Social Influence in Experimental Behavioral Psychology - Assignment Example

Discussion on Social Influence in Experimental Behavioral Psychology. Student Name Course Lecturer University Faculty Date Individuals are subjected to many influences in the course of daily life, some of which may result in the individual’s compliance, conformity or obedience. This essay is concerned with the conformity and obedience responses as well as the relationship between social power and social influence. It concludes with an analysis of ethics concerns that have arisen in the course of psychology experiments to investigate these phenomenons. 1. Social Power Social power is differentiated from personal power by the fact that where as personal power results in having an impact on just ones self, social power results in having influence over other individuals. Personal power is therefore connected with individuality and independence while social power relates to the social status occupied by both parties. Understanding social power and how people navigate around not having it can be applied to gain a better understanding of relationships. Since power is so difficult to measure interpreting the effects with specific regard to the amount of power wielded is difficult. In addition the power wielded by an individual within a relationship may differ depending on the area concerned. One may have power in financial decision making but not in domestic housekeeping scenarios. Alongside power are influence strategies which attempt to describe how power is channelled. Influence strategies can be direct, as in unambiguous, or indirect, as in subtle. They can also be either positive in that they promise reward or negative in that they threaten punishment. There are six major theoretical models on social power but this essay will concern itself with only two; Social Power Theory developed by French and Raven (1959) and Resource Theory developed by Blood and Wolfe (1960). The Social Power Theory defines power as the potential to exert influence on another person while social influence is the process through which social power is applied (Simpson, Farrell, Oriña, and Rothman 2015, 393). This theory defines six power bases that are linked to different social influence strategies and that result in different effects on the targets of influence. Coercive power is based on the target’s expectation of punishment for defying the agent. Reward power is built on the target’s expectation of reward for adopting behaviours or attitudes desired. Legitimate power is when the target acknowledges the influence agent’s right to influence the target and referent power occurs when a target wishes to be like the influence agent. Expert power exists when a target wishes to benefit from the influence agents expertise and Informational Power is when an agent has specific information desirable to the target but which can only be acquired through cooperating with the influence agent. The French and Raven’s theory is criticised for focusing solely on individuals rather than individuals within relationships, and ignoring the long-term outcomes of social power on the target (Simpson, Farrell, Oriña, and Rothman 2015, 395). Resource Theory on the other hand, is a dyadic theory in which a person has the ability to influence another by choosing to either share or withhold socioeconomic, affective, expressive, companionship, sexual, or service resources. Power is therefore determined by the amount of access the individual has to the resources through other means. Resource Theory assesses how both individual’s rate and share resources making it a dyadic theory. Similar to Social Power Theory it is criticised over not looking at the long term outcomes of power. Applied within romantic relationships, both models reveal that partners with greater power within relationships are less likely to be influenced by their partners and makes them more action oriented than their partners. They also tend to be less inhibited and less focused on punishment from the other partner. Less powerful partners tend to focus more on supporting their partner’s goals and they have less say on the long term prospects of the relationship (Simpson, Farrell, Oriña, and Rothman 2015, 403). 2. Conformity Conformity is a change in behaviour and or thinking as a result of explicit or implicit influence that may be real or imagined and may imminent from a group (Cialdini and Goldstein 2004, 594).There are 3 types of conformity; compliance, internalisation and identification. Internalisation is defined as modification of behaviour and opinion, and compliance is the modification of behaviour absent of shift in opinion. The two main theoretical models on conformity are the Dual Process Theory (DPT) by Deutsch and Gerrard (1955) and the Self Stereotype Theory by Turner (1991). Dual process theory explains majority influence using normative social influence (NSI), which is holding positive expectations from conforming and negative ones from not conforming; and informational social influence (ISI), which is accepting information received as actuality. In other words, NSI is based on our need for approval and avoidance of rejection while core to ISI is that uncertainty in a situation makes us more disposed to the influence of others even though we are unaware of it. This foundation for this model was laid by Asch study (1951) which placed single subjects in a room with of seven confederates. The confederates were instructed to provide wrong answers to questions whose answers were obvious. A third of the participants conformed to the majority view. The study was limited by selecting a homogenous set of all male participants and is criticised for not taking into account the socio-political backdrop of the 1950s when making claims to universality. The male participants were also all university students engaged in Science, Engineering or Mathematical disciplines which are often associated with rigid formulas, theories and rules. It is still however cited as showing that people conform because they want to fit in, also known as normative social influence as discussed above, and because they would like to improve how they are perceived within the group or informational social influence. The study also helped establish factors that affect conformity. The larger the group the subject was placed up until an optimum point, the more likely he was to conform. After the optimal point, rates of conformity did not increase. It also established that if the subject perceived the answer as not unanimous then he was less likely to conform by up to 80 percent. Complexity of the question raised conformity while being allowed to answer anonymously reduced conformity. Finally, he was more likely to conform when placed with participants of higher status than himself. Turner’s model (1991) argues that there is a third influence in the form of our desire to define as part of a group. It was originally developed to examine discrimination between social groups and was attempting to identify the factors that cause members of an ingroup to discriminate against an out-group. The model assumes that in addition to a “level of self” an individual holds different identities depending on the social group one assesses. His self concept within each group then supplies him with his social identity. The extent to which individuals their identity is derived from the group, the relationship existing between the rival group and the level in which comparisons are made between the groups determine whether discrimination against the rival group develops. The model goes on to develop the concept of self-stereotyping which occurs in three phases, firstly acknowledging membership of the group and then learning the group norms and adjusting behaviour accordingly. But that conformity is contingent on factors like how strongly we desire to maintain to be part of that group, how much pressure is exerted and how many within the group disagree with the majority. 3. Obedience Obedience is a form of social influence where an individual changes behaviour in response to an authority figure. Some people respond to authority by disobedience while others become submit and even identify with the authority or oppressive figure. The Agency Theory of obedience is based on agency relationships in which a principal, for instance an employer, appoints an agent, for instance an employee, to perform on its behalf. The theory holds that that the principal and agent may not always share the same values or ideals and it focuses on the problems these raise for both the principal and agent and how this is overcome by way of policing and incentive mechanisms. It is applied in hierarchical relationships and posits that individuals are constantly switching between autonomous or agency states Hierarchical structures occur frequently in society and serve to create order within the group and obedience is therefore necessary to the survival of the group. According to Agency Theory, obedience is therefore learnt from socialisation. The individual is able to obey even when he perceives the action to be negative and contrary to his own values because while in agentic state he views himself as an instrument and is therefore absolved of moral responsibility. The Agency Theory is supported by a series of experiments such as the Zimbardo and Milgram experiments. The Milgram experiment which tested obedience in negative conditions found that although there may have been initial resistance, 66 per cent of the participants obeyed instructions that were contrary to their values and accepted social norms. Obedience was at 92.5 per cent when somebody else physically undertook the negative task and 68.75 per cent when the subjects observed peers obeying instructions. Obedience also increased when the authority figure was physically closer to the subject but decreased when distance was placed between the subject and the “victim”. Agency theory is criticised for not examining why some people disobey. It also fails to take into account factors such as the pressure of a group of equals, being watched, finding oneself involved in an ambiguous or new situation, the existence of a chain of command and the existence of grave consequences in case of disobedience. Kelman and Hamilton developed three social processes that enabled “crimes of obedience” (Kelman and Hamilton 1989, 12). Authorization allows the individual to excuse himself from having to make personal moral choices. Routinization means that the soldiers become less likely to consider the implications of an action and dehumanization of the victim which allows the perpetrator to act with considering it as harm to another human being. 4. Ethics Ethical concerns over experimental behavioural psychology have changed over time with initially mild ethical concerns gaining significance in the last century. The post World War II period gave rise to the Nuremberg Code of 1947 on humane experimentation dealt with consent, coercion and what participants gained from the experience but it was during the cold war era that there was an increase in discourse over ethics in behavioural sciences culminating in the institutionalisation of ethical codes touching on issues like consent, human dignity and scientific standards (Ploder 2015, 12). Modern national and international ethical codes now safeguard the psychological and physical well being of participants. Although there are some differences between national codes, there are some commonalities such as experimenters can only use techniques in which they are qualified. The experiment must be in the interest of a common good and must follow a pre-approved protocol. Informed consent requires that the experimenters use lay mans language in explaining the experiment and to explain that participants may withdraw at any time. Where a participant is incapable of legal consent then the law must first be consulted to determine who is allowed to grant consent and an assent from the participant is still required and deceptions that could significantly impact on a participant’s grant of consent are disallowed. There are also rules regarding the use of animals in research including that the experimenter must have received training on the handling of the species under his care. Efforts must be taken to minimise infliction of pain or distress and such experiments must be strictly necessary (Whately 2014, 49). The role of ethics in the field is best demonstrated by the Milgram experiment. Milgram deceived subjects that they were participating in a study on memory and assigned each either the role of teacher or learner. The “teachers”, who were also the subjects, were instructed to administer an electric shock when a “learner” failed a question, increasing the intensity depending on how poorly the student was performing. The calibration on the machine made it clear that each subsequent level was more painful and dangerous than the previous one. Pressure was placed on the subjects to continue the exercise even when they verbally resisted and demonstrated emotional distress. Even though no actual shocks were administered, the subjects were under the impression that they were. Writing immediately after the publication of the study, Baumrind raised a few ethics related concerns (1964). Firstly that the participants had not been provided with opportunity to make informed consent as they had been deceived over what they were participating in; that they had been placed in extreme stress that exposed them to the risk of trauma and developing negative attitudes towards authority; that their dignity had been violated in the pursuit of the experimenter’s goals and that their self image may have been negatively affected. Although Milgram countered this critique with the assertion that a follow up on the participants conducted a year later found no evidence of trauma and many participants wanted to participate in future research (Milgram, 1964), he could answer the charge over informed consent. The Zimbardo experiment could present no such defence as participants reported years later to still be experiencing trauma caused by the experiment (Kelman and Hamilton 1989, 5). In response to the introduction of codes of ethics experimenters have over the years adopted different practices. For instance instead of implying physical harm they imply to their subjects that verbal insults will be directed at the other party. Human victims have been replaced with either animals or virtual humans. Scenerio studies in which participants are asked to predict their behaviour in a given situation similar to ones they have experienced have also been adopted. One experiment on obedience undertaken in Holland asked subjects to collect data in a situation that would apparently compromise a homeless persons opportunity to get a job thereby avoiding the pretence or actual infliction of physical harm to introduce moral dilemma in the subject. The new approaches however raise concerns over reliability. For example, in a scenario study based on the Milgram experiment in which participants were asked to report their predictions on how they would behave in those circumstances, only 3.6 percent admitted they would respond in obedience. This is in contrast to the 65 per cent who actually did obey during the original Milgram experiment. Another series of criticisms levelled by against Milgram’s conclusions is that the experiment should have been viewed within the intellectual, cultural and gender context presented by the Cold War America (Nicholson 2011, 239). He points out that Milgram’s study was one of the beneficiaries of funding from US security agencies that were preoccupied with the possibility that the USSR could develop ways to win over or manipulate human minds into shifting their allegiances. Nicholson suggest that Milgram was conscious that the funders were looking for real applications in the context of the ideological battles that were waging at the time and that this influenced his design of the experiments and framing of the report as he was conscious that he needed to match the tone of the era. During this period, the US was concerned that its ideological enemies would succeed in manipulating citizens minds into switching allegiances and was concerned over what could happen in that event. In framing his report in terms of individual self governance as opposed to obedience of authoritarianism, Nicholson charges that Milgram was simply satisfying his funders rather than focusing on scientific inquiry. In summation, social influence like conformity and obedience influence human behaviour. How they do so has been the subject of much theorizing, each resulting model presenting both strengths and weaknesses. Early developments in this field of theoretical psychology particularly gave way to many ethical concerns particularly where experimentation on human subjects was applied. The result has been that countries have adopted codified regulations that protect the well being of both human and animal subjects. Works cited Blass, T., 1992. The Social Psychology of Stanley Milgram. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 277-329. Cialdini, R.B. & Goldstein, N.J., 2004. Social Influence: compliance and conformity. Annual Review Psychology, 55, 591–621. Kelman, H.C., Hamilton, L.V., 1989. Crimes of Obedience: Toward a Social Psychology of Authority and Responsibility. Hamilton Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. Nicholson, I., 2011. “Shocking” Masculinity Stanley Milgram, “Obedience to Authority,” and the “Crisis of Manhood” in Cold War America. History of Science Society Stable 102, 238–268. Ploder, A., 2015. History of Ethical Questions in Social and Behavioral Sciences. Graz, Austria: Elsevier Ltd. Simpson, J. A., Farrell, A. K., Oriña, M., & Rothman, A. J. (2015). Power and Social Influence in Relationships. APA Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology:, 3, 393-420. Whately, R., 2014. Ethics of Experimental Research Honesty is the Best Policy. In Experimental Ethics: Toward an Empirical Moral Philosophy. Edinburough, Scotland: Palgrave Macmillan, 46–61. Read More