THE INFLUENCE OF AUTHORITY
The research on both social facilitation and helping shows that the mere presence of other people can have a clear effect on behaviour. But this effect can be tremendously amplified if those others actively try to influence us – for example, from a position of authority.
Legitimate authority figures can be particularly influential; they can give orders that people blindly obey without really thinking about the consequences. This has been the focus of one of social psychology’s most significant and socially meaningful pieces of research (Blass, 2000; Miller, 1986; Miller, Collins & Brief, 1995).
Milgram (1963) discovered that quite ordinary people taking part in a laboratory experiment were prepared to administer electric shocks (450V), which they believed would harm another participant, simply because an authoritative experimenter told them to do so. This study showed that apparently ‘pathological’ behaviour may not be due to individual pathology (the participants were ‘normal’) but to particular social circumstances.
The situation encouraged extreme obedience. Milgram (1965, 1974) subsequently conducted a whole series of studies using this paradigm. One of his most significant findings was that social support is the single strongest moderator of the effect. So, obedience is strengthened if others are obedient, and massively reduced if others are disobedient.
Milgram investigated the role of peer pressure by creating a situation with three ‘co-teachers’, the participant and two confederates. The first confederate presented the task, the second registered the learner’s responses, and the participant actually administered the shocks. At 150V, the first confederate refused to continue and took a seat away from the shock generator. At 210V, the second confederate refused to continue. The effect of their behaviour on the participants was dramatic: only 10 per cent of the participants were now maximally obedient (see figure 18.5). In contrast, if the teacher administering the learning task was accompanied by a co-teacher, who gave the shocks, 92 per cent of the participants continued to be obedient to the end of the study. The powerful role of interpersonal factors (i.e. peers who had the temerity to disobey) was evident from this investigation (see Blass, 2000).
One unanticipated consequence of Milgram’s research was a fierce debate about the ethics of social psychological research (Baumrind, 1985; Miller, 1986). Although no electric shocks were actually given in Milgram’s study, participants genuinely believed that they were administering shocks and showed great distress.
Was it right to conduct this study?
This debate led to strict guidelines for psychological research.
Three of the main components of this code are
The research on both social facilitation and helping shows that the mere presence of other people can have a clear effect on behaviour. But this effect can be tremendously amplified if those others actively try to influence us – for example, from a position of authority.
Legitimate authority figures can be particularly influential; they can give orders that people blindly obey without really thinking about the consequences. This has been the focus of one of social psychology’s most significant and socially meaningful pieces of research (Blass, 2000; Miller, 1986; Miller, Collins & Brief, 1995).
Milgram (1963) discovered that quite ordinary people taking part in a laboratory experiment were prepared to administer electric shocks (450V), which they believed would harm another participant, simply because an authoritative experimenter told them to do so. This study showed that apparently ‘pathological’ behaviour may not be due to individual pathology (the participants were ‘normal’) but to particular social circumstances.
The situation encouraged extreme obedience. Milgram (1965, 1974) subsequently conducted a whole series of studies using this paradigm. One of his most significant findings was that social support is the single strongest moderator of the effect. So, obedience is strengthened if others are obedient, and massively reduced if others are disobedient.
Milgram investigated the role of peer pressure by creating a situation with three ‘co-teachers’, the participant and two confederates. The first confederate presented the task, the second registered the learner’s responses, and the participant actually administered the shocks. At 150V, the first confederate refused to continue and took a seat away from the shock generator. At 210V, the second confederate refused to continue. The effect of their behaviour on the participants was dramatic: only 10 per cent of the participants were now maximally obedient (see figure 18.5). In contrast, if the teacher administering the learning task was accompanied by a co-teacher, who gave the shocks, 92 per cent of the participants continued to be obedient to the end of the study. The powerful role of interpersonal factors (i.e. peers who had the temerity to disobey) was evident from this investigation (see Blass, 2000).
One unanticipated consequence of Milgram’s research was a fierce debate about the ethics of social psychological research (Baumrind, 1985; Miller, 1986). Although no electric shocks were actually given in Milgram’s study, participants genuinely believed that they were administering shocks and showed great distress.
Was it right to conduct this study?
This debate led to strict guidelines for psychological research.
Three of the main components of this code are
(i) that participants must give their fully informed consent to take part,
(ii) that they can withdraw at any point without penalty, and
(iii) that after participation they must be fully debriefed.
No comments:
Post a Comment