Forces of Obedience: Social Identity & Identity-based Followership

Introduction

The Wave (1981) directed by Alex Grasshoff is a short film based on a 1967 social experiment in Palo Alto, California. The purpose of this one-week experiment was to teach students about fascism during the Second World War and demonstrate how the German populace could have allowed events of the Holocaust to occur. In Grasshoff’s film, history teacher Ben Ross establishes a youth brigade which he calls “The Wave”. Although several mechanisms of influence enabled the Wave to gain its momentum, this paper will primarily focus on social identification as a force of destructive obedience. The relationship between social identity and identity-based followership will be evaluated through analysis of Stanley Milgram’s shock experiment, the Stanford Prison Experiment, as well as a series of follow-up studies.

Social Identity as an Agent of Obedience

The Wave illustrated how obedience was elicited as students underwent socialization. Mr. Ross created a highly cohesive group by introducing norms and roles for the Wave that students pledged strict obedience to. The students’ obedience reflects the effects of social identification as they developed a sense of identity towards the Wave, making them more susceptible to its influence. The Wave was able to generate conformity from its members because students began to submerge their personal identity and, instead, internalize the collective goals of the group.

Socialization takes place as Mr. Ross sets clear rules and expectations for members of the Wave. By the third day, his class has a coherent understanding of the Wave’s norms, which included harsh rules of conduct, and symbols and slogans that represented the Wave. By establishing social norms, students could distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Mr. Ross also provided a way for Wave members to separate themselves from the outgroup. Selected students were assigned “monitors”, who were obligated to report any anti-Wave sentiment conduct to Mr. Ross. To further encourage the development of social identity, Mr. Ross declared that students were personally responsible for the Wave’s success, which could only be achieved through the collective effort of its members. Students reacted positively to The Wave as one student expresses that “for the first time, I feel like I am part of something great”, followed by another who claimed that “this is like being born again”. Such remarks show the formation of a strong attachment between the group and its members. The sense of worth students derived from their membership to the Wave can be explained by the social identity theory. Over time, as students strengthened their social identity, they became increasingly vulnerable and accepting of the Wave’s control.

Stanley Milgram’s Obedience Paradigm

Passive conformity and social identification can both be considered as potential agents of obedience as seen in Stanley Milgram’s shock experiments. Milgram’s research sought to investigate the extent to which authority can affect behavior. In doing so, participants were told that the experiment’s goal was to examine the effects of punishment on learning and was assigned the role of a “teacher” or a “learner”. Experimenters then instructed the teachers to administer electric shocks, which increased in magnitude, each time the learner gave an incorrect answer. The results of Milgram’s study revealed that all participants continued to administer shocks up to 300 volts and 65% of the participants persisted up to the highest level at 450 volts (Haslam & Reicher, 2012). Although early interpretations attribute the participants’ behavior to blind obedience, more recent analyses seek to understand the conditions that result in the dangers of obedience. According to the social identity perspective, people are driven by their social identity within a group which has the potential to alter their perception. One variant of Milgram’s study showed that the participants were more likely to administer shocks to the learners when the experimenter had justified their actions towards a shared goal. When participants were encouraged to identify with the experimenter, they were more likely to obey than teachers who were given direct orders. Even after the experiment ended, one participant expressed “‘I am happy to have been of service,’” and another participant said, “‘Continue your experiments by all means as long as good can come of them’” (Haslam & Reicher, 2012). The participants’ attitudes demonstrate how social identity to the scientific community to which participants believed their acts of obedience were contributing to a greater cause. Ultimately, social identification emerged to produced highly engaged participants who were more inclined to comply with the experimenters.

Phillip Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment

Phillip Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE) is another infamous social psychology experiment that reflects the role of social identity on obedience. The purpose of the SPE was to evaluate the extent to which individuals conform to norms and roles. In the SPE, participants played the role of a “guard” or “prisoner” in a simulated prison environment. Within six days, the experiment was terminated due to the intensity of the negative reactions of the guards and prisoners. Unlike Milgram’s research, the SPE studied the interactions between participants without an authority figure. The absence of authority meant that guards had full control over their behavior. The guards’ brutality led researchers to conclude that individuals readily conform to their assigned roles (Haslam & Reicher, 2012). However, the argument for role conformity is weakened as it fails to acknowledge that the prisoners in the SPE did not passively conform to their assigned roles; instead, the participants continued to resist their oppressors (Haslam, Reicher, & Van Bavel, 2019). Alternatively, some researchers have proposed the social identity perspective which explains how situational conditions allow individuals to develop social identities and take on roles that make sense in their social context (Haslam et al., 2019). In the context of the SPE, the guards’ brutality was a result of their “active identification with the guard group and a knowing embrace of its oppressive ideology” (Haslam et al., 2012). Over time, participants formed a social identity corresponding to their assigned roles which prompted them to act in ways that were consistent with group norms.

Follow-up Studies on Identity-Based Followership

In 2009, a replication study of Milgram’s shock experiment intended to explore the forces of social identification on behavior (Miller, 2009). Burger’s experiment closely resembled Milgram’s obedience paradigm, although making small adjustments to the maximum voltage of shocks that could be inflicted on the learner due to ethical reasons. The results of the study support the social identity perspective as participants’ obedience was based on the teacher’s identification with the experimenter (Haslam et al., 2019). Through self-categorization, participants strengthen their social identity and are motivated to achieve the collective goals of the group (Haslam et al., 2019). In both the original and replication studies, participants felt an obligation to science, shared between the teacher and experimenter, which produced engaged participants who were more willing to follow the experimenter’s orders. Furthermore, Burger’s findings indicate that 36.88% of participants stopped administering shocks at 150 volts and 10.66% at 315 volts (Miller, 2009). At both these points, the learner made clear objections and requested to be released which appeals to the teachers’ obligations to an alternate identity shared between teachers and learners (Miller, 2009). Burger describes this conflict as the “torn” participant, in which the social identity participants formed with the experimenter was compromised and disrupted by their moral obligations to the greater community (Miller, 2009). Whether the participants continued to administer shocks on the learner depended on whether their sense of identity lied stronger with the scientific or general community.

In addition to Burger’s replication study, Haslam & Reicher tested the merits of the identity-based followership explanation as a predictor of obedience. This particular study consisted of a group of experts, who had been exposed to Milgram’s obedience paradigm and the concept of social identity, and nonexperts, those without any prior knowledge. Participants were presented with 15 variants of Milgram’s study in which they were required to assess which group, the learner or the experimenter, that the teacher would identify with (Haslam, Reicher, & Smith, 2012). The results of this study found that “Identification with the experimenter was a very strong positive predictor of the level of obedience displayed in each variant” (Haslam et al., 2012). In other words, the more participants identified with the experimenter, the more vulnerable they were to the experimenter’s influence. As social identification emerges, individuals are more likely to engage in creative followership which, in Milgram’s experiments, manifested into obedience (Haslam et al., 2012).

BBC Prison Study which attempted to understand the situational factors that contribute to obedience shows evidence of the mechanism of social identity theory. This study, by Haslam & Reicher, replicated the SPE with one significant change: researchers did not provide participants with any instruction for expected behaviors. In contrast to Zimbardo’s study, the guards in the BBC study did not naturally conform to their oppressive roles (Haslam & Reicher, 2012). Rather, it was only after some time that participants “had internalized roles and rules as aspects of a system with which they identified [with] that participants used them as a guide to action” (Haslam & Reicher, 2012). Participants who had eventually accepted their individual social identity (as either a prisoner or a guard), formed groups with shared goals and identities that created rising tensions between the two groups. Much like the SPE, participants engaged in identity-based followership in which they were fully conscious and deliberate in their acts of obedience (Haslam & Reicher, 2012).

Conclusion

Members of the Wave showed engaged followership in which they demonstrated obedience to support the growth of the youth movement. The identity-based followership explanation applies to both Milgram’s obedience paradigms and Zimbardo’s SPE. The social identity theory suggests that participants’ behaviors were not a product of authoritative command; instead, obedience resulted from followers who identified with a leader or authority. Regarding the field of social psychology, the popular consensus on the causes of destructive obedience should be reevaluated in consideration of the effects of social identification. In addition, research on identity-based followership has relevance in real-world situations as leaders can make improvements in their socialization efforts. By increasing group cohesiveness through a sense of social identity, groups can become better equipped to exert their influence and produce more desirable outcomes.