POL SCI 164A Lecture Notes - Lecture 18: Milgram Experiment, Social Status, Social Influence
30 Apr 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
PS 164A Lecture 4/3 Milgram Study
Social Influence
1. Obedience/compliance and deference
a. Process of influence reflects status hierarchies, where influence runs from top to
bottom
b. Willingness to do what someone else tells you to do when they are in an authority
position (an authority with authority)
c. What about under the law? (different than under authority)
d. Obedience and compliance - operates in a hierarchical institutional or
organizational context (an authority in authority) or where status is otherwise
formally recognized
e. Deference - operates outside hierarchical institutions or organizations that
formally recognize superiors or subordinates
i. Has to do with high status and low status - more influenced by people
with high status
2. Conformity
a. Influence by the behaviors of the “others” and the majority of “others”
b. Others can be influential regardless of their status or any particular ties that you
have to them
3. Group Ties
a. Influence is mediated by the existence of group ties, including friends, family,
large social groups
b. More likely to be influenced by in-group member than outgroup member
Milgram experiment
● Almost 65% of subjects went to the end of electrical shock
○ Baseline
● Regardless of pay or indications of danger on shock dial
● When the subject was screaming next to them (sound feedback), only 40% went to the
end
● Touch proximity scenario (holding down the arm of unwilling subject) - 30% still went to
the end
● Two nuances: sound feedback and touch proximity
● Subject is always encouraged to continue
● What can kind of situational variations produce disobedience?
○ Experimenter leaves and calls in instructions → more disobedience when
experimenter is physically not present
■ People would often cheat if experimenter wasn’t there
● Experiment 6 is only one with women; still 65%
● Women subject and women victims vs men and men
○ Little bit lower obedience with women as victims when women were subjects
● Tied to the prestige of Yale perhaps? Influenced by Yale
○ Moved temporarily to strip mall that no one knew about
○ 47.5% compared to baseline
● All around 50%-65%
● People assumed that Milgram had used a bunch of sadistic subjects when results came
out
○ Milgram changed it by allowing people to choose the shock level
○ If not instructed, people will give a lower shock level
○ Delivering shocks not driven by a personality disposition
● A second confederate added
○ Person quit and let another person (associated with Milgram, unbeknownst to the
subject) conduct the experiment
○ First person most of the time let the person go on
■ Sometimes physically accosted the person to remove them from shocking
the other person
○ Another scenario: “I’ll do it if you do it first” - confederate to subject
○ Another scenario: Two experimenters, one says continue and the other says stop
at a certain volt
■ Most stopped the minute they disagreed
● Another scenario: 1 subject, two confederates (“peers”)
○ One person reads word pairs, one person says right or wrong, and subject
delivers shock
○ Experiment 17: 1 peer drops out, a few subjects also dropped out
■ When both peers dropped out, a lot more subjects also dropped out
■ 25% went all the way despite peers dropping out
○ Flipped the roles for each of the three people so that one of the confederates is
always delivering a shock
■ Only three out of 40 subjects stopped participating as long as they didn’t
have to deliver the shock
A lot of people don’t agree with Milgram’s theory on things like agentic state
Document Summary
Has to do with high status and low status - more influenced by people with high status: conformity. Influence by the behaviors of the others and the majority of others a: others can be influential regardless of their status or any particular ties that you have to them, group ties a. Influence is mediated by the existence of group ties, including friends, family, large social groups: more likely to be influenced by in-group member than outgroup member. Almost 65% of subjects went to the end of electrical shock. Regardless of pay or indications of danger on shock dial. When the subject was screaming next to them (sound feedback), only 40% went to the end. Touch proximity scenario (holding down the arm of unwilling subject) - 30% still went to the end. Two nuances: sound feedback and touch proximity. Experimenter leaves and calls in instructions more disobedience when experimenter is physically not present. People would often cheat if experimenter wasn"t there.
