|
|
|
Psychology of Communication: social influence
|
|||
|
Psychology of Communication: social influence
|
You might object that Milgram's experiment on obedience to authority was artificial in that the teacher subject was alone with the experimenter, a situation we are not likely to come across very often in everyday life. Naturally it will depend on the individual's circumstances how often she will come across such a situation - you alone with your Communication or Media lecturer, your lecturer alone with her boss, you alone with the encyclopaedia salesperson, your lecturer's boss alone with the insurance salesperson, any one of us alone with the doctor. Isn't it likely, though, that a group of people would offer more resistance than just the one subject? Think about that for a moment - have you any such experience? For example, has it been the case that you have gone along with what a teacher has said you should do after she spoke to you alone, but you have had experience of an entire class rebelling against a teacher?
There is some experimental evidence to support the view that groups might be more likely to rebel than individuals. In Aschs experiments, if one other person dissented from the group opinion, the subject was more likely to dissent than if she was the only one who disagreed. In another version of his teaching experiment, Milgram had three teachers in all, two of whom were his confederates. The first one of these refused to continue to administer shocks beyond 150 volts despite the experimenters insistence that he should continue. The second teacher also quit after 210 volts. In that situation only 10% of subjects continued despite being ordered to do so. In another variant, there were two experimenters and one subject. After a few shocks, the experimenters began to argue, one saying that the experiment should be stopped, the other insisting that it should continue. In this case, not a single subject would continue.
There have been other studies to test the hypothesis that a group is more likely to rebel than a lone individual. The evidence from these seems to be that indeed a group is more likely to resist. One study (Encounters with unjust authority, Gamson, Fireman and Rytina 1982, quoted in Atkinson et al, (1990) showed a considerable amount of rebellion on the part of groups. In their experiment 16 out of 33 groups totally refused to do what was expected of them and in a further 9 groups the majority of group members refused to play ball. Their experiment appears to show two important factors at work in the development of rebellion: defining the situation and conformity.
Participants in Gamson's study were given plenty of breaks where they were able to mix freely with one another and discuss aspects of the situation. In the discussions which took place in the study conducted by Gamson et al, people were able to define and clarify the situation for one another. Initial questionnaires also indicated that the vast majority of the subjects initially disagreed with the position they were being called upon to adopt and they were free to voice those opinions in group discussions. The study also revealed that total rejection was highest in those groups where disagreement was originally high. In those groups where there were fewer dissenting opinions at the outset, total rejection occurred in only 10% of cases. It was also the case that in many of the groups there were people who had already been active in various kinds of protests and strikes. Such people could obviously serve as rôle models for the others in the group.
The study by Gamson et al may appear to present a very rosy picture of groups heroic independence and their members' willingness to stand up and be counted. In fact, though, they are perhaps not quite as heroic as all that. The researchers observed that members of the group were having to decide between the urge to obey and the urge to conform to the group norm: Many were uncertain at this point, waiting to see what others would do, delaying decision as long as possible. Ultimately they were faced with an unavoidable choice ........ and loyalty to the group became one major factor in their decision. Indeed, some group members went along with the experimenters and signed the statement they were being asked to sign, but then crossed out their signatures or tore up the statement when they realised that others were not going to sign.
For the past couple of years this situation has seemed very familiar to lecturers in further education, where college managers are introducing desperately worsened contracts. The inducement to sign is a salary increase, and no salary increase (ever again) for those who refuse to sign. The key to keeping the number of signatories as low as possible seems to be for the union branch to ensure that members are repeatedly given information about the contracts position in their own college and at other colleges. Meetings have to be held more regularly than usual and branch committee members have to ensure that they make personal contact with as many members as possible. In this way, loyalty to the group can be successfully maintained.
So here we are back with Solomon Asch again. Imagine this experiment transferred to the Third Reich or Stalins USSR where any potential rôle models such as trade union activists are in concentration camps and any expression of dissent may be punished and you can see how conformity to group norms is likely to be the overriding factor in group decisions.
Conformity
Deindividuation
Diffusion of responsibility
Minority influence
Obedience to authority
Power of social rôles
Conflict resolution
Groups and Teams
Mass Media Effects Research
Political Propaganda and Persuasion
|