Situational Factors, Social Influence And Extremes Of Human Behaviour

Situational factors, social influence and extremes of human behaviour; including the London riots of summer 2011.

Andy McCarthy (2011) University of Kent, Canterbury Christ Church University and Kent College Canterbury

Over the years, social psychologists have devoted much time and effort into research which asks a simple question: what is the best way to predict a person's behaviour. Underlying this question is the debate, is the main determinant of behaviour the person (dispositional effect) or the situation a person finds them self to be in (situational effect). The strength of the situational effect was suggested long ago by Mischel (1968). He stated there is a very weak correlation between any personality measure and behavior. Mischel concluded that situations drive behaviour and not personality. Mischel produced one of psychology's few formulae: B = f (E) (or 'Behaviour is a function of the Environment').

Social psychologists are interested in the way people affect each other in terms of "Social Influence". This can refer to the influence of a group; majority influence (conformity) or the influence of an individual with perceived authority to ask you to do something (obedience). This social influence can result in a change in the thinking, attitudes or behaviour of others (Hewstone et al, 2004). In particular, this discourse will look at which situational factors seem to affect levels of influence on behaviour most, and then apply them to some contemporary situations (eg. US Military atrocities in Guantanamo Bay & Abu Ghraib, prison aggression and the recent civil unrest in London and other large UK Cities [Summer 2011]).

Obedience is complying with the demands of a real or perceived authority figure. Perhaps the most famous study in this area was by Milgram (1963) in his "Shocking Obedience Study". The dynamic behind this study, was to investigate why so many 'ordinary' German people in the 1930s and 1940s followed instructions (eg when working in concentration camps) to cause pain and kill innocent human beings. Was it because Germans have a personality 'trait' (dispositional factor) which predisposed them to obey 'authority' without question or was it the situation (situational factor) they found themselves to be in? (Gross, 2006)

To research this question, Milgram (1963) set up an elaborate 'deception' which involved 'naive' participants (playing the role of 'teachers') believing they were administering potential fatal electric shocks to a volunteer learner (actually a confederate of Milgram's but unknown to the real participants). This punishment was simply because they performed badly on a memory task! To minimise dispositional factors they were all screened for 'sadistic' personality traits and a panel of psychiatrists specifically predicted:

"Most subjects would not go beyond 150 volts, when the victim makes his first explicit demand to be freed. They expected that only 4 percent would reach 300 volts, and that only a pathological fringe of about one in a thousand would administer the highest shock on the board". (Milgram, 1974)

Milgran (1963), demonstrated that 65% of participants were prepared to exceed the 300 volt level and deliver what they had been informed was a potentially lethal electric shock (450 volts). This begs the question, was the determinant of this behaviour: dispositional or situational. Milgram claimed that were no significant dispositional differences (based on sex [women reported feeling more guilty], personality, politics, religion, occupation, education, military service, or psychological characteristics. Therefore the main determinant must be situational. Factors which support this are: Remoteness of the experimenter reduced obedience (Agency theory and diffusion of responsibility to perceived authority). But perhaps more importantly, when Milgram attempted a trial away from the university laboratory, to a setting in a downtown office. This relocation was coupled with 'dressing down' from laboratory coats to jeans and t-shirts; obedience rates plummeted (from 65% to less than 20%). Thus demonstrating the situational effect, as a reinforcer of the 'Agentic State'. That is a stronger perception of the authority (real or imaginary) because of the situational reinforcement (Eysenck, 2005 and Web ref 1).

Two questions that this research raises, where the participants really fooled and is there a temporal effect (behaviour being a product of the time). Research by Sheridan and King (1972) "Obedience to authority with an authentic victim" answered the first question, in that with a clever deception, participants viewing a puppy clearly in pain (a deception) produced the same obedience levels (65%) as Milgram had earlier (Sheridan & King, 1972). The question of a 'temporal effect' has somewhat amazingly (considering ethical guidelines since the 1970's) been addressed with recent replications of Milgram's procedures (often based loosely, so as to circumnavigate ethical concerns). These include: Slater et al (2006) who used PC's and virtual reality. Each of the 23 participants wore a VR headset and had to teach a 'virtual' woman a word pair task. As in the original study the participant were requested to administer increasingly large electric shocks to this 'virtual woman'. Six of them chose to withdraw; the rest administered a full shock (74% obedience). Burger (2008) replicated and filmed, with minor changes: he screened out any subjects who had taken a psychology course or who knew Milgram`s research. Psychological profiling eliminated anyone who might have a negative reaction and at the 150 volts stage 70% had to be stopped.

Perhaps more interesting a non-psychological replication for a documentary on human behaviour: 'Le Jeu de la Mort' (The Game of Death: French TV, 2010 [Web ref 2]) centered on Milgram's procedures in a game show. Real participants (who were cleverly deceived into thinking they were being recorded for the later broadcast of a real TV show) were encouraged by host and audience to administer increasingly stronger electric shocks as punishment for incorrect answers to trained actors; result: 80 % obedience to administer fatal levels.

Moving away from obedience as social influence, to conformity to the group 'norm' as social influence; of which Zimbardo's (1971) now infamous 'Stanford Prison Experiment' is a classic. In this experiment volunteers for role-playing were allocated into two groups, one group to play prisoners and the other group to play prison officers. Despite all participants being screened for unusual 'sadistic type' personality traits and the fact that all knew that everyone was role-playing; in a matter of days the police were called in to stop the research because of extreme violence (web ref 3).

Zimbardo (2007), reflecting on his own research, drew the conclusion that the cause of the violent behaviour by the prison officers on the prisoners was a product of the situation (situation factors) rather than the screened volunteers being 'nasty' people. Zimbardo further supported his claim for the role of situation factors by appearing in US military courts to defend 'rookie soldiers', accused of atrocities in Guantanamo Bay & Abu Ghraib. He disagreed with the Military's claim that these were a few 'bad' soldiers and countered with a claim that it was not a few bad apples that had soured the barrel" bur rather "a bad barrel (the situation) that had soured a few good apples"; reinforcing his claim that it is the situation and not the person that makes one behave in an evil or bad way (Zimbardo, 2007).

Another area of the 'person' versus 'situation' is prisoner on prisoner violence. Raising the question, is the violence a product of violent personalities of the prisoners (dispositional) or the prisons creating violent prisoners (situational)? Toch (1997) suggested that: All prisons inherit their violent sub-cultural from the streets that supply them with their clients. This suggests that young offenders learn aggression on the street and later express it in prison. This Importation Model (Dispositional) supports that behaviour is the product of what people 'import' to a situation.

Conversely the Deprivation Model (Situational) suggests that prisoner's violent behaviour is a product of the deprived situation. Sykes (1958) looked at the deprivation that prisoners suffered during their imprisonment. Sykes suggested that prison subculture originates from within the institution, not outside it. Sykes outlined five deprivations that arise from becoming a prisoner: Freedom, autonomy, goods, sex and safety. These five deprivations can lead prisoners to become stressed, and sometimes they act aggressively towards others to release this stress. Aggression in prisons is seen as a way that prisoners can gain some measure of control over the social order imposed on them in prison. Further support comes from 'The Popcorn Model' by Folger & Skarlicki, (1995) - the first prisoner to act aggressively is like the first piece of popcorn to explode. This study looked at what caused the 'heat' to fire aggression. No corn 'pops' without heat. If the prison environment is calm, then prisoners will not become aggressive. This model suggests that any prisoner can become aggressive if enough 'heat' is applied to the prison situation.

However, situational models do not explain why prison riots can suddenly happen without the environment changing. Findings also seem to suggest that there is not a link between overcrowding and aggression, but perhaps more importantly, they do not suggest ways of reducing the violence (Megargee, 1976).

Finally, to the recent civil unrest in Towns and Cities in the UK (Summer 2011). Gustav Le Bon (1895) researched 'deindividuation' and crowd behaviour. This is where a member of a crowd or mob is removed from being an individual member of a group and is vulnerable to losing their individual identity. This then may result in 'out of character' aggressive behaviour. Festinger et al. (1952) described the process of 'deindividuation' in language which is very easy to apply to the recent riots and strongly places the blame more on the situation and rather than all on the individual. The process involves the arousal of joining a social group, increasing self-anonymity and decreasing self-awareness, quite literally you diffuse all responsibility to a group (which at its heart has no morals). This is then coupled with a loss of normal inhibitors (public self-awareness) and increased responsivity to situational cues (private self-awareness). Quite simply, these situational factors could create a very explosive and dangerous situation with 'normal' people (Festinger et al, 1952). Also in terms of the strength of the 'situational effect, it would explain why members of West Ham's (1980's) 'Inner City Club', who were prosecuted for extreme, organised football violence included: a bank manager, a store manager, an insurance underwriter, solicitor's clerks and firemen (web ref 4 & 5).

To sum up, in terms of interpersonal obedience, the situational factors which determine behaviour is the perception that the person you obey, looks (reinforced by surroundings) that they have the authority (often just perceived) to demand obedience and that they are responsible for your actions. Conformity to act out of character (as in 'rioting') is similar but the authority you in this case diffuse responsibility to (eg. the mob) has no implicit moral values. Therefore in these cases, it is the situational authority which demands the 'out of character' behaviour and not the person (disposition) and that 65-75% would perform an 'extreme' out of character behaviour if the situation demanded it.

References:

Burger, M. (2008). Cited in (2009) Reflections on "Replicating Milgram" Miller, G. American Psychologist, Vol 64(1), Jan, 20-2

Eysenck, M. W. (2005). Psychology: A students handbook (5th ed.). East Sussex: Psychology Press Ltd.

Festinger et al. (1952), Carlson, N.R., Heth, D.S., Miller, H.L. Donahue J.W., Buskist, W. and Martin, G.N. (2006) Psychology: The Science of Behaviour. International Edition. London: Prentice Hall.

Folger, R., & Skarlicki, D.P. (1995, August). The popcorn model of workplace violence. In R. Griffin (Chair), Workplace violence: An emerging research domain in organizational science. Symposium presented at the meetings of the Academy of Management, Vancouver, BC.

Gross, R. (2006). Psychology: The Science of Mind and Behaviour (6th Edn). London: Hodder

Gustav Le Bon (1895), cited in Carlson, N.R., Heth, D.S., Miller, H.L. Donahue J.W., Buskist, W. and Martin, G.N. (2006) Psychology: The Science of Behaviour. International Edition. London: Prentice Hall.

Hewstone, M. & Stroebe, W. ed. (2004), Introduction to social psychology: a European perspective (3rd edn), Massachusetts: Blackwell

Megargee, E.I. (1976). Predicting violent behavior in psychiatrically hospitalized boys. Journal of Youth and Adolescence Volume 13, Number 3, 225-238

Mischel (1968), cited in: Carlson, N.R., Heth, D.S., Miller, H.L. Donahue J.W., Buskist, W. and Martin, G.N. (2006) Psychology: The Science of Behaviour. International Edition. London: Prentice Sykes, G.M. (1958) The Society of Captives: A Study ... Security Prison ( Copyright © 1958 by Princeton University. Press.

Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67 , 371-378.

Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to Authority. New York: Harper &. Row Publishers.

Sheridan C. L., and King R. G. jr. (1972). Obedience to authority with an authentic victim Proceedings, 80th Annual Convention, APA, 1972

Slater M, Antley A, Davison A, Swapp D, Guger C. (2006) A Virtual Reprise of the Stanley Milgram Obedience Experiments. PLoS ONE 1(1): e39.

Toch, H. (1997), Corrections: A Humanistic Approach. Harrow and Heston

Zimbardo, P. G. (1972). The Stanford Prison Experiment a Simulation Study of the Psychology of Imprisonment. Philip G. Zimbardo, Inc.

Zimbardo, P. G. (2007). The Lucifer Effect: Understanding how good people turn evil. New York: Random House.

Web References

1. Milgram Basics - Dr. Thomas Blass Presents: Stanley Milgram .com. www.stanleymilgram.com/milgram.php [Accessed 31-08-11)

2. Fake torture TV `game show` reveals willingness to obey - FRANCE-www.france24.com/.../20100317 [Accessed 31-08-11)

3. The Zimbardo Site: http://zimbardo.socialpsychology.org/ [Accessed 31-08-11]

4. West Ham ICF Inter City Firm | Cass Pennant www.football-hooligans.org/westham-intercityfirm-hooligans.html [Accessed 01-09-11]

5. BBC News - London riots: Looting and violence continues (Aug 2011). www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-144399708 [Accessed 01-09-11]