been in a situation where you changed your behavior, or observed oth- ers changing their behavior, due to conformity? What was that situation like? 2. In your own life, where might you have seen injunctive norms and descriptive norms? fee85798_08_c08_171-192.indd 191 7/16/13 10:03 AM CHAPTER 8 Key Terms 3. If you held a minority opinion in a group and wanted to convince the rest of the group to join you in that opinion, what might you do to convince them? 4. Milgram investigated the closeness and legitimacy of the authority figur\ e, the closeness to and identity of the victim, and the actions of others in relation to degree of obedience. What other factors might influence obedience? 5. If you had been part of Milgram’s study of obedience, what do you thi\ nk you would have done? 6. What do you think about the ethics of Milgram’s studies of obedience?\ Do you think they should have been done, or are the ethical implications too great? 7. How might you describe your own implicit leadership theories? What effect have these had on your interactions with leaders? 8. The chapter begins with a discussion of the mass suicide of the people a\ t Jonestown. Based on what you now know about conformity and obedience wha\ t do you think could have been done to prevent this tragedy or others like it? Key Terms acceptance When both actions and beliefs are in line with the social norm. compliance When actions are in line with the social norm, but belief remains distinct. conformity Going along with a group in actions or beliefs. descriptive norms Norms describing what most people do. distinctiveness That which gives minori- ties power despite their minority status.

This occurs when one point of differences from the group is held by a minority, but the minority agrees with the majority on other points. implicit leadership theories The schemas people have for good leadership qualities. informational influence A type of social influence toward conformity that occurs when the individual believes the crowd possesses knowledge that the individual does not. injunctive norms Norms for what is either approved of or disapproved of. laissez-faire leadership Characterized by a hands-off approach, with the leader simply allowing the followers to do what they would like without substantial input from the leader. leadership Influencing a group and its members to contribute to the goals of the group and coordinating and guiding those efforts. normative influence A type of social influence toward conformity that occurs when the individual conforms to avoid social rejection and to be liked or accepted by the group. transactional leadership Leadership involving offering an exchange of rewards for effort from followers. transformational leadership Leadership where the leader offers followers a com- mon purpose and asks that individual interests be put aside so the group can work together toward that goal. fee85798_08_c08_171-192.indd 192 7/16/13 10:03 AM CHAPTER 8