Discuss some of the problems involved in the experimental study conformity & obedience.    (24 marks)

(N.B. you are not asked to describe the experiments, but the problems of experimental study in this field)

Conformity refers to the tendency to yield to real or imagined group pressure in the absence of any direct request to comply. In obedience there is an explicit order/instruction from someone in higher authority.

Sherif (1935) asked participants, both privately & then in a group situation, to estimate movement using the autokinetic effect and found that individual estimates converged towards a group norm. This was criticized by Asch who argued that this was not a good demonstration of conformity because the task was ambiguous, and the participants were not giving an answer that they knew was incorrect.

In Asch's experiment (1951), the naïve participants were placed amongst a group of stooges who gave the wrong answer on certain questions where the correct answer was obvious. Asch found a mean rate of conformity of 32%.

However, wide variations have been found in conformity rates. For example, Larsen found that conformity rates amongst American students changed significantly over a five year period. These variations may be attributable to political, social or cultural factors. Individual differences such as self esteem, need for approval, attractiveness of the group members, and gender have been put forward for why some individuals conform more in a group situation than others. Furthermore, levels of conformity may be affected by group size, and whether other members of the group conform or not. Because of the wide variations in levels of conformity, it is difficult to relate the findings of one study of conformity with another, and creates further problems when trying to replicate findings.

Despite these difficulties, the ability of groups to influence the behaviour and beliefs of individuals by making them conform has been powerfully demonstrated.

Milgram (1963,1964) investigated obedience. Participants were asked by a person that they perceived to be an authority figure to administer electric shocks to a learner (a stooge, in fact) if the learner responded in correctly. In the original experiment, 65% of participants continued to obey instructions to administer shocks up to the maximum 450V.

As with the experiments in conformity, obedience levels found in different studies vary - although they are consistently high, obedience levels may be dependent on social, political & cultural factors. Because of the variability in obedience levels, this makes it difficult to replicate studies.

One methodological criticism of the Milgram study was that he used an unrepresentative sample. However, this seems unjustified since over 600 participants were studied from people responding to a newspaper advertisement.

Another criticism of Milgram's study was that it lacked ecological validity (i.e. it had little relevance to what would happen in the real world). However, Hofling et al (1966) carried out a field study of nurses and found that they were willing to obey instructions given over the 'phone, despite the fact that this broke a number of serious hospital rules. Another criticism was that the participants did not believe the learner was actually receiving shocks. However, an experiment by Sheridan & King in which students gave real and increasingly severe shocks to a puppy suggests that the obedience levels that Milgram found were not due to a lack of experimental realism.

But perhaps the most serious problem that faces researchers in this field is the issue of ethics. Milgram was widely criticized, most notably by Baumrind, for failing to protect his participants. Milgram deceived them by giving them false information about the nature of the experiment and used a method which left them feeling that they were unable to withdraw from the experiment. Furthermore, his procedures produced feelings of anxiety, distress & severe suffering amongst many of his participants. Milgram defended his use of deception by pointing out that participants were debriefed and that in a follow-up questionnaire 84% had said that they were glad to have taken part while only 2% regretted taking part. In addition, the results had been very much unexpected. Furthermore, the deception was crucial to the experiment and the results were important in highlighting the need to educate people about the dangers of blindly obeying people in positions of authority. Guidelines have now been laid down by the British Psychological Society to protect participants, but in the study of conformity and obedience, it is difficult to see how a study could be carried out in which the participants were fully informed of the nature of the experiment without influencing the way that they behave in a way that would make the experiment pointless.