Individual differences in independent behaviour

Personality characteristics
Crutchfield: Conformers= low self esteem and less intelligent.

Locus of control
- sense of control over successes, failures and events in people's lives.
- Those with strong LOC believe they can influence events in their lives.
- External LOC believe outside factors (luck/fate) influence what happens in lives.
Williams and Warchal (1981)
- 30 university students given conformity tasks based on Asch.
- Assesses for LOC.
Result: those conformed were less assertive but didn't score differently on LOC scale.

Developing independent behaviour
Nemeth and Chiles (1988)
Aim: To see if p's influenced to be independent using similar method to Moscovici.
Procedure: 48 male volunteers.
- First part: groups of 5 (one C) judge slide colours using consistent and unconsistent C's.
- Second part: Colour perception task using red slides. (4/5 confederates called them orange.)
Results: Those who exposed to minority in first part more likely to be independent in second.

Obedience to authority

"OBEDIENCE IS THE RESULT OF SOCIAL INFLUENCE WHEN SOMEONE ACTS IN RESPONSE TO A DIRECT ORDER FROM AN AUTHORITY FIGURE"

Milgram (1963)
Aim: find if Americans obey to unjust order from authority figure to inflict pain.
Procedure: 48 male volunteers.
- P's = teacher
- C's = learner
- Learner receive shocks by teacher when fail on work pair task. (fake)
Result: All p's went to 300V
65% went to end (450V)
Conclusion: most people obey when against conscience.
When people occupy subordinate position in a dominance hierachy they lose feelings of empathy and morality.
+/-: p's found it impossible to withdraw.
- Sent questionnaire to p's and 84% were glad to have taken part. He visited them a year later and found no psycho harm.
Orne and Holland (1968)
- Lacked ecological validity. P'S didn't believe shocks were real and they should have questioned why experimenter didn't give shocks.
Aronson+Carlsmith (1988)
- Distinguished two types of realism.

• experimental (internal validity): p's fooled into believing exp was real.
• Mundane realism (external validity): real life set up exp.

Factors affecting obediance

1. Setting of experiment:
   - Milgram setting prestigious yale uni. To test this he moved his exp to a seedy office. Obedience dropped. 48% continued to 450V.
2. Reducing power of experimenter
   - Milgram told exp to give orders over phone, 26% teachers went to 450V.
   - Reduced exp power by working in pairs. 96% resisted orders and 10% went to 450v.
3. Increasing awareness of plight of victim
   - Obedience easier if victim remote. Milgram put teacher and learner in same room. Obedience dropped. When teacher had to physically put hand of learner on plate 30% went to 450v.

Obedience in the field

- people unaware taking part reducing D C's.

Hofling (1966)
- Nurse receive orders via phone from unknows doctor to administer twice dose of a drug to a patient. This broke 3 rules.
Result: 21/22 obeyed.
- When interviewed, nurses said they had been asked to do this before and doctors became annoyed at refusal.
Conclusion: Results highlight pressure to obey.
- High levels of obedience can be obtained in a real life setting.

The power of uniform

Bushman (1988)

- Female confederate dressed in uniform or smart.
- C ordered passer by for change for a parking meter.
Result: 70% complied to uniform
58% complied to smart.

Jackson (1990)

Aim: effects of strength and immediacy on obedience to a simple request at zoo.
Procedure: 153 adults, 55 kids.
- Approached by experimenter in zoo keeper uniform or normal visitor.
- Asked not to lean on rail. Behaviour observed.

Result: High strength (uniform) produced more compliance than low (normal).
Conclusion: Uniform indicates authority.

The obedience alibi- David Mandel (1998)

- Research provides alibi for those charged with war crimes as it implies an ordinary person can commit terrible acts under social pressure.
- Adolf Eichmann= crimes against humanity in Nazi Germany. He insisted throughout trials he was just obeying orders.

Why do people obey?

Situational factors

• Legitimate authority:
  - Amount of social power held by person. We obey people with L.A. because we trust them or they have power to punish us.
  - In Milgram's study we could assume the setting influenced trust they felt in experimenter.
• The authority figure takes responsibility: In Milgram's study p's continued when told they weren't responsible.
  Milgram explained importance of responsibility through 'agency theory': In social situation people operate...
  - when they act as autonomous individuals they are aware of consequences and choose voluntarily to behave in particular ways.
  - An agentic state. They don't feel personally responsible.
  - Change from autonomous to agentic is known as the agentic shift.
• Graduated commitment:Milgram's study p's were gradually committed by 15V-450V.
  P's wouldn't have obeyed if asked to start at 300V.
  Milgram established a basis for obedience which made it difficult for p's to disobey.
  -' the foot in the door technique'.

Personality factors into obedience

The authoritarian personality.

Adorno
Aim: Test if people with an authoritarian personality are obedient.
Procedure: studied 2000 american students from white middle class b.grounds.
Interviewed them about political views and early childhood experiences.
Used projective tests to assess if they were racially prejudiced.
Result: Found p's who were brough up by strict parents grew up to be obedient.
Harsh punishment led to child feeling hostile towards parents. These feelings repressed and displaced onto others, often ratial group.
- He developed the 'f' scale to measure the authoritarian personality. e.g.

• Conventionalism: obedience and respect for authority.
• Authoritarian aggression: Sex crimes e.g. rape deserve more than prison.
• Power and toughness: People divided into two classes; the strong and the weak.

Explanation of independent behaviour

Non conformity
- person acts in opposition to group norm.

The role of situational factors in disobedience and non conformity
Gamson (1982)
Aim: to see if p's would rebel against unjust authority when encouraged. 
Procedure: Advert in papers in USA, paid to take part in 'discussion on standards of behaviour in community.'
- Put in groups of 9.
- P's met a consultant who said they were taking legal action against a petrol station manager due to a offensive lifestyle.
- the manager argued he was sacked for speaking publicly of high petrol prices.
- Consultant wanted them to argue in favour.
- It was filmed and shown in court.
Result: 32/33 groups rebelled in some way.
- 25/33 groups refused to sign consent form.
Conclusion: rebellion in this case involved challenging social norms in the situations; obedience and commitment.
+/-: Why did people disobey...

Smith and Mackie (2000)

• Importance of group:
   - p's established strong group identitiy which they agreed demands of authority was unreasonable.
• Reactance:
  - p's rebelled against attempts to control behaviour.
• Systematic processing:
  - p's had sufficient time to think about their actions.

Why people conform

Dual dependency model- Deutsch and Gerard (1955)

• Normative social influence:
  Need to be accepted and belong to a group.
  Group belonging is rewarding and group has power to punish/exclude those who don't fit in.
  Privately disagree with group (compliance)
• Informational social influence:
  Different needs drive this type of social influence.
  When one is unsure they conform.
  Drive for conformity is need to be right.
  +/-:
  - Doesn't acknowledge importance of belonging to a group.
  -P's in an experiment cannot fear group exclusion so it implies factors other than dependency of group may be important.
  - Sees choice to conform as a rational process in which the person weighs up information given and need for group approval.

Social identity explanations- Hogg (2003)

• Referent informational influence
  - which considers importance of relationships and emotional ties with other group members to help understand why we conform with them.

Tajfel (1971)
Aim: to investigate importance of group belonging.
procedure: Teenage boys in Bristol allocated to one of two groups on basis of preference for an artist.
Played game where they allocate points to exchange for money to both groups. 

Result: Boys consistently allocated points to own group even with more points allocated by giving both groups equal amounts.
Conclusion: We favour 'in' group and discriminate 'out' group.

• We self categorize ourself to feel part of a group.
• Group norms regulate behaviour which is internalized.
• Conforming to gain approval and fears rejection.

EXPLAINING MINORITY INFLUENCE

Moscovi: Showed minorities exert influence when they are consistent.
Clark argued minority can exert influence by
- Providing persuasive arguments
- Showing defecting behaviour.

2 Explanations of minority influence

Lantane and Wolfe (1981) social impact theory

- Minority and majority influence involve people that they divide into sources and targets.
- 3 factors interact of the force operating the social field.

1. Strength, importance, power of person providing influence.
2. Immediacy, psychological, physical or social distance of person providing influence.
3. Number of people providing influence.

- As influence increases it gathers influence.

Tanford and Penrod (1986) social influence model

- Minority influence increases as size of minority increases and each additional member or defector to minority adds less impact.
The Social Influence Model (SIM) predicts that as a faction increases in size, its impact increases and vice versa.

What is conformity

"CHANGING ONES BELIEFS OR BEHAVIOUR DUE OT REAL OR IMAGINED GROUP PRESSURE"
Sherif (1936) light autokinetic effect
Aim: Find if individuals alter opinions when reflecting as a group about measurement of a stimulus using the autokinetik effect.
Procedure: Focus on spot of light and estimate how far it moved.
This was ambiguous as there was no correct answer.
Second condition: Repeat task in groups of 3.
result: Individuals changed views so they were similar.
Those with high estimates lowered them, vise versa.
In third trial, group norm emerged. 

Types of conformity

1. Compliance:
   - Superficial
   - Conform publicly but privately think own view.
2. Identification:
   - Deeper type.
   - Change views publicly and privately to fit in but when identification takes place the belief/behaviour may be temporary,
3. Internalization:
   - Conversion, deepest.
   - Views taken becomes part of persons cognitive system and can retain for life.

Asch (1951): majority influence COMPLIANCE.

Aim: To assess if a minority would change their minds to conform to an obviously wrong majority.

Procedure: Experimental paradigm method to study responses.
- 123 male students groups on 7-9.
- 'Visual perception' task of lines on a card.

- 18 trials, confederates gave wrong answer. (only on p)
Result: 37% conformed overall.
5% conformed every trial
25% remained independant and gave correct answer.
P's doubted their eyes.


Moscovici (1969) Minority influence :INTERNALIZATION
Aim: To see if consistent minority of p's influence majority on colour perception task.
Participants: 172 p's.
- 6 p's at a time estimated 36 slides (all blue, diff shades)
- 2/6 confederates.
2 conditions
- CONSISTENT: 2 confederates called slides green all.
- INCONSISTENT: 2 c's green 24 times, blue 12 times.
Results: P's in consistent yielded and called shades green 8.4% trials.
- 32% in consistent at least once.
- Ibconsistent only 1.3%.
Conclusion: Important minority behave consistently.
- Individual members of minority maintain viewpoint with each other.


Clark (1994) MINORITY INFLUENCE
 270 role play jurors.
- 12 angry men
- Guilt or not?
- Summary of murder and key pieces of evidence.
Result: Persuasive of arguments and views of jury's was manipulated by one person.
Conclusion: combo of convincing arguments and shift of majority members resulting in minority exerting greatest influence.


Zimbardo (1973) IDENTIFICATION.
Aim: How people conform to roles by observing how people adopt to guard or prisoner simulating prison life.
The brutality of prison guard in USA due to environment or sadistic personality.
Procedure: Male volunteers 2 weeks. Randomly allocated P or G.
- Arrested 9 prisoners at homes without warning. Blindfolded, stripped disinfected, given numbers not names.
- 3 guards.
Result: Guards devised on roles. Harrassed prisoners. and conformed to role thatit had to be stopped after 6 days.
Prisoners rebelled after 2 days.
- Some p's became depressed and anxious and one had to be released after one day.
Two more on 4th day.
Conclusion: Prison environment important factor = brutal guards.
People readily conform to social roles if stereotyped.
Roles played shape attitudes and behaviours.


Factors affecting conformity

• Size of majority
  - Asch's method allowed him to manipulate factors to see which influenced conformity rates.
  - In one variation he manipulated size of group of confederates.
  - Found conformity low when one confederate changed view.
  - When group had 3 confederates, conformity was 33%.
• Importance of time
  - Asch in USA. Conformity high.
• Importance of place and culture
  Smith and Bond (1993)
  - meta analysis Aschs's method study conformity.
  - Conformity high in Fiji.
  - Low in Belgium.
  - Differences in individualistic and collectivist cultures.
  Individualistic: (USA+UK) Independence and individuality.
  Collectivist: Importance  to social group.
• Importance of modern technologies.
  People interact without seeing each other e.g. chatrooms.
  Crutchfield
  - People unable to see each other less prone to conformity.

Psychological and physiological methods of stress management

1. Cognitive Behavioural Therapy
- Alters irrational thoughts and cognitive biases that are assumed to be the cause of the problem.

Meichenbaums stress inoculation training (SIT)

1. Conceptualisation: Identify sources of stress in live. Recall stressful encounters. Keep diary recording stressful experiences. 
2. Skills training rehearsal: Acquires specific skills to address situations.
   - People with social anxiety have poor non verbal communications e.g. eye contact. They will be shown how to improve this.
   - Relaxation to keep bodily arousal under control.
3. Application in the real world: .. Therapist will monitor progress/behaviour.

+/-:
First stages involve identifying sources of stress assessing how well you dealt with them. It is a CBT approach focusing on these elements;

• Stress exists when there is a gap between perceived demands and resources to cope.
  -The cognitive element of SIT is aimed at producing a realistic appraisal of demands while training relevant skills aimed at increasing resources to cope with demands 'problem faced coping'.
• Training in relaxation techniques gives clients control over any stressful situation. Can be emotion focused and reduces emotionally arousing effects of stress.

-Time, commitment, money ETC

Kobasa's Hardiness training (control commitment, challenge)

1. Focusing: Client focuses on physiological symptoms associated with stressful situations to help identify source of stress. +helps require new skills strategies for coping. 
2. Reconstructing stressful situations: Cognitive strategy, encourages clients towards realistic appraisal of life stress and how coped with.
3. Self improvement: Improve clients sense of self efficiency. Take on manageable sources of stress

+/-: targets appraisal sources of stress and through training the resources available for dealing with them.
- reduces gap between demand and coping resources.
- Client self efficient so can deal with future.
- time, commitment, money.

2. Physiological of methods of stress management

Drugs

• Benzodiazepines (librium, valium):
  - Anti anxiety drugs
  -Act in brain, increases action of neurotransmitter GABA (Which Reduces activity of other neurotransmitters in brain) this decreases adrenaline and seratonin to relax you.
  +/-: Bad side effects e.g. tiredness, impaired motor coordination.
  Can lead to physical dependence.
  Withdrawal symptoms e.g. raised heart rate, sleeping problems.
  Doesn't target source.
  Consent.
• Beta blockers:
  - Act on cardiovascular system of body rather than brain. (Heart)
  - Reduces activation of autonomic nervous system to reduce heart rate.
  +/-: No side effects
  Targets physiological stress response and lowers stress related arousal.
  Doesn't target source of stress ... targets physical symptoms.
  Not good for long term.

Alternative methods of stress management

Biofeedback

- Combines physiological and psychological techniques.
- One wired to machine to provide feedback e.g. heart rate.
- Then helped to develop techniques to reduce symptoms e.g. meditation.
+/-: Effective to control heart rate.

Masters (1987) 
-involves relaxation which is already a technique so may have no implication.

Progressive muscle relaxation meditation

- Muscle relaxation common component for CBT,.
Jacobson (1938)

- Muscles tense and relaxed in systematic fashion.
- When more familiar, the person can go into a state of relaxation state without going through the whole process.
+/-: Gives control
Meditation has similarities with muscle relaxation. Immediate effect of reducing bodily arousal.
Meditation works against bodily arousal associated with stress.

Physical exercise

- Chronic stress = energy reserves (glucose) and fatty acids build up in bloodstream contributing to atherosclerosis.
+/-: Not clear it reduces physiological reactivity to stressors.
- P.E reduces resting levels of heart rate and blood pressure so while stress increases they start from a lower level and shouldn't be harmful.

Throne (2000)- FIREFIGHTERS

- Found regular exercise reduces levels of stress in fire fighters.
- helps lift mood indirectly copes with stress.
- Increases self efficiency.
- Enkephalins are released during exercise and act on brain to improve mood.

Social support

• Emotional support: Social network provide reassurance. 
• Practical or instrumental support: e.g. lending money.
• Informational support: Support group, share experience and give advice. 
• General network support: Self belonging and social identity improves self esteem.

Uchino, Cacioppio and Kiecolt-Glaser (1992)

-Reviewed studies on social support on body's physiological processes.
Result: Across 28 studies. degrees of social support showed consistent relationships with reduced blood pressure.
Across 19, there was a significant association between level of social support and immune function. 

Personality factors

Type A behaviour (TAB)

• Hostile, Impatient, competitive, time pressured.

Type B behvaiour

• Patient, relaxed, easy going

Rosenham (1976)

Aim: Find out if a type A person is more likely to develop CHD as type B.

Procedure: 3454 middle ages men USA. Categorized A or B after an interview.
Followed up 8 years later
Results: 257 had heart attacks, 69% type A.
Conclusion: High TAB individuals vulnerable to heart attacks.
+/-: concept of TAB based on western concept.

Other personality types

Eysenck (1988)

- 2 TYPES OF PERSONALITY

1. Personality vulnerable to cancer, associated with expressing emotions.
2. Peronality type vulnerable to CHD. Similar to TAB. High levles of anger and hostility.

+/-: No consistent evidence linking these personality types to cancer or CHD.

Derollet (2000)

- Type D personality. 'Distressed' expeience high levels of negative emotions and social inhibition.