Perspectives on Psychological Science, in press
Restoringagencytothehumanactor
WilliamB.Swann,Jr.JolandaJetten
UniversityofTexasatAustinUniversityofQueensland
RunningHead:TRIUMPHOFHUMANSPIRIT
Acknowledgements:
WethankHartBlanton,SerenaChen,DavidFunder,AlexHaslam,andSanazTalaifarfortheir
helpfulcommentsonpreviousdraftsofthispaperandAnhThaiforhisassistancewithStudies1
and2.ThisresearchwassupportedbyNSFgrantsBCS-1124382,BCS-1528851toWilliamB.
SwannandAustralianResearchCouncilFutureFellowship(FT110100238)awardedtoJolanda
Jetten.AddresscorrespondencetoWilliamB.Swann,Jr.,UTDepartmentofPsychology,1
UniversityStation,A8000,108E.DeanKeeton,Austin,Texas78712-0187,[email protected].
2
Abstract
Acursoryreadofthesocialpsychologicalliteraturesuggeststhatwhenpeoplefindthemselves
instrongsituations,theyfailtodisplayagency.Theearlyclassicstudiesofconformity,
obedience,andbystanderintervention,forexample,arerenownedforshowingthatwhen
challengedbystrongsituationalpressures,participantsacquiesced--evenifitmeant
abandoningtheirmoralprinciplesordisregardingtheirownsensorydata.Laterstudiesof
learnedhelplessness,egodepletion,andstereotypethreatechoedthis“powerofthesituation”
theme,demonstratingthatexposureto(ortheexpectationof)afrustratingorunpleasant
experiencesuppressedsubsequenteffortstoactualizegoalsandabilities.Althoughthiswork
hasprovidedmanyvaluableinsightsintotheinfluenceofsituationalpressures,ithasbeenused
tobuttressanunbalancedandmisleadingportraitofhumanagency.Thisportraitfailsto
recognizethatsituationsarenotinvariablyenemiesofagency.Instead,strongsituationalforces
oftenallowfor,andmayevenencourage,expressionsofhumanagency.Weexaminethe
nature,causesandconsequencesofthisphenomenon.Weproposetakingabroaderapproach
thatemphasizeshowrespondingtosituationalpressurecancoexistwithagency.Wesuggest
thatthisnewemphasiswillcreategreaterconvergencebetweensocialpsychologicalmodels
andtheexperienceofagencyineverydaylife.
3
Restoringagencytothehumanactor
Peoplelackagency.Thisis,atleast,theimpressionreadersmighttakeawayfrom
readingthesocialpsychologicalliterature.Instudyafterstudy,participantssurrendertothe
pressuresandcuesintheimmediatesituationratherthanagenticallyexpressingtheir
idiosyncraticgoals,values,capacitiesanddispositions.Therootsofthisimpressioncanbe
tracedtoseveraliconicdemonstrationsofthe“powerofthesituation”,includingapropensity
torepudiateunambiguoussensorydatainresponsetogrouppressure(Asch,1955),yielding
underpressureappliedbyanexperimenter(Milgram,1963)or“warden”(Haney,Banks,&
Zimbardo,1973),ordisplayingapathyinresponsetothedistressofanother(Darley&Latane,
1968).Morerecentinvestigationshaveprovidedfurthertestimonytothepowerofsituational
forcestosuppressindividualinitiativeandabilities.
Makenomistake:thepastemphasisonthepowerofthesituationtosuppressagency
hasproduceddeep,enduring,andimportantinsightsintothehumancondition.Nevertheless,
assumingthatsituationsandagencyrepresentdifferentendsofacontinuumencourages
researcherstotakeresponsivenesstosituationsasevidenceoflackofagency.Thisassumption
ismisleadingbecausepeopleexerciseagency--thecapacityandintentiontocontroltheirown
behaviorandoutcomes(Bandura,2006)--byassessingthesituationanddetermininghowbest
toreachtheirgoalswhileremainingfaithfultotheirbeliefsanddispositions.Withinthis
framework,humanfunctioningissociallysituatedandculturallyembedded.Behaviorgrowsout
ofthedynamicinterplayofintrapersonalandenvironmentaldeterminants,includingthe
capacityofpeoplethemselvestoalterthecourseofevents.Bandura(2006)notesthatagency
4
hasseveralotherproperties,includingforethought(thinkingabouthowtoeffectivelypursue
goalsinthefuture),self-reactivity(propensitytoregulatebehaviorintheserviceofgoalsand
purposes),andself-reflectiveness(thetendencytoreflectuponpastexperiencesandchange
behaviorthatseemsmoreapttoachievegoals).
Withinthisframework,peopleactagenticallywhentheyrelyontheirassessmentofthe
situationaswellastheirgoals,beliefs,dispositionsandsoon.Exercisingagencyrequiresbeing
responsivetothesituationratherthanbeingincompetitionwiththesituation(e.g.,Bandura,
2006).Moreover,agencycanbemanifestedinavarietyofways.Forinstance,responsiveness
tosituationsmayreflectthedefeatoftheformofagencythatisontheresearcher’sradarbut
victoryofaformofagencythattheresearcherhasoverlooked.Consistentwiththis,laterinthis
articlewewillshowthatinsomeexperiments,strongsituationalpressurescrushedoneformof
agencywhileactivatinganotherformofagency.Inotherexperiments,situationalpressures
amplifiedratherthansuppressedtheexpressionofagencyeitherintheimmediatesituationor
atalatertime.
Inshort,therelationshipbetweensituationsandhumanagencyisfarmorenuanced
thanthepower-of-the-situationnarrativesuggests(apointacknowledgedbothbyAschand
Milgram1).Ourgoalhereistobringthismorenuancedstorytotheattentionoftheoristsand
researchers.Tosetthestageforourargument,weexaminetheeventsthatgaverisetothe
currentassumptionthatsituationsaretheenemiesofagency.Inparticular,weaskhowthe
fieldofsocialpsychologycametochampionthisbelief.Westartwithabriefsynopsisofthe
intellectualhistoryofthepower-of-the-situationapproach,includingtheclassicstudiesthat
grewoutofthemovement.
5
Originsofthepeople-lack-agencythemeinsocialpsychology
Theideathatsituationsarepowerfuldeterminantsofbehaviorwasfirstcodifiedinthe
earlybehavioristapproaches(e.g.,Watson,1913).Itappearedsoonthereafterinoneofthe
firstsocialpsychologicaltextbooks(FloydAllport,1924).AlthoughAllportrejectedradicalforms
ofbehaviorism(whicheschewedalldiscussionofcognitiveandemotionalmechanisms),he
endorsedtheideathatstudyingtheimpactofsituationswasmoreimportantthanstudyingthe
impactofconsciousness,ashesawconsciousnessasepiphenomenal.Later,Floyd’sbrother
GordonincorporatedFloyd’semphasisonsituationalinfluencesintothedefinitionofsocial
psychology:"howthethought,feeling,andbehaviorofindividualsareinfluencedbytheactual,
imagined,orimpliedpresenceofotherhumanbeings"(GordonAllport,1954,p.1,italics
added).
ThecomplicityofordinaryGermansintheNaziHolocaustprovidedfodderforthe
situationistassumptionsofsocialpsychologists.Milgram(1974),forexample,acknowledged
thathisworkwasinspiredby“thefactthatmanyofmyfriendsandrelativeswerebadlyhurtby
othermenwhoweresimplyfollowingorders”(quotedinPerry,2013,p.325).Froman
historicalperspective,Milgram’semphasisonthepowerofthesituationcanbeunderstoodas
amuch-neededantidotetotheshortcomingsofthetrait-basedformulationsofthetime
(Adorno,Frenkel-Brunswik,Levinson,&Sanford,1950).Theseapproachesscrutinizedthe
perniciousqualitiesofindividualswhileignoringthepowerfulimpactofsocialconditionson
rankandfileGermancitizens.
Someofsocialpsychology’smostprominentleaderslaterembracedthesesituationist
themes(butseealsoJahoda,1959;Lewin,1946;Moscovici,1976).Thistrendcontinuestothis
6
day.Forexample,inthetraditionofFloydAllport,contemporarytheoristsRossandNisbett
(1991;2011)adoptedapositionthatmightbedubbed“behaviorismlite.”Ontheonehand,
contrarytoradicalbehaviorism,theyacknowledgedthatcognitions(especially“construals”)
caninfluencethemannerinwhichsituationscontrolbehavior.Nevertheless,consistentwith
behaviorism,theyassertedthatsituationshaveamuchmorepowerfulimpactonbehaviorthan
characteristicsofindividuals.Infact,theyeventrumpetedthe“principleofsituationism”asthe
firstlegof"thetripodonwhichsocialpsychologyrests"(Ross&Nisbett,1991,p.8).2
Theinfluenceofsituationismcanalsobeseeninthewidespreadconvictionthat
experimentationisthemethodologyofchoiceforunderstandinghumansocialbehavior.Within
thetypicalexperiment,participantsaremostlyreactiveandunabletoimposetheirpersonal
prerogativesonimplacableexperimenters(Wachtel,1973).Experimentersfocusnarrowlyon
theoutcomemeasureofinterest.Asaresult,whenpersonalorgroup-basedagencyis
expressedinamannerthatdefiestheexpectationsofresearchers,itoftengoesunnoticed.
Furthermore,indataanalysis,theeffectsofthesituationconstitute“systematicvariance”while
expressionsofagency(andthegoalsvalues,beliefs,anddispositionsthatunderliesuch
expressions)arerelegatedtothe“errorterm”.Withtheseassumptionsinhandandtheireye
onthesituationistball,earlysocialpsychologistsproceededtoconductaseriesofinnovative
studiesofsocialinfluenceprocesses.Aswenotebelow,tothisday,thesestudiesareoften
heraldedasevidencethatpeoplelackagencyandaretooweaktostanduptopowerful
situationalinfluences.3
Thesurprisepeopleexpresswhentheylearnabouttheresultsoftheearlyclassicstudies
ofsocialinfluenceisoftentakenasevidenceforthefundamentalattributionerror(the
7
tendencyforperceiverstounderestimatetheimpactofsituationsontheactionsoftarget
individuals;Ross,1977).Giventhepowerofsituationstoelicitsociallyundesirablebehaviors
fromvirtuallyeveryone,theargumentgoes,complianceinsuchsituationsreflectsqualitiesof
thesituationratherthanthedispositionsofindividualsrespondingtothesituation(Nisbett&
Ross,1991).Nevertheless,becauseagency(thecapacityandintentiontocontrolone’sown
behaviorandoutcomes)isdistinctfromdispositions,ouranalysisherehasnodirectbearingon
theexistenceofthefundamentalattributionerror.Thatsaid,therearesomeinteresting
parallelsbetweenourreasoningandthatofcriticsofattributionalphenomenasuchasthe
fundamentalattributionerror.Forexample,justassomeresearchershaverejectedthe
assumptionthatsituationalanddispositionalattributionsarehydraulicallyrelated(e.g.,White,
1991),werejectthenotionthatagencyandsituationsarehydraulicallyrelated.Infact,we
suggestthatsituationalpressurescanincreaseaswellasdecreaseexpressionsofagency.
Lackofagencyintheclassicstudies
Socialpsychologistshavefocusedspecificallyonwhetherpeopledisplayagencyinthe
faceofoneparticulartemptation:strongpressuresintheimmediatesocialsituation.Oneof
thefirsthighlyinfluentialstudiesinthisgenrewastheline-judgmentstudybyAsch(1951;
1955).Heaskedhowparticipantsinanostensibleperceptualtaskwouldreactwhen
accomplicesmadejudgmentsaboutthelengthofthelinesthatwereclearlywrong.Thefinding
wasthatparticipantscavedtothepressureofthemajoritywithsurprisingfrequency.Thisled
Aschtolament“Thatwehavefoundthetendencytoconformityinoursocietysostrongthat
reasonablyintelligentandwell-meaningyoungpeoplearewillingtocallwhiteblackisamatter
ofconcern.Itraisesquestionsaboutourwaysofeducationandaboutthevaluesthatguideour
8
conduct”(1955,p.6).Contemporarytextbookauthorsagree:“Thisisclearlytheworstsideof
conformity:Somepeoplewentalongwiththegroupeventhoughthatmeantdoingsomething
thatwasplainlywrong,eventothem”(Baumeister&Bushman,2008,p.266).
AseriesofstudiesbyMilgram(1963)focusedonwhenandwhypeopleobeyauthority
figureswhoencouragethemtoostensiblyhurtsomeoneelse.Inthebest-knownofabout30
variationsofthestudythatMilgramconducted,65%ofparticipantsdeliveredthemaximumof
450voltstoanallegedotherparticipant.Milgramportrayedthesefindingsasevidencethat
peopleeventuallyrelinquishagencywhenexposedtoextremesituationalpressure:“theperson
givesthemselvesovertoauthorityandnolongerviewshim[orher]astheefficientcauseofhis
[orher]ownactions”(Milgram,1974,xii).Today,thisfindingisoftenframedinpopular
undergraduatetextbooksasdemonstratingthepowerofsituationalforcesoverpersonality.For
example,“Althoughpersonalitycharacteristicsmaymakesomeonevulnerableorresistantto
destructiveobedience,whatseemstomattermostisthesituationinwhichpeoplefind
themselves”(Kassin,Fein,&Markus,2008,p.282).Similarly,Myers(2014,p.206)concludes
that“Undertheswayofevilforces,evennicepeoplearesometimescorruptedasthey
constructmoralrationalizationsforimmoralbehavior.“
Athirdlineofinvestigationtestedtheideathatpeoplewillfeellessresponsibilitytohelp
otherswheninthepresenceofothersthanwhentheyarealone.Consistentwithexpectation,
DarleyandLatane(1968)reportedthatasthenumberofonlookerstoanemergencysituation
increased,therateofhelpingdecreased.Hereagain,featuresofthesocialsituation
determinedwhetherornotpeoplebehavedinamorallydesirablemanner.
9
PerhapsthemostcelebratedtestofthepowerofthesituationwastheStanfordprison
experiment(Haneyetal.,1973).Thoseassignedtotheroleofguardbehavedinadictatorial
andderisivemannertowardprisoners,whointurnbecamesubmissiveandcontrite.The
researchersassertedthatthekeydeterminantofthebehaviorofparticipantswastheroleto
whichtheyhadbeenassigned:“Guardaggression…wasemittedsimplyasa‘natural’
consequenceofbeingintheuniformofa‘guard’andassertingthepowerinherentinthatrole”
(Haneyetal.,1973,p.12).Similarly,Zimbardoconcludesthatthedataillustrate‘thepowerof
situationalforcesoverindividualbehavior”(2007,p.21).Moreover,intheirtextbook,Vaughan
andHogg(2014,p.270)interpretedtheStanfordstudyasindicatingthat“Ultimately,rolescan
actuallyinfluencewhoweare—ouridentityandconceptofself”.Thisfitswiththeconclusion
thatothershavereachedwhentryingtoexplainwaratrocitiessuchasthosethatoccurredat
AbuGhraib.Forinstance,Schlesinger(2004)commented“Abusivetreatmentofdetainees
duringtheGlobalWaronTerrorismwasentirelypredictablebasedonafundamental
understandingofsocialpsychologicalprinciples”(p.111).
Andiftherewasanylingeringquestionregardingthecommonportrayaloftheclassic
studies,notethelabelswithwhichthestudiesareroutinelytagged:‘theAschconformity
experiments’,Milgram’s“obediencetoauthoritystudies”,the‘bystanderapathy’and“the
Lucifereffect”effect.Yetdespitethesituationistnarrativesurroundingthesestudies,the
investigatorswhoconductedthesestudiesactuallyfoundevidenceforthepowerofagencyas
wellasthepowerofthesituation.Forexample,aclosereadingofAsch’sworkrevealsthathe
wasintriguedbyevidenceofbothconformityandnon-conformityandthekindofappraisals
thatparticipantsmadeaboutthesituationinwhichtheyfoundthemselves.Similarly,whereas
10
manypeopleareawareofMilgram’s1963paperwherehereportedthat65%ofparticipants
endorsedthemaximumshocklevel,thekeymessageofhis1974book(whereinheemphasized
thewidevariabilityofobediencerates)hasattractedfarlessattention.Finally,althoughthe
Stanfordprisonstudyisrenownedforthecrueltyoftheguardsandcomplianceoftheprisoners,
recentaccountsofthisstudy(Zimbardo,2007)revealthatonlysomeguardswereoverly
aggressiveandsomeprisonersactuallyopenlyrebelled.
Inshort,evidenceofnon-conformityanddisobediencehasrarelymadeitswayintothe
narrativesassociatedworkonsocialinfluence.Andyes,itistruethatlaterinvestigators
exploredtheoppositetendencyforpeopletoagenticallyactontheirconvictions(Gamson,
Fireman,&Rytina,1982;Skitka,2014;Swannetal.,2012).Nonetheless,thosearguingforthe
powerofthesituationhavevastlyoutnumberedadvocatesofagency.Notsurprisinglythen,the
powerofthesituationnarrativehasshapedthewaythatcontemporarystudents—andlikely
laypersonsandevenmanyresearchers--perceivethisresearch.Nextweshowhowthis
imbalancehasmanifesteditselfinrecentyears.
Lackofagencyinmorerecentstudies
Wewonderedifmorerecentworkhasalsoprovidedevidenceofthetendencyfor
situationalpressurestocompromisehumanagency.Tofindout,wesearchedtheresearch
literatureconductedinthedecadesfollowingtheearlyclassicstudiesforworkthat(a)involved
aclearcontestbetweenparticipantsandapowerfulsituationalinfluence;(b)appearedtobe
replicable;and(c)commandedconsiderableattentionforatleast10years.Wediscoveredthat
althoughresearchershavecontinuedtoexplorethepowerofthesituation,theoutcome
measureshaveshiftedfromparticipants’responsestotheactionsofothersontothetask
11
performanceofparticipantsthemselves.Thisshiftontoagenticdisplaysassociatedwithtask
performancehascompelledresearcherstostudyindividualsactingaloneratherthaningroups.
Thisisanimportantchangebecauseitblockstheabilityofindividualstorestoreagencyby
affiliatingandconnectingwithotherindividualsintheexperimentalcontext.Beforespellingout
theimplicationsofthisdevelopment,webrieflyreviewthreeexemplarsofthisnewgeneration
ofpower-of-the-situationresearch.
Oneofthepioneeringandhighlyinfluentialprogramsofresearchinthistraditionfocused
on“learnedhelplessness.”Thisworkdemonstratedthatwhenpeople(ornon-humans)
discoverthattheireffortstocontroltheiroutcomesareconsistentlyfrustrated,theyconclude
thattheyarehelplessandsuspendfurthereffortsatmastery(e.g.,Abramson,Metalsky,&Alloy,
1989;Abramson,Seligman,&Teasdale,1978;Seligman,1975).Theseeffectsemergeeven
whenparticipantsarefullycapableofsuccessfullycompletingthetaskinquestion.
Effortwithdrawalmayalsoemergewhenpeopleundergoaphenomenondubbed“ego
depletion”(Baumeister&Vohs,2007).Researchersworkingwithinthistraditionassumethat
self-controlislikeamuscle.Justasphysicalexertioncancausefatigueanddegrademuscular
performance,afewmomentsofmentalexertioncansappeople’s“willpower”,deprivingthem
ofthementalenergytheyneedtoregulatetheirownbehavior.Theyconsequentlyfallvictimto
situationalpressuresinsteadofpursuingimportantgoals,therebydegradingtaskperformance.
Peoplemayalsowithdraweffortafterbeingremindedofanegativesocialstereotypethat
callstheircompetenceintoquestion.Forexample,researchonstereotypethreathasshown
thatremindingAfricanAmericansoftheircategorymembershipcanactivatenegative
stereotypesabouttheirintelligence(Steele&Aronson,1995).Similarly,remindingfemale
12
collegestudentsoftheirgendermayactivatestereotypesthatwomenlackproficiencyinmath.
Bothtypesofstereotypethreatunderminesubsequentperformanceonstandardizedtests
(Spencer,Steele,&Quinn,1999).Theseperformancedeficitspresumablyoccurbecause
activatingnegativesocialstereotypesdistractspeoplefromtaskstheyareattemptingto
completeandfostersanxietyandperformancemonitoring.Theresultingperformance
decrementsproducenegativeexpectationsandfeelingsofhopelessnessthatmayeventually
underminemotivationtoexcel.Animportantfeatureofthetheoryistheassumptionthat
susceptibilitytosuchthreatshaslittletodowithcharacteristicsofvictims;instead,stereotype
threatsareextrinsictoactorsor“intheair”,affectingallthosetowhichthestereotypeapplies
(Steele,1997).
Fromportrayalsoftheearlystudiesonconformityandobediencetomorerecentstudies
onstereotypethreat,aclearimageofhumanbeingscomesintofocus,oneinwhichtheyare
surprisinglypowerlesstoresiststrongsituationalforces.Todetermineifobjectiveobservers
wouldalsoreachthisconclusion,weconductedastudy.Webeganbyacquaintingnaivejudges
withaccountsoftheresearchdiscussedabovethatappearedinmajorsocialpsychology
textbooks.Eachparticipantreadadescriptionoftworandomlyselectedstudiesdrawnfrom
sevenofthemostwidelyusedtextbooks(Aronson,Wilson,&Akert,2013;Baumeister&
Bushman,2008;Gilovich,Keltner,Chen,&Nisbett,2012;Kassin,Fein,&Markus,2008;Myers,
2014;Sutton&Douglas,2013;Vaughan&Hogg,2014).Morespecifically,participantsreadthe
methodandresultsoftwoofthefollowingstudies:aclassiclearnedhelplessnessstudybyAlloy,
Peterson,Abramson,andSeligman(1984,fromKassinetal.,2008,N=126),Asch’sline
judgmentstudy(fromAronsonetal.,2013,N=120),anegodepletionstudybyBaumeister,
13
Bratslavsky,Muraven,andTice(1998,fromBaumeister&Bushman,2008,N=124),theclassic
bystanderapathystudybyDarleyandLatane(1968,fromGilovichetal.,2012,N=121),a
descriptionoftheStanfordPrisonExperimentbyHaney,BanksandZimbardo(1973,from
Myers,2014,N=125),Milgram’sclassicobediencestudyusingtheshockparadigm(1963,from
Aronsonetal.,2013,N=124),and/oraclassicstereotypethreatstudybySteeleandAronson
(1995,fromBaumeister&Bushman,2008,N=116).
Afterreadingthedescriptionofeachstudy,participantsratedtheextenttowhichit
depictedpeopleaspossessingagencyonsix,six-pointscalesrangingfrom-3to+3.Specifically,
participantsratedtheextenttowhichthestudiesrevealedthatpeopleare“veryweak”vs.
“verystrong”,“lackagency”vs.“possessagency”,“sheep-like”vs.“possessagency”,“caveto
situationalpressure”vs.“defysituationalpressure”,“canbepressuredtodothingsagainst
theirwill”vs.“resistpressuretodothingsagainsttheirwill”,and“arepowerful”vs.“weak”.
Afterreversescoringthelastitem,theitemsweresummedforeachstudy.Theresultingscales
wereinternallyconsistent,withallalphas>.82.
14
ThemeansinFigure1allfellonthe‘lackofagency’endofthescaleandineverycase,the
meanscorewassignificantlydifferentfromthemid-pointofthescale,allps<.001.4
Traits
2
1
0
-1
-2
Study1.Meanratingsoftheextenttowhichstudiesrevealthatpeoplelackagency(-3)
versuspossessagency(+3).Errorbarsdisplayconfidenceintervals.
Thisevidencesuggeststhateachofthesehighlyinfluentialandwidelycitedstudiestendto
paintapictureofhumansaslackingagencyinthefaceofsituationalpressures.
Onecoulddefendthepeople-lack-agencybiasintheaccountsoftextbookwritersby
notingthattheyweretryingtomaketheirpointsclearlyandprovocativelyandthatoverstatingandover-simplifyingfindingsisaneffectivemeansofattainingthisend.Fairenough.
Ourpoint,however,isnotmerelythattextbooksoversimplifybutthattheysystematically
oversimplifyintheserviceofconcludingthatpeoplelackagency.Forinstance,textbooksdonot
over-claimthedegreetowhichpeopledisplaydisobedienceorrebellion.Instead,theirover-
15
claimingemphasizesthepowerofsituationalforcesandthefecklessnessofpeoplewho
encounterthem.
Thepopularityofthepeople-lack-agencynarrativeissurprisingonmanylevels,notthe
leastofwhichisthatitwouldseemtoconfirmthefearsthatmanyWesternershaveofbeing
overpoweredbythecollective(Hornsey&Jetten,2004;Markus&Kitayama,1994).Bethisasit
may,itraisesanimportantquestion:Doesthelack-of-agencynarrativefaithfullycapture
humannature?Innaturallyoccurringsettings,arepeopleasunabletostanduptosituationsas
theresultsofthesestudiessuggest?Afterall,theresultsofanygivenexperimentmerelyshow
whatcanhappenwhenagivensampleofparticipantsareexposedtoparticularstimuliina
specificcontext.Experimentsarenotdesignedtoprovideinformationaboutthereal-world
prevalenceofthephenomenaunderscrutiny.
Ofcourse,itisextremelydifficulttoestimatetherealworldprevalenceofagencyversus
thepowerofthesituation.Nevertheless,hintsregardingtheprevalenceofagencyintheclassic
studiescanbegleanedfromcarefulexaminationoftheresponsesofparticipantsintheoriginal
people-lack-agencystudiesaswellasfollow-upstothesestudies—studiesthatwereall
intendedtochallengeindividuals’agency.
Dopeoplereallyroutinelysurrendertosituationalpressures?
Webeganbytakingacloselookatlaboratorynotesfromtheclassicdemonstrationsofthe
powerthesituation.Aswewillshow,thesenotesprovideadifferentandmorecomplexpicture
ofthesestudiesthantheonefeaturedinstandardaccounts.Ratherthanbeingpassively
buffetedaboutbypowerfulsituationalpressures,participantsworkedtofindawaytopursue
theirownagendaswithinthelimitationsimposedbythosepressures.
16
Revisitingclassicevidencethatpeoplelackagency
Manybelievethattheearlyclassicstudiesprovideevidenceofnear-universallackof
agency.Thisisinaccurate.ConsidertheAsch(1955)line-judgmentstudy.Althoughmost
participantsintheAsch(1955)studydisplayedsomeevidenceofconformity,57%thwartedthe
majoritymorethanhalfthetime.Giventhatthedominantresponsewasdissent,itisfactually
incorrecttocharacterizethisstudyasevidenceofwidespreadconformity.Furthermore,when
participantsdidconformtothemajority,mostdidnotseethemselvesaspassivelyyieldingto
themajority.Tothecontrary,post-experimentalaccountsofparticipantsintheAschstudy
suggestedthattheywerestronglyinfluencedbyafeelingofconnectionwith,andobligationto,
theother(ostensible)participants.Aschhimselfpointedoutthatwhentheydeclinedtoreport
theirtrueperceptionsofthelengthofthelines,itwasoftenbecausetheyworriedabout
embarrassingotherparticipants(Asch,1955).Theseparticipantswerenotignoringtheirown
perceptions;theymerelyprioritizedtheirfeelingsofconnectionto,andempathywith,other
individualsoverthedesiretobecorrect.Ratherthanbeingoverwhelmedbythepowerofthe
situation,theyagenticallypursuedtheirdesiretobecommunal,eventhoughitmeant
renderingjudgmentsthattheyknewtobeincorrect(e.g.,Higgins,2012;Jetten&Hornsey,
2012).
AccedingtothepowerofthesituationwasalsofarfromuniversalintheMilgramstudy.In
fact,although65%oftheparticipantsinMilgram’s“standardparadigm”compliedwiththe
teacher’sinjunctionsallthewaytothemaximumlevelofshocks,thedesignationofthe
“standardparadigm”wasarbitrary;inreality,the65%conditionwasnomorestandardor
representativeofpeople’sresponsesthananyoftheothervariations(Russell,2011).
17
Complianceinthe30-oddvariationsoftheparadigmrangedfrom0%to100%.Importantly,the
vastdifferencesinratesofcomplianceappeartohavemoretodowiththeconnectionsthat
participantsfeltforotherpeopleintheexperimentthanwiththepowerofthesituationover
theagencyofparticipants.Inparticular,strengtheningtheconnectionwiththeexperimenter
(bydecreasingpsychologicalorphysicaldistancetohim)increasedcompliancewiththe
experimenter;strengtheningtheconnectionwiththeleaner(bydecreasingpsychologicalor
physicaldistancetohim)decreasedcompliancewiththeexperimenter(Haslam&Reicher,
2012).
ObedienceintheMilgramparadigmthusreflectedanindividual’scapacitytoactby
connectingwithothersratherthancapitulationtothedemandsofapowerfulauthorityfigure.
Furthersupportforthispossibilitycomesfromanalysesofreactionstothepromptsthatthe
experimenterdeliveredtotheteacher(Burger,Girgis&Manning,2011).Theexperimenter
beginspolitely(“Pleasecontinue”)andbecomesincreasinglyforcefulanddemanding,
culminatinginadirectorder(“Youhavenochoice,youmustcontinue”).Contrarytothe
assumptionthattheeffectsweremediatedbyobedience,themoreorder-liketheprompt(and
thusthemoretheconnectionwiththeexperimenterischallenged),thelowertherateof
compliance.Instead,themosteffectivepromptsaskedfortheparticipants’assistancein
advancingscience,andthispatternalsoemergedinsimulationsthatvariedtheorderinwhich
differentpromptsappeared(Haslam,Reicher,&Birney,2014).Thesefindingsmakeiteasyto
understandwhy,inanunpublishedlaboratorynote,Milgramhimselfwonderedwhetherit
mightbemoreaccuratetolabelthephenomenonhehaduncovered“cooperation”ratherthan
“obedience”(Haslam,Reicher,Millard,&McDonald,2015).Theyalsosupporttheconclusion
18
thatobedienceintheMilgramstudyhadmoretodowithmisplacedtrustthanobedience
(Darley,1995;Perry,2013).Assuch,theresultsmaysaymoreaboutthepowerofrelationships
thanthepowerofthesituation.
Furtherevidencefortheimportanceoftheconnectionspeopleforminstudiesofsocial
influencecomesfromalaterinvestigationinwhichparticipantshadanopportunitytoform
smallcoalitionsagainstanauthorityfigure(Gamsonetal.,1982).Inthisstudy,ratesofrebellion
werequitehighandcompliancewiththeauthorityfigurewasrelativelylow.Infact,halfofthe
groupscompletelyrefusedtocomplywiththedemandsoftheauthorityfigureandamere12%
compliedcompletely.Suchevidencesuggeststhatitishazardoustousetheresultsof
Milgram’sstudiesasabasisforconcludingthatpeopleroutinelyknuckleundertothepowerof
thesituation.Instead,thenatureofthecoalitionspeopleformwithotherhumanagentsis
determinativeoftheextenttowhichpeopledefyorgiveintothepowerofthesituation.As
such,onekeytounderstandingconformityandobedienceisidentifyingtheconditionsthat
promoteagenticrespondingthroughcoalitionformation.
Similarissuesarisewhenapplyingthepower-of-the-situationnarrativetothebystander
interventionstudiesreportedbyDarleyandLatane(1968).Recentstudieshavehighlightedthe
crucialimportanceofthesenseofconnectionparticipantshavetothebystanderinsuchstudies.
Thatis,whenthevictimisamemberofone’sowngroup,increasingthenumberofbystanders
actuallyleadstomoreratherthanlesshelping(Levine&Crowther,2008;Slateretal.,2013).
Apparently,whenthereisaconnectionbetweenthebystanderandvictim(e.g.,whenafellow
groupmemberisimperiled),bystandersareexpectedtolendahand,andthepressuretodoso
increaseswithincrementsinthenumberofgroupmemberswhoareobserving.Thisfinding
19
suggeststhathelpingwasrelativelylowintheoriginalDarleyandLatanestudybecause
participantsfeltnoconnectiontothevictim.Unfamiliaritywiththevictimmayalsoexplainthe
(greatlyexaggerated--Manning,Levine&Collins,2007)lackofhelpingintheKittyGenovese
incidentthatinspiredtheDarleyandLataneresearch.
TheserelativelyrecentfindingssuggestthattheDarleyandLatanefindingsshouldnotbe
regardedasprovidingahighlygeneralizablebaselineforratesofhelpingbehavior.Inaddition,
theyalsoshowthattounderstandbystanderbehavior,weneedtofocusonthepotentialof
coalitionformationandsharedgroupmembership.Thedecisiontohelpshouldbeseenasan
expressionofagencywherebypeoplehelpbecausetheycareaboutthevictim(foranoverview,
seeFischeretal.,2011).
AdistinctivesetofconcernscloudinterpretationsoftheStanfordprisonstudy.First,
questionshaverecentlyemergedregardingtheprevalenceofcomplianceinthatstudy.
Althoughtextbookaccountsofthisstudygenerallyimplythatcompliancewiththeassigned
roleswasnearuniversal,recentaccountsofthestudysuggestotherwise(Haslam&Reicher,
2012).Forexample,inthefirstphaseofthestudy,prisonerschallengedtheguards,refusedto
obeytheirorders,andmockedtheirauthority(Zimbardo,2007,p.54).Whenguardsresponded
bypunishingsuchresistance,insubordinationamongprisonersescalated.Theculmination
occurredwhentwoprisonersremovedtheircapsandprisonnumbersandbarricaded
themselvesintheircell,shouting,“[T]hetimehascomeforviolentrevolution!”(Zimbardo,
2007,p.61).Preciselyhowthisrebellionwascrushedhasneverbeenspelledout,butZimbardo
himself(whodesignatedhimselftheleaderoftheguards)mayhavebeeninstrumentalinthe
process.Forexample,heofferedoneoftherebelliousprisonerspreferentialtreatmenttoact
20
asa“snitch”andsomehowconvincedhimthatitwasimpossibleforprisonerstoleavethe
prison.Whentheprisonerconveyedthenewsthat“Youcan’tgetoutofhere!”totheother
prisoners,ithada“transformationalimpactontheprisoners”(Zimbardo,2007,p.71).
Henceforward,theprisonersstoppedactingasacollective,andguardssubsequentlyhadlittle
troublecrushingtheresistanceofindividualsactingalone.
Andprisonerswerenottheonlyoneswhoresistedtherolestowhichtheywereassigned.
DespiteZimbardo’sprodding,only“aboutathird”oftheguards“becametyrannicalintheir
arbitraryuseofpower”(Zimbardo,1971,p.154).Ofthetwothirdswhorefusedtofallintothe
autocraticmode,somestrovetobe“toughbutfair”whileotherswereactuallyfriendlytothe
prisoners,performingsmallfavorsforthem(Haslam&Reicher,2012).
Nodoubt,someoftheparticipantsassignedtotheroleofguardsdidindeedbehaveina
punitiveandauthoritarianfashion.Yettherearereasonstoquestionwhethersituational
pressuresassociatedwithmereroleassignmentwereactuallyresponsiblefortheseeffects.For
example,Zimbardodidnotsimplyassignparticipantstotheroleofguard;heprovidedthem
withinstructionsabouthowtoimplementtheirroles.Notsurprisingly,thoseassignedtothe
roleofguardsinZimbardo’sprisonstudyreportedfeelingobligatedtodothebiddingof
Zimbardo(theirself-assignedleader).Thislikelyreflectsthefactthathetoldguardstodeprive
prisonersoftheirsenseofagencyandautonomy--extraneouselementsthatwentwellbeyond
roleassignment:
“Youcancreateintheprisonersfeelingsofboredom,asenseoffeartosomedegree,you
cancreateanotionofarbitrarinessthattheirlifeistotallycontrolledbyus,bythe
system,you,meanthey’llhavenoprivacy.Theyhavenofreedomofactiontheycando
21
nothing,saynothingwedon’tpermit.We’regoingtotakeawaytheirindividualityin
variousways.Ingeneralwhatallthisleadstoisasenseofpowerlessness”(Zimbardo,
2007,p.55)
Indirectevidencesuggeststhattheextraneouselementsintheinstructionsthat
Zimbardogavetohisguardswerecrucialdeterminantsoftheoutcomeofhisstudy.Consider
theconceptualreplicationoftheStanfordstudyfilmedbytheBBC.Participantsreportedtoa
mockprisonwheretheywererandomlyassignedtotheroleofguardsorprisoners.Incontrast
totheStanfordstudy,guardsdidnotbecomeauthoritariannotdidprisonersbecome
submissive.AlthoughtheBBCstudydifferedinnumerouswaysfromtheStanfordexperiment,
attheveryleastitshowsthatroleassignmentdoesnotinevitablyproducethebehaviors
observedintheStanfordstudy.Ofparticularrelevancehere,italsoprovidesfurtherevidence
oftheimportanceofcoalitionformationinsuchsettings.Intheoriginalexperiment,apowerful
experimenterformedcoalitionswiththeguardsandencouragedthemtoadoptan
authoritarianstanceagainstthehaplessprisonerswhowerediscouragedfromforming
coalitions.IntheBBCstudy,theexperimenterofferedneitherguidancenorsupporttoeither
guardsorprisoners.Despitethis,prisonersspontaneouslyformedcoalitionsandorganizeda
rebellion.The“powerfulsituation”inthetwostudies--roleassignment--wasidentical;what
madeallthedifferencewasthecoalitionsthatemergedinthetwostudieseitherbydesign(in
theStanfordstudy)orspontaneously(intheBBCstudy).
Inshort,severaldecadesafterthepublicationoflandmarkstudiesbyMilgram,Asch,
DarleyandLatane,andZimbardo,itisclearthatmostparticipantsintheseexperimentsdidnot
perceivethemselvestobeobeying,conforming,failingtohelp,ormerelyactinginaccordance
22
withassignedroles.Instead,participantsseemedstronglymotivatedtonavigateanunfamiliar
situationbyformingcoalitionswithotheractorsinthesetting.Intheireyes,atleast,they
remainedtruetotheirownconvictions.Itisthusmisleadingtoconcludethatparticipantsin
theseexperimentslackedagencyorconformedtosituationalpressuresmindlessly(e.g.,Langer,
Blank,&Chanowitz,1978).Instead,theseclassicstudiessuggestthatpeoplewereactiveagents
whoattemptedtoformconnectionstheyhopedwouldhelpthemseetheirwaythroughthe
perplexingsituationsinwhichtheyfoundthemselves.
Ofcourse,theforegoinganalysisrelies,inpart,onparticipants’explanationsofthe
reasonsfortheirbehavior.Onecoulddiscreditsuchreportsbypointingoutthatretrospective
reportsofthecausesofbehaviorarepronetobias(e.g.,Nisbett&Wilson,1979;Wilson,2002).
Althoughretrospectivereportsareindeedunreliableattimes,atothertimestheyarequite
valid(Ericsson&Simon,1980).Moreover,thereisindependentevidencethatagentically
formingconnectionswasontheradarofparticipantsintheoriginalclassicexperimentsaswell
asfollow-upstothoseexperiments.Asnotedabove,theresultsofthemanyvariationsofthe
Milgramexperimentsillustratethatthekeydeterminantofthebehaviorofparticipantswasthe
relativestrengthoftheconnectionstheyfeltwiththeexperimenterversusthelearner(e.g.,
Reicher,Haslam&Smith,2012).Similarly,follow-upstotheDarleyandLatanestudies(Levine&
Crowther,2008;Slateretal.,2013)revealedmuchhigherlevelsofinterventionwhen
participantsfeltconnectedtothevictim.Collectively,thesestudiessupporttheideathat,in
responsetopowerfulsituationalinfluences,anagenticdesiretoformconnections,ratherthan
passivecapitulationbestexplainstheresponsesofparticipantsintheclassicstudies.
23
Revisitingrecentsupportforthepeople-lack-agencytheme
Ifanagenticdesiretoformconnectionsmotivatedtheresponsesofparticipantsinthe
classicpeople-lack-agencydemonstrations,mayitalsohaveoperatedinmorerecent
demonstrationsthatpeoplelackagency?Probablynot.Aswenotedearlier,whereas
participantscouldexpressagencybyformingaconnectionwithsomeoneintheclassicstudies,
participantsinthemorerecentstudieshadnoopportunitytoconnectwithanyone.This
reflectsthefactthatbecausethemorerecentstudiesfocusedonindividualtaskperformance,
theexperimenterspreventedthemfrominteractingwithothers.
Webeginwithresearchonlearnedhelplessness.Thisworkhighlightedthewaysinwhich
people’sexperienceswithprolongedlackofcontrolmaydampentheirsubsequentmotivation
tomastertheenvironment,pursuegoals,andrealizetheirpersonalpotential(e.g.,Hiroto&
Seligman,1975;Seligman,1975).Suchmotivationaldeficitsareworrisomeastheymight
producemotivationaldeficitsincontextsinwhichperseveranceisnecessaryforsuccess.This
argumentwaslateramplifiedbyresearchindicatingthatuncontrollablesituationstendto
fosterinefficientinvestmentofcognitiveeffortthatculminatesincognitiveexhaustion(Kofta&
Sedek,1998;Sedek&Kofta,1990).
Incontrasttotheearlyinvestigationsoflearnedhelplessness,subsequentperspectives
offeramorenuancedandoptimisticpictureofresponsestocontroldeprivation.Inparticular,it
appearsthatpeople’sinitialandmostcommonreactiontocontroldeprivationistoamplify
effortstoexertcontrolincontextsthatofferthepossibilityofreassertingcontrol(forareview,
seeBukowski&Kofta,2017).Theearlystudiesinthistraditionexaminedtheimpactofcontrol
deprivationonsubsequentattributionalactivity,withtheassumptionthatattributions
24
representameansofmakingthesocialenvironmentmorepredictableandcontrollable(for
evenearlierworkonresistanceagainstrestrictionsoffreedoms,seeBrehm,1966;Wortman&
Brehm,1975).Theresearchersdiscoveredthatparticipantswhoweredeprivedofcontrolwere
subsequentlymoresensitivetoinformationregardingthecausesofanotherperson’sbehavior
(Pittman&Pittman,1980).Follow-upstudiesdemonstratedthatcontroldeprivationalso
bolsteredandrefinedsubsequentinformationseeking(D'Agostino&Pittman,1982;Swann,
Stephenson,&Pittman,1981)andinferentialprocessing(Pittman&D'Agostino,1985,1989).
Arelatedlineofworksuggeststhat,contrarytocommonunderstandingsofdepression,
peoplewhoaremildlydepressedmayintensifytheireffortstorestorecontrolbyprocessing
availableinformationmorecarefully.Supportforthispossibilitycomesfromresearchusingthe
sameoutcomemeasuresutilizedinresearchoncontroldeprivationbyPittmanandcolleagues.
Forexample,depressedpersonswereparticularlysensitivetoinformationregardingthecauses
ofanotherperson’sbehavior(McCaul,1983),displayedexceptionallyhighlevelsofinterestin
diagnosticinformationaboutaninteractionpartner(Hildebrand-Saints&Weary,1989),and
werelessapttodisplaythecorrespondencebias(Yost&Weary,1996).Consistentwithour
analysis,itappearsthatparticipantsinthesestudiesattemptedtoregaincontrol(andagency)
byconnectingwithotherswhofoundthemselvesinsimilarsituations.
Morerecentresearchhasdemonstratedthatcontroldeprivationcanactuallystimulate
approachmotivation.Inparticular,participantswhoweredeprivedofcontrolwereenergized
bytheexperienceinthattheyweresubsequentlymoreinclinedtoactivelypursuegoals(e.g.,
Greenawayetal.,2015).Moreover,theopportunitytorespondtoexperienceswithcontrol
deprivationbytakingactivestepstorestorecontrolhadpalliativeeffectsinthatiteliminated
25
negativeeffectsofdeprivationonsubsequentinformationprocessing(Bukowski,Asanowicz,
Marzecová&Lupiáñez,2015).
Alsoconsistentwiththisreasoningisevidencethatthreatstopersonalcontrolcantrigger
compensatoryeffortstorestorecontrolthroughallegiancetoanagenticingroup(Stollberg,
Fritsche,&Bäcker,2015).Inparticular,threateninguniversitystudents’feelingsofcontrol(by
havingthemcontemplateaspectsoftheirlivesthatinducefeelingsofhelplessness)increased
theirsupportforeducationalinnovationsthatwereconsistentwithaningroup’sagenda.
Presumably,inthisinstanceconformingtoingroupnormsallowspeopletorestorepersonal
control.Hereagain,theevidencesuggeststhatpeoplearedecidedlymoreresilientwhenthey
experiencealossofcontrolthantheearlyresearchonlearnedhelplessnessimplied.Rather
thanrespondingtothreatstocontrolbygivingup,peopleengageinactiveeffortstoregain
controlthroughconnectingwithotherindividualsorgroups.
Thenotionthatpeople’sexperiencesinthesituationmayinducethemtogiveupisalso
featuredinegodepletiontheory(Baumeister&Heatherton,1996;Muraven&Baumeister,
2000).Thisformulationproposedthatself-controlisalimitedresourcethatcanbeexhausted
byattemptingtocontroloneself.Suchmentalexhaustiontheoreticallylowersglucoselevels,
which,inturn,causespeopletosuspendfurthereffortstocontrolthemselves.
Althoughearlyexplorationsofthisphenomenonseemedstronglysupportive(Baumeister
&Vohs,2007),recentaccountshavesuggestedthatthemechanismunderlyingtheseeffects
haslittletodowithdecrementsinglucoseoradecisiontogiveup.Forexample,earlyevidence
thategodepletioncauseddiminutionsinglucose(Gailliot&Baumeister,2007)failedto
replicatewhenmoreprecisemeasuresofglucosewereused(Moldenetal.,2012;seealso
26
Beedie&Lane,2012;Kurzban,2010).Moretelling,furtherstudiesandconceptualanalyses
indicatedthatego-depletionmanipulationsdonotsapmotivationinanybroadsense;instead,
theysourpeopleontheunpleasant“ego-depletion”task(forreviews,seeInzlicht&Schmeichel,
2012;Inzlicht,Schmeichel,&Macrae,2014).Forexample,considertheevidencethatgoading
peopletocompleteanundesirabletask(eatingradishesratherthansweets)reducedlater
effortstosolveasecondundesirabletask(anunsolvableanagramtask;Baumeisteretal.,1998).
Subsequentresearchrevealedthatthispatternfailedtoreplicatewhenthesecondactivitywas
valuedinsomeway:whenparticipantswererewardedfortheactivity(Boksem,Meijman,&
Lorist,2006),whentheyhaveamodicumofcontrolovertheactivity(Hockey&Earle,2006),or
whentheywerepersonallyinvestedinit(Legault,Green-Demers,&Eadie,2009).Inaddition,
theegodepletioneffectfailstoemergeiftheinitialtaskispleasantorvalued.Theunderlying
mechanismheremaybethatwhenexperimentersencourageparticipantstoeatbitterfoods
likeradishes,itdegradestheirrelationshipwiththemandunderminesparticipants’motivation
topersevereonsubsequenttasks.Incontrast,providingparticipantswithchocolatesimproves
therelationshipandmotivatesthemtopersevere.
Insum,recentresearchsuggeststhatostensiblydepletedparticipantsremainquite
motivatedtoperformactivitiesthattheyconstruedasexpressionsofpersonalagency.Hence,
egodepletiondoesnotproducementalexhaustionthatimpairsabilitytoperformall
subsequenttasks;itmerelyencouragespeopletodiverttheiragenticresourcesawayfrom
disagreeabletasksontoactivitiesthatinterestthem.Ironically,itappearsthatwhenego
depletioneffectsareobserved,theydemonstratepeople’seffortstoagenticallydiverttheir
limitedmotivationalresourcesontoactivitiesthattheydeemworthyoftheirefforts.
27
Anothercontemporaryapproachthatpurportstocaptureageneraltendencyforpeople
towithdraweffortinresponsetostrongsituationalpressureisstereotypethreat(Steele,1997;
foranintegrativereview,seeSchmader,Johns,&Forbes,2008).Here,merelyrecognizingthe
existenceofnegativesocialstereotypesmayundermineperformanceintheshorttermevenif
victimsthemselvesdonotbelieveinthestereotypes(Steele,1997).Overtime,such
performancedecrementsmayleadtargetsofsuchstereotypestowithdraweffort.This
message,ofcourse,isquitecommensuratewiththepowerofthesituationnarrativethathas
beensoinfluentialinthefieldofsocialpsychology.
Tobesure,somehavequestionedthestrengthandreplicabilityofstereotypethreat
effects(Flore&Wicherts,2015;Ganley,etal.,2013;Sackett,Hardison,&Cullen,2004;butsee
Walton&Spencer,2009).Onereasonwhystereotypethreateffectsmaybeweakerthan
originallyproposedisthatpeoplemayactivelyresiststereotypicbeliefsthatarenot“selfverifying”—thatis,stereotypesthatclashwithenduringbeliefsaboutthemselves(Swann,
1983).Consider,forexample,evidencethatwhenpeoplereceiveappraisalsthatchallengetheir
self-views,theyactivelyandagenticallyworktosettherecordstraightbybringingthose
appraisalsintoharmonywiththeirself-views(e.g.,Swann&Ely,1984;Swann&Hill,1982).In
fact,evendenyingpeopletheopportunitytobehaveinanauthentic(Harter,2002),selfverifyingmanner(e.g.,inducingthosewhoseethemselvesasassertivetobehavesubmissively)
triggerscompensatoryself-verificationstrivings(Brooks,Swann,&Mehta,2012).
Whethermotivatedbyself-verificationstrivingsorotherprocesses,defianceof
stereotypicappraisalscanthwartstereotypethreateffects.Inonelineofwork,researchers
exploredtheimplicationsofcollectivelychallengingoraffirmingperformancestereotypes
28
(Smith&Postmes,2010).Femaleparticipantsinagroupdiscussionsessionwerepromptedto
questionthestereotypethatmenoutperformwomenonmathtests.Latertheseparticipants
outperformedparticipantswhohadbeenpromptedtoaffirmthestereotype.Togetherwiththe
earlierworkonself-verification,thisfindingsuggeststhatstereotypethreateffectsareless
likelytooccurwhenpeoplearefreetoexpressandharnesstheirpersonalorgroup-based
agency.Thisqualifierisimportant.Thatis,althoughstrongsituationalpressuresmay
sometimesdepriveloneindividualsofopportunitiestoexerciseagencyinlaboratorystudiesof
stereotypethreat,innaturallyoccurringcontextspeoplecanoftenexerciseagencybyresisting,
orcompensatingagainst,thethreatsthattheyconfront.
Theforegoingresearchsuggestsanalternativetoconventionalstrategiesforcounteractingstereotypethreateffects.Thatis,standardremediesforcounteringstereotypethreat
effects(e.g.,Aronson,Fried,&Good,2001;Lewis&Sekaquaptewa,2016)havefocusedon
supportingindividualswhenstereotypethreatarises(e.g.,throughmindsetinterventions,
socialsupport,orself-affirmation)orreducingcontextualtriggersofstereotypethreat(by
reframingthetask,removingthreatcues).Alloftheseinterventionsinvolverestructuringthe
situationsothatpeopleareeitherlesslikelytosufferfrom,ofquickertorecoverfrom,agency
deficits.Althoughthisapproachhasbornefruit,itfailstoconsiderthattargetsofnegative
stereotypesarenotmerepassivevictimsofunavoidable“threatsintheair”.Rather,individuals
mayactivelyworktodevisewaystoagenticallyclingtotheviewstheyhaveofthemselvesorto
directlychallengethenegativestereotypepersonallyorcollectively–especiallywhentheir
companionsjoinwiththeminquestioningtheaccuracyofthenegativestereotype.
29
Uponclosescrutiny,then,itbecomesapparentthatputativeevidencethatpowerful
situationalforcesroutinelydeprivepeopleofagencyhasbeenoverstatedatbest.Intheclassic
studies,whenparticipantsfacedpowerfulsituationalforces,theyexpressedagencybystriving
toformconnectionswithotherindividualswhowerepresentintheexperiment.Inthemore
recentinvestigationsinwhichthecapacitytoformconnectionswasunavailable,participants
surrenderedtosituationalpressuresonlywhenitwasclearlyunreasonabletodootherwise.In
fact,innoneofthestudiesincludedinourreviewdidwefindclearevidencethatsituational
forcesstrippedpeopleoftheircapacitytoexerciseagency.Tothecontrary,insomestudieswe
encounteredevidencethatsituationalforcessometimesbolsteredagency(e.g.,researchon
compensatoryreactionstocontroldeprivationandself-discrepantevaluations).Thisconclusion
isalsosupportedbyrecentexplorationsofphenomenasuchasresilience,gritandgrowth(e.g.,
Duckworth,Peterson,Matthews,&Kelly,2007;Seligman,Steen,Park,&Peterson,2005).Here
again,whenpeopleconfrontpowerfulsituationalforcesthatclashwiththeirsalientagendas,
theyoftenresistand,ifsuchforcesproveintransigent,theytrytocircumventthem.
Ifthenotionthatsituationssystematicallydeprivepeopleofagencyisnotsupportedby
theempiricalevidence,thenhowhasthisassumptioncontinuedtoflourishinthesocial
psychologicalliterature?Wesuggestthatsocialpsychology’smeta-theoreticalassumptions
haveplayedamajorroleinproducingthisstateofaffairs.Butcouldtheseassumptionsalso
influencethetopicsthatresearchersstudyandcoverinmajortextbooks?Totestthispossibility,
weconductedStudy2.Aresearchassistant(whowasblindtoourhypotheses)countedthe
proportionofpagesdevotedtotopicsrelatedtolackofagencyversusagencyinsevenmajor
socialpsychologytexts(thesameonesexaminedinStudy1).Wethentalliedtheaverage
30
proportionofpagesdevotedtothethreemostcommonformsoflackofagency(conformity,
compliance,bystandereffect)andthethreemostcommonformsofagency(dissent,deviance,
resistance).ThemeansdisplayedinFigure2revealthatfarmorespacewasdevotedtotopics
focusedonlackofagency(topicsontheleftside)thanagency.Moreover,thistendencyto
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
Conformity
Compliance
Bystander
effect
Dissent
Deviance
Resistance
Study2.Averageproportionofpagesdevotedtotopicsrelatedtolackofagencyversus
agency.
favorevidenceoflackofagencyoveragencywasapparentineachofthetextsweexamined.
Hence,itlikelyreflectsthestateoftheartofsocialpsychologicalresearchratherthanbiason
thepartoftheparticulartextbookauthors.
Skepticscouldpointoutthatdespitethepervasiveemphasisonlackofagencyinthe
socialinfluenceliterature,manystudieshavebeendesignedtoidentifymoderatorsoflackof
agencyeffectsratherthanlackofagencyperse.Infact,manyoftheauthorsoftheclassic
studiesenvisionedakeycomponentofthebalancedapproachthatweareadvocatinghere.For
31
example,inanattempttounderstandhowsituationalpressuresmoderateobedience,Milgram
conductedroughly30studiesdesignedtoidentifytheboundaryconditionsofobedienceto
authority.Collectively,Milgram’sstudiesofferaremarkablycompletepictureoftheimpactof
situationalpressuresonobedience.Similarly,Asch(1955)conductedmultiplevariationsofthe
originalline-judgmenttaskthatrevealedtheconditionsunderwhichpeoplerebelversus
conform.Likewise,inthewakeofthepublicationofhislandmarkpaperonthebystandereffect,
Darleywroteanarticleentitled“Dogroupsalwaysinhibitindividuals’responsestopotential
emergencies?”inwhichhechallengedsimplisticreadingsandinterpretationsoftheeffect
(Darley,Teger,&Lewis,1973).Nevertheless,themannerinwhichaphenomenonisframed
initiallycanhaveconsiderableimpactonhowitisunderstoodandstudied.Note,forexample,
thatresearchersgenerallyconstruemoderatorstudiesasdemonstrating"alimitontheeffect"
ratherthanadistinctivephenomenon.Inreality,however,rebellionismorethan“alimit”on
conformity;itisaphenomenonitselfwithauniquesetofcauses,mediators,moderators,and
consequences(Jetten&Hornsey,2014).Eachofthesephenomenarequiresindependent
conceptualandempiricalstudy.Beforerecognitionandanalysisoftheseprocessescanoccur,
researchersmustfirstrecognizetheexistenceofbothsetsofphenomena.Onlythenwillthe
fieldachievegreaterbalanceinthephenomenaexaminedinFigure2.Weaccordinglyconsider
strategiesfordevelopingamorebalancedandcomprehensivevisionofsocialpsychological
phenomenainthenextsection.
Towardamorebalancedsocialpsychology
“TheOppositeofaGreatTruthisAlsoTrue(McGuire,1973,p.455)
32
“Ifonepsychologicalprincipleappearsreasonable,thentryreversingit,inordertosee
whetheritscontraryisjustasreasonable”(Billig,1987,p.11)
Wesuggestherethatoneofsocialpsychology’scoremeta-theories—situationism--has
inspiredresearcherstoamassmorethanahalf-century’sworthofone-sidedputativesupport
forthenotionthatpeoplelackagency.Althoughpeopleclearlylackagencyundersome
circumstances,acarefullookattheevidencerevealsthatmanyparticipantsinsupposed
demonstrationsoflackofagencywereinrealityagenticallypursuingtheirpersonalorgroup
agendas.Moreover,examinationofotherostensibleevidenceofthepowerofthesituation
suggeststhatpeoplesometimesdisplayagencydespite,orevenbecauseof,situational
influences.Forthesereasons,itismisleadingtoconsiderthisbodyofresearchasstrong
evidenceofthepowerofthesituation.Moregenerally,ourreviewillustrateshowaone-sided
meta-theoreticalapproachcanleadresearcherstodontheoreticalblindersthatmisconstrue
thephenomenatheyareinvestigating.
Perhapsthegreatestdangerofaone-sidedapproachisthatitcanhinderprogressby
encouragingresearcherstooverlookimportantphenomena.Inourreview,weshowedthat
earlyputativedemonstrationsofthepowerofthesituationcapturedtheimaginationofthe
field.Thisservedto“anchor”subsequentresearchersonrelatedphenomenon.They
accordinglyfocusedonsocialinfluenceratherthanresistancetosocialinfluence.Theresultis
thatthecurrentsocialpsychologicalliteratureisseverelyskewedtowardphenomenathat
highlightthepowerofthesituationoveragency—conformityinsteadofdissent;learned
helplessnessinsteadofcontrolrestoration;egodepletioninsteadofegoresilience,stereotype
threatinsteadofresistancetosubjectivelyinaccuratestereotypes,andsoon.
33
Ifsocialpsychologicalresearchershavefailedtoseeevidenceofagencyinthebehavior
oftheirparticipants,howcantheirvisionbeimproved?Webelievethatthecureforthe
currentmyopiaistobroadenthelensesthroughwhichresearchersscrutinizehumanbehavior.
AscanbeseenintheleftpanelofTable1,tobetterrecognizeexpressionsofhumanagency,
weshouldprovideparticipantswithmorevoice,additionalchoicesandoptions,andadditional
timetotakechargeofthesituation.Tothisend,thethreedistinctmethodologicalstrategies
listedintherightpanelofTable1shouldbeutilized.Thefirststrategyinvolveslearningmore
abouthowparticipantsareexperiencingthestimulitowhichtheyareexposed.
Agenticrespondingpromotedby
Requiredmethodologicalstrategy:
providingparticipantswith
•
Voice
•
•
measureswithqualitativeones
Choiceandoptions
•
•
Complementingquantitative
Ecologicallyvalidresearchin
naturallyoccurringsettings
Timetocontrolthesituation
•
Extendtemporalframeof
research
Table1.Strategiesforbroadeningthelensesthroughwhichsocialpsychologistsstudy
behavior
Forexample,tovaryingdegrees,Asch,MilgramandZimbardocollectedconsiderabledata
relevanttotheagencystrivingsoftheirparticipants.Unfortunately,astheseprojectsmoved
34
fromdatacollectiontodatadissemination,thefullrichnessofthefindingswaslosttothe
“powerofthesituation”refrain.Thisisunfortunate,becauseasourreviewsuggests,if
researchersdonotdetermineandreportwhyparticipantsbehavedastheydid,theymaydraw
erroneousconclusionsregardingkeyissuessuchasthedegreetowhichparticipantsare
responsiblefortheirownbehavior(Spears&Smith,2001).Thismayleadthemtomistake
“constructiveobedience”(Darley,1955)forsimpleobedience.
Carefulscrutinyofpeople’saccountshavealsopersuadedresearcherstore-thinktheir
understandingofcrowdbehavior.Fordecades,LeBon’s(1947)groupmindtheoryprovidedthe
lensthroughwhichmanybehavioralscientistsviewedcrowdbehavior.Onceimmersedina
crowd,LeBonargued,peoplerelinquishconsciouscontroloftheiractionsandareinstead
drivenbyprimitiveimpulses.Inthissametradition,Zimbardo(1969)contendedthatimmersion
ingroupsfostersastateofdeindividuationinwhichpeoplelosetheircapacityforselfevaluationandself-regulation,resultingindestructivebehavior.Althoughthese
conceptualizationsofcrowdbehaviorasimpulsiveandrandomwerewidelyaccepted,theyare
notnecessarilyaccurate.Forexample,carefulanalysisoftheaccountsofparticipantsinan
actualriotlentlittlesupportforgroupmindtheory(Reicher,1984).Tothecontrary,thereports
ofriotersandpoliceofferedconvergingevidencethattheactionsofrioterswereahighly
systematicandnuancedexpressionofrioters’deeplyfeltangeragainstpolicewhomthey
believedhadabusedthemforyears.Thefindingsfromthisstudyweresocompellingthatthey
promptedresearcherstorevisitandreevaluatetheirunderstandingofthenature,causesand
consequencesofcrowdbehavior(seePostmes&Spears,1998).
35
Qualitativeresearchthatprobespeople’sspontaneousconstrualsoftheoretically
relevantsituationsisespeciallyusefulinallowingresearcherstoaccuratelycharacterizeand
understandthephenomenaunderscrutiny.Suchmethodologiesmaybeparticularlyuseful
duringtheexploratoryphasesofresearch(Rozin,2001).Theycanalsofacilitatetheorytesting,
notonlybyconfirmingtheeffectivenessofmanipulations,butbyprovidingtestsofnew
hypothesesabouttheprocessesunderinvestigation.Formanyyears,manyheldthe
misconceptionthatpeopleroutinelyreacttoemergencysituationswithpanic(Quarantelli,
2001;Smelser,1962).Drawingonself-categorizationtheory(Turner,Hogg,Oakes,Reicher,&
Wetherell,1989),researchersrecentlycorrectedthismisconceptionbyprovidingevidence
fromfieldstudiesindicatingthatcooperationismorecommonthanpanicandthatsuch
cooperationoftengrowsoutofasharedidentityarisingfromthecommonexperienceofthe
emergencyitself(Drury,Cocking,&Reicher,2009).Suchfeelingsofsolidarity,inturn,muted
panicreactions(Drury,Cocking,&Reicher,2008;Vezzali,Drury,Versari,&Cadamurom,2015).
Theclassicstudiesofsocialinfluence(e.g.,Asch,1955)alsoprovideanexampleofthe
informativenessofself-reportsinbuildingandtestingtheory.Inthesestudies,theaccountsof
participantsrevealed,amongotherthings,thepremiumthatmanyparticipantsplacedon
connectingwithotherindividualsintheexperiment(Jetten&Hornsey,2012).Unfortunately,
thisfindingnevermadeitintothelack-of-agencynarrativeassociatedwiththesestudies.
Onereasonwhytheself-reportsofparticipantsintheclassicstudieswerelargely
overlookedisthatexperimentalistshavebeennotoriouslydistrustfulofqualitativedata(e.g.,
Nisbett&Wilson,1979),adistrustfulnessthathasledthemtoeschewself-reports(butsee
Ericsson&Simon,1980).AsAschputit“Becausephysicistscannotspeakwithstarsorelectric
36
currents,psychologistshaveoftenbeenhesitanttospeaktotheirhumanparticipants”(Asch,
1952/1987,pp.xiv-xv).Ourreviewsuggeststhatwhenresearcherstranscendtheir“physics
envy”toutilizetheinformationprovidedbytheself-reportsofparticipants,individualagency
canbebetterunderstood,therebyenhancingtheverisimilitudeoftheresearch.Takingsuch
reportsseriouslymaythusallowforamorebalancedapproachproducingaricher,more
nuancedcharacterizationofpeople’sreactions,onethatmayshedlightontheoppositeofthe
phenomenonthatoriginallygrabbedtheattentionoftheresearcher(e.g.,McAdams,1993;
Pandey,Stevenson,Shankar,Hopkins,&Reicher,2013;Shankar,Stevenson,Pandey,Tewari,
Hopkins,&Reicher,2013).
Asecondstrategyforbroadeningtheconceptuallensesofresearchersistocomplement
experimentationwithecologicallyvalidresearchinnaturallyoccurringsettings.Fieldresearch
characteristicallyembracesthesecondmethodologicalfeatureofabalancedapproach,
ecologicalvalidityorgeneralizability(cf.,Mook,1983).Laboratoryexperimentspluckpeople
fromthecontextsinwhichtheyarenormallyembeddedandobservetheirbehaviorinasingle
spatiallyandtemporallyconstrainedsetting.AcaseinpointistheAschexperiment,towhich
oneparticipantreactedbynotingafterdebriefing“ThisisunlikeanyexperienceIhavehadin
mylife–IwillneverforgetitaslongasIlive”(1952,p.467).Ecologicallyvalidresearch
providesacheckontheveracityoftheconclusionsdrawnfromlaboratoryresearch(Cialdini,
2009;Gosling,2004;Langer&Newman,1979).Thismaynecessitatesuspendingtheusual
compulsionthatsocialpsychologistshavetoreduceuncertaintyasquicklyaspossible(Haslam
&McGarty,2001)andinsteaddelineatetheparametersofsuchuncertaintythroughfield
research.Nevertheless,theseeffortsmayreaprichdividendsintheformofinsightsintoforms
37
ofagencythatcouldnothavebeenanticipatedbasedonlaboratoryanalogsofthe
phenomenon.
Ecologicallyvalidfieldstudiescanalsocomplementlaboratorystudiesinimportant
ways.Whereasexperimentsareoptimalfordemonstratinghowpeoplerespondtosituations,
fieldstudiescanrevealhowpeopleselectandinfluencesituations(Snyder&Ickes,1985).
Informationaboutthewaysinwhichpeoplechooseandshapesituationsisnotonlyessentialto
broadquestionssuchastheinterplayofsituationsandpersonalqualities(e.g.,thetraitsituationandattitude-behaviordebates),itcanalsoofferinsightsintospecificphenomena.For
example,analysesofadolescentriskbehaviorhavelongimplicatedpeers,withsomearguing
thatpeersshapeasmuchas50%ofadolescentpersonality(Harris,1998).Lateranalyses,
however,revealedthatadolescentsarenotsimplypassiveresponderstosocialinfluence.
Instead,theyplayaveryactiveroleinsocialinfluencebysystematicallychoosingtoaffiliate
withpeerswhocomplementandamplifytheirowninclinations(e.g.,Jaccard,Blanton,&Dodge,
2005).Furthermore,inlightofevidencethatexperimentsmaysometimesdiscourage
participantsfromactingagenticallyandinsteadencouragemindlessresponding(Langer&
Newman,1979),fieldstudiesthatencouragemindfulnessprovideamuch-neededcheckonthe
generalityofexperimentalfindings.
Fieldstudiesalsodemonstratethatitispossibletoharnessagencytomotivatehealthier
lifestyles.Inarecentpaper(Bryanetal.,2016),theresearcherssoughttoinduceadolescentsto
eathealthierbyframinghealthyeatingasastrategyfortakingastandagainstmanipulativeand
unfairpracticesofthefoodindustry(e.g.,marketingaddictivejunkfoodtoyoungchildren).
Relativetoatraditionalhealtheducationmaterialscondition,the“take-a-stand”treatmentled
38
eighthgraderstoseehealthyeatingasmoreautonomy-assertive.Theyaccordinglycameto
preferhealthyalternativestosugarysnacksanddrinks.
Thecapacityofecologicallyvalidresearchtoexaminetheselectionofsituationsisalso
relatedtothethirdstrategyofbroadeningresearchers’conceptualandempiricallenses:the
useofrelativelyexpansivetemporalframes.Inmostlaboratoryresearch,investigatorsfocuson
eventsthattranspireinthefirstfewsecondsafterthepowerfulmanipulationwhileignoring
whathappensbeforeorlater.Thisislimitingandpotentiallymisleadingbecausepeople’s
reactionstosituationsarebestunderstoodassequencesofbehavioral,affectiveandcognitive
responsesratherthanassingleresponses(Clore&Robinson,2011).Asaresult,investigators
mayobtainverydifferentfindingsdependingonwhentheycollectparticipant’sresponses.In
studiesoftheself,forexample,researchershavediscoveredthatpeople’sinitialreactionsto
evaluationsfavorself-enhancementtheorybutlaterreactionsfavorself-verification(e.g.,
Swann,2012;Swann&Schroeder,1995).Translatedintothecontextofourdiscussionof
agency,thequestionmaybenotsomuchwhetherpeopleobey,conformandsoon,butfor
howlong.Thisrequiresresearcherstoobservepeopleoveraperiodoftimeinspecificcontexts
ratherthancontrollingandmanipulatingthosecontexts.Thismoreexpansiveapproachmay
provideinsightintoboththephenomenonofinterestaswellasitsnaturallyoccurringopposite.
Alongertemporalframemayalsoallowresearcherstoexaminehowpeopleworkto
shapesituationsandescapefromsituationsthatthwarttheirattemptstoexertpersonal
agency.Forexample,underwhatconditionswillthosethatinitiallygiveintothesituational
pressureriseupandavengethemselves?Similarly,whenwillthosewhoinitiallyrefrainfrom
helpingredeemthemselvesbyrushingtotheassistanceofthoseinneed.Afterbeingsubjected
39
topowerfulsituations,underwhatconditionswillpeopleworktoregainagency,choiceand
control(e.g.,Gamsonetal.,1982)?Andwhenwillpeoplewhohavebeengoadedintoassuming
anuncharacteristicidentityactivelyrepudiatethatidentity(e.g.,Swann,2012).New
technologiesthatallowlaboratoryresearcherstotracknaturallyoccurringbehaviorsafter
participantsleavetheexperimentallaboratory(e.g.,mobilesensingtechniques;Harari,2015;in
press)maybeparticularlyusefulinexpandingthetemporalframeofresearch.Such
technologiesmayallowresearcherstotrackbehaviorsonascalethatwasonceunimaginable.
Infact,through“BigData”techniquesresearcherscancollectbillionsofdatapointsfromvast
numbersofparticipants.Intheseandrelatedways,researchersmaycapitalizeonrecent
innovationsdesignedtolaybarephenomenathatarepreciselytheoppositeoftheonesthat
theinvestigatorsetouttoexamine.
Conclusion
Thesearetempestuoustimesforsocialpsychology.Overthelastdecadeandahalf,a
paradeofcriticsfromwithinthefieldhasraisedseveralseeminglydisconnectedconcerns.
Specifically,theyhaveassailedsocialpsychologistsfor:creditingthemselveswithpredicting
unforeseenoutcomes(“Harking”;Kerr,1998);rushingtotestelaboratetheoriesbefore
accuratelycharacterizingthephenomenonunderscrutiny(Rozin,2001;2009);focusingon
problematicsocialbehaviorswhileoverlookingpositiveandfunctionalones(Krueger&Funder,
2004);devotingtoomuchattentiontospecifyingpsychologicalmechanismsattheexpenseof
observingnaturallyoccurringovertbehavior(Baumeister,Vohs,&Funder,2007);failingto
demonstratetherelevanceofexperimentalfindingstonaturallyoccurringphenomena(Cialdini,
40
2009);andsuspendingdatacollectionprematurelyintheserviceoftheoryconfirmation(“phacking”;Simmons,Nelson,&Simonsohn,2012).
Althoughtheforegoingconcernsmayseemunrelatedtoeachother,wesuggestthatthey
areallsymptomsofthesameunderlyingphenomenon:atendencyforresearcherstoseek
confirmationofasingletheoreticalormeta-theoreticalapproachwhilerelyingalmost
exclusivelyonexperimentalapproaches(seealsoMorton,Haslam,Postmes,&Ryan,2006).Our
reviewpresentsacasestudyofthispropensityanditsconsequences.Weshowthat
researchershavesoughtandfound“evidence”oflackofagencywheninfactdatafromboth
withinandoutsidethelaboratorycouldequallywellsupporttheoppositeconclusion.
Althoughwebelievethatthisproblemisaseriousone,thegoodnewsisthatrelatively
simplechangesinthewayresearchersconstructandtesttheoriesshouldremedyit.Moreover,
theseremediescanbeputinplacewhiletheory-drivenlaboratoryexperimentationremainsthe
field’smainstay;tonamejustoneexample,researchoncompensatoryresponsestocontrol
deprivation(forareview,seeBukowski,&Kofta,in2017)showshowlaboratoryexperiments
canbeusedtorestoreagencytoourtheoreticalmodels.
Letusclosebynotingthatinencouragingresearcherstoacknowledgeandstudy
expressionsofhumanagency,wearenotendorsingregressivesocialpoliciesthatarebasedon
blamingthevictimsofharshorunhelpfulculturalconditions.Forexample,justbecausepeople
canexertagencytoovercomenegativesocialstereotypesorresisttempting-but-unhealthy
foods,thisdoesnotmeanthatweasasocietyshouldassignresponsibilitytothosewhofall
victimtosuchphenomena.Rather,oursuggestionisthatinadditiontoattemptingtochange
socialconditionsthatcausesuffering,effortsshouldbemadetoenlistthefeelingsofagencyof
41
thewould-bevictimsofdeleterioussocialconditionstoempowerthemtotranscendtheir
socialconditions.Thisnewfocuswillleadtoaverydifferentvisionofhumanbeings,onethat
bettercapturesthewaypeopleexperiencethemselvesandeachother.Thisvisionwill,inturn,
increaseboththeveracityofsocialpsychologicaltheoryaswellasitsrelevancetothenaturally
occurringphenomenonitstrivestoilluminate.Ifpsychologistsloosentheirembraceof
situationismandbroadenthelensesthroughwhichtheystudybehavior,theywillwitnessthe
numerousstrikingandingeniouswaysthatthehumanspiritassertsitself.Andthehumanspirit
shouldbeacentralconcernforus.Indeed,asareviewerofanearlierversionofthispaper
noted,“if‘agency’isnotthecoreofhumannature(comparedtoouranimalbrethren),then
whatis?”
42
Footnotes
1Arguably,Milgramonlybelatedlyacknowledgedthispoint.Althoughheranabout30
variationsofhisexperimentintheearly1960’s,heonlypublishedasinglevariationin
1963inwhichcompliancewassurprisinglystrong(65%).Hethenwaitedoveradecade
beforepublishingmostoftheothervariationsin1974.Duringthatdecadeandeversince,
knowledgeofthe65%variationhascontributedenormouslytothepowerofthesituation
narrative.
2
RossandNisbett(1991)correctlynotethattheiracknowledgementoftheroleofconstrual
distinguishestheirpositionfromradicalbehaviorism.Nevertheless,theirfailuretoconsider
agencyandtheprocessesthatunderlieitgivestheirformulationadecidedlybehavioristicfeel,
whichiswhywehavedubbedtheirformulation“behaviorismlite”.
3
Atfirstblush,itmightbetemptingtoassociatelackofagencywiththelackofexplicit,
consciouscontrolthattheoreticallyoccurswhenimplicitprocessesregulatebehavior(e.g.,
Bargh,1994).Nevertheless,conceptuallylackofagencyisorthogonaltotheexplicit-implicit
distinction.Thatis,becauselackofagency(andagency)canalmostsurelybeautomatizedand
thusimplicit,thedegreetowhichagivenbehaviorisimplicithasnodirectbearingonthe
degreetowhichitisagentic.
4
The95%confidenceintervalsofthedifferencefromthemid-pointofthescalewere:Alloy,
Peterson,Abramson,andSeligman:-.87to-52,meandifferenceof.70,Asch’slinejudgment
study:-1.44to-1.04,meandifference1.24,Baumeisteretal.:-.49to-.16,meandifference
of.32,DarleyandLatane:-.74to-.34,meandifferenceof.54,Haneyetal.:-1.04to-.61,mean
43
differenceof.83,Milgram:-1.67to-1.25,meandifferenceof1.46,andSteeleandAronson:-.48
to-.12,meandifferenceof.31.Also,theoriginalagencyscaleincludedtwoadditionalitems
(“abandonvs.clingtotheirmoralconvictions”and“lackvs.possessfreewill”).Wedropped
theseitemsbecausetheydiminishedtheinternalconsistencyofthescale.
References
Abramson,L.Y.,Metalsky,G.I.,&Alloy,L.B.(1989).Hopelessnessdepression:Atheory-based
subtypeofdepression.PsychologicalReview,96,358-372.
Abramson,L.Y.,Seligman,M.E.,&Teasdale,J.D.(1978).Learnedhelplessnessinhumans:
Critiqueandreformulation.JournalofAbnormalPsychology,87(1),49-74.DOI:
10.1037/0021-843X.87.1.
Adorno,T.W.,Frenkel-Brunswik,E.Levinson,D&Sanford,N.(1950),TheAuthoritarian
Personality,NewYork,HarperandRow.
Alloy,L.B.,Peterson,C.,Abramson,L.Y.,&Seligman,M.E.(1984).Attributionalstyleandthe
generalityoflearnedhelplessness.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,46(3),
681-687.
Allport,F.(1924)SocialPsychology.Boston,MA:HoughtonMifflin.
Allport,G.(1954).Thenatureofprejudice.Cambridge,MA:PerseusBooks.
Arendt,H.(1963).EichmanninJerusalem:AReportontheBanalityofEvil.NewYork,NY:Viking
Press.
Aronson,E.,Wilson,T.D.,&Akert,R.M.(2013).SocialPsychology(8thed.).NewYork:Pearson.
Aronson,J.,Fried,C.B.,&Good,C.(2001).ReducingtheeffectsofstereotypethreatonAfrican
Americancollegestudentsbyshapingtheoriesofintelligence.JournalofExperimental
SocialPsychology,38(2),113-125.doi:10.1006/jesp.2001.1491
Asch,S.E.(1951).Effectsofgrouppressureonthemodificationanddistortionofjudgments.In
H.Guetzkow(Ed.),Groups,leadershipandmen(pp.177-190).Pittsburgh,PA:Carnegie
Press.
45
Asch,S.E.(1955).Opinionsandsocialpressure.ScientificAmerican,193,31-35.
Asch,S.E.(1987).Socialpsychology.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.(Originalwork
published1952)
Asch,S.E.(1952).Socialpsychology.EnglewoodCliffs,NJ.Prentice-Hall.
Bandura,A.(2006).TowardaPsychologyofHumanAgency.PerspectivesonPsychological
Science,1,164-180
Bargh,J.A.(1994).Thefourhorsemenofautomaticity:Awareness,intention,efficiency,and
controlinsocialcognition.InR.S.Wyer&T.K.Srull(Eds.),Handbookofsocial
cognition(pp.1-40).Hillsdale,N.J.:Erlbaum.
Baumeister,R.F.(1984).Chokingunderpressure:Self-consciousnessandparadoxicaleffectsof
incentivesonskillfulperformance.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,46,610620.
Baumeister,R.F.,&Bushman,B.J.(2008).Socialpsychologyandhumannature.Belmont,CA:
ThomsonWadsworth.
Baumeister,R.F.,&Heatherton,T.F.(1996).Self-regulationfailure:Anoverview.Psychological
Inquiry,7(1),1-15.
Baumeister,R.F.,Bratslavsky,E.,Muraven,M.,&TiceD.M.(1998).Egodepletion:Istheactive
selfalimitedresource.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,74(5),1252-1265.
Baumeister,R.F.,Vohs,K.D.(2007).Self-regulation,egodepletion,andmotivation.Socialand
PersonalityPsychologyCompass,1,115-128.doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00001.
46
Baumeister,R.F.,Vohs,K.D.,&Funder,D.C.(2007).Psychologyasthescienceofself-reports
andfingermovements:Whateverhappenedtoactualbehavior?Perspectiveson
PsychologicalScience,2(4),396-403.
Beedie,C.,&Lane,A.M.(2012).Theroleofglucoseinself-control.PersonalityandSocial
PsychologyReview,16(2),143-153.doi:10.1177/1088868311419817
Billig,M.(1987).Arguingandthinking:Arhetoricalapproachtosocialpsychology.Cambridge,
UK:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Boksem,M.A.,Meijman,T.F.,&Lorist,M.M.(2006).Mentalfatigue,motivationandaction
monitoring.BiologicalPsychology,72(2),123-132.
Brehm,J.(1966).Atheoryofpsychologicalreactance.NewYork:AcademicPress.
Brooks,M.L.,Swann,W.B.,Jr.&Mehta,P.H.(2011).Reassertingtheself:
Blockingself-verifyingbehaviortriggerscompensatoryself-verification.Self&
Identity,10,77–84.
Bryan,C.,Yeager,D.S.,Hinojosa,C.,Chabot,A.M.,Bergen,H.,Kawamura,M.,&Steubing,F.
(2016).Harnessingadolescentvaluestomotivatehealthiereating.Proceedingsofthe
NationalAcademyofSciencesoftheUnitedStatesofAmerica,113,10830-10835.
Bukowski,M.,Asanowicz,D.,Marzecová,A.,&Lupiáñez,J.(2015).Limitsofcontrol:Theeffects
ofuncontrollabilityexperiencesontheefficiencyofattentionalcontrol.Acta
Psychologica,154,43-53.
Bukowski,M.&Kofta,M.(2017).Fromcopingtohelplessness:Effectsofcontroldeprivationon
cognitiveandaffectiveprocesses.InM.Bukowski,I.Fritsche,A.Guinote&M.Kofta
(Eds.),CopingwithLackofControlinaSocialWorld.Taylor&FrancisGroup,LLC.
47
Burger,J.M.,Girgis,Z.M.,Manning,C.M.(2011).Intheirownwords:Explainingobedienceto
authoritythroughanexaminationofparticipants’comments.SocialPsychologicaland
PersonalityScience,2,460-466.
Cialdini,R.B.(2009).Influence:Scienceandpractice(5thed.).Boston:Allyn&Bacon.
Clore,G.L.,&Robinson,M.D.(2011).Fivenewideasaboutemotionandtheirimplicationsfor
social-personalitypsychology.InK.DeauxandM.Snyder(Eds.),Oxfordhandbookof
personalityandsocialpsychology(pp.315-336).OxfordUniversityPress.
D'Agostino,P.R.,&Pittman,T.S.(1982).Effortexpenditurefollowingcontroldeprivation.
BulletinofthePsychonomicSociety,19(5),282-293.doi:10.3758/BF03330258
Darley,J.M.(1995).Constructiveanddestructiveobedience:Ataxonomyofprincipal-agent
relationships.JournalofSocialIssues.51,125-154
Darley,J.M.&Latane,B.(1968).Bystanderinterventioninemergencies:Diffusionof
responsibility.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,8,377-383.
doi:10.1037/h0025589
Darley,J.M.,Teger,A.L.,&Lewis,L.D.(1973).Dogroupsalwaysinhibitindividuals’responses
topotentialemergencies?JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,26,395–399.
Drury,J.,Cocking,C.,&Reicher,S.(2008).Everyoneforthemselves?Acomparativestudyof
crowdsolidarityamongemergencysurvivors.BritishJournalofSocialPsychology,48(3),
487-506
Duckworth,A.L.,Peterson,C.,Matthews,M.D.,&Kelly,D.R.(2007).Grit:Perseveranceand
passionforlong-termgoals.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,92,1087.
48
Ericsson,K.A.,&Simon,H.A.(1980).Verbalreportsasdata.PsychologicalReview,87(3),215251.
Fischer,P.,Krueger,J.I.,Greitemeyer,T.,Vogrinic,C.,Kastenmüler,A.,Frey,D.,Heene,M.,
Wicher,M.,&Kainbacher,M.(2011).Thebystandereffect:Ameta-analyticreviewon
bystanderinterventionindangerousandnon-dangerousemergencies.Psychological
Bulletin,137,517-537.doi:10.1037/a0023304
Flore,P.C.,Wicherts,J.M.(2015).Doesstereotypethreatinfluenceperformanceofgirlsin
stereotypeddomains?Ameta-analysis.JournalofSchoolPsychology,53(1),25–44.
Gailliot,M.T.,&Baumeister,R.F.(2007).Thephysiologyofwillpower:Linkingbloodglucoseto
self-control.PersonalityandSocialPsychologyReview,11,303-327.
Gamson,W.B.,Fireman,B.,&Rytina,S.(1982).Encounterswithunjustauthority.Hounwood,
IL:DorseyPress.
Ganley,C.M.,Mingle,L.A.,Ryan,A.M.,Ryan,K.,Vasilyeva,M.,&Perry,M.(2013).An
examinationofstereotypethreateffectsongirls'mathematicsperformance.
DevelopmentalPsychology,49(10),1886-1897.doi:10.1037/a0031412
Gilovich,T.,Keltner,D.,Chen,S.,&Nisbett,R.E.(2012).Socialpsychology(3rded.).NewYork:
W.W.Norton.
Gosling,S.D.(2004).Anotherroutetobroadeningthescopeofsocialpsychology:Ecologically
validresearch.BehavioralandBrainSciences,27(3),339-340.
doi:10.1017/S0140525X04330086
49
Greenaway,K.H.,Storrs,K.,Philipp,M.C.,Louis,W.R.,Hornsey,M.J.,&Vohs,K.D.(2015).
Lackingcontrolstimulatesapproachmotivation.JournalofExperimentalSocial
Psychology,56,235–241.
Haney,C.,Banks,W.C.,&Zimbardo,P.G.(1973).Astudyofprisonersandguardsinasimulated
prison.NavalResearchReview,30,4-17.
Harari,G.M.&Gosling,S.D.,Wang,R.,Campbell,A.T.(2015).Capturing
situationalinformationusingsmartphonesandmobilesensingmethods.European
JournalofPersonality,29,509-511.
Harari,G.M.,Lane,N.,Wang,R.,Crosier,B.,Campbell,A.T.,&Gosling,S.D.(inpress).Using
SmartphonestoCollectBehavioralDatainPsychologicalScience:Opportunities,
PracticalConsiderations,andChallenges.PerspectivesonPsychologicalScience.
Harris,J.(1998).Thenurtureassumption:Whychildrenturnoutthewaytheydo.NewYork:
FreePress.
Harter,S.(2002).Authenticity.InC.R.Snyder&S.J.Lopez(Eds.),Handbookofpositive
psychology(pp.382-394).NewYork,NY:OxfordUniversityPress.
HaslamS.A.,&Reicher,S.D.(2012).Contestingthe“nature”ofconformity:WhatMilgramand
Zimbardo'sstudiesreallyshow.PLoSBiology,10(11).doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001426
Haslam,S.A.,&McGarty,C.(2001).Ahundredyearsofcertitude?Socialpsychology,the
experimentalmethodandthemanagementofscientificuncertainty.BritishJournalof
SocialPsychology,40,1–21.
Haslam,S.A.,Reicher,S.D.,&Birney,M.E.(2014).Nothingbymereauthority:Evidencethatin
anexperimentalanalogueoftheMilgramparadigmparticipantsaremotivatednotby
50
ordersbutbyappealstoscience.JournalofSocialIssues,70(3),473-488.
doi:10.1111/josi.12072
Haslam,S.A.,Reicher,S.D.,Millard,K.,&McDonald,R.(2015)Happytohavebeenofservice’:
TheYalearchiveasawindowintotheengagedfollowershipofparticipantsinMilgram's
‘obedience’experiments.BritishJournalofSocialPsychology,54,55–83.
doi10.1111/bjso.12074
Higgins,E.T.(2012).Beyondpleasureandpain:Howmotivationworks.NewYork:Oxford
UniversityPress.
Hildebrand-Saints,L.,&Weary,G.(1989).Depressionandsocialinformationgathering.
PersonalityandSocialPsychologyBulletin,15,150-160.
Hiroto,D.S.,&Seligman,M.E.P.(1975).Generalityoflearnedhelplessnessinman.Journalof
PersonalityandSocialPsychology,31,311–327.
Hockey,G.R.J.,&Earle,F.(2006).Controlovertheschedulingofsimulatedofficeworkreduces
theimpactofworkloadonmentalfatigueandtaskperformance.Journalof
ExperimentalPsychology:Applied,12,50-65.
Hornsey,M.J.,&Jetten,J.(2004).Theindividualwithinthegroup:Balancingtheneedtobelong
withtheneedtobedifferent.PersonalityandSocialPsychologyReview,8,248-264.
InzlichtM.,SchmeichelB.J.,MacraeC.N.(2014).Whyself-controlseems(butmaynotbe)
limited.TrendsinCognitiveSciences,18,127–133.doi:10.1016/j.tics.2013.12.009
Inzlicht,M.,&Schmeichel,B.J.(2012).Whatisegodepletion?Towardamechanisticrevisionof
theresourcemodelofself-control.PerspectivesonPsychologicalScience,7(5),450-463.
51
Jaccard,J.,Blanton,H.,&Dodge,T.(2005).Effectsofpeernetworksonadolescentrisk
behavior.DevelopmentalPsychology,41(1),135–147.
Jahoda,M.(1959).Conformityandindependence.HumanRelations,12,99-120.
Jetten,J.,&Hornsey,M.J.(2012).Conformity:BeyondtheAschlinejudgmentstudies.InJ.
SmithandS.A.Haslam(Eds.),Refreshingsocialpsychology:Beyondtheclassicstudies
(pp.76-90).London,UK:Sage.
Jetten,J.,&Hornsey,M.J.(2014).Devianceanddissentingroups.AnnualReviewof
Psychology,65,461-485.
Kassin,S.,Fein,S.,&Markus,H.R.(2008).Socialpsychology(7thed.).Boston,MA:Houghton
MifflinCompany.
Kerr,N.L.(1998).HARKing:Hypothesizingaftertheresultsareknown.PersonalityandSocial
PsychologyReview,2(3),196-217.
Kofta,M.,&Sedek,G.(1999).Uncontrollabilityasirreducibleuncertainty.EuropeanJournalof
SocialPsychology,29,577-590.
Kray,L.J.,Thompson,L.,&Galinsky,A.(2001).Battleofthesexes:Genderstereotype
confirmationandreactanceinnegotiations.JournalofPersonalityandSocial
Psychology,80,942–958.
Kray,L.J.,Reb,J.,Galinsky,A.D.,&Thompson,L.(2004).Stereotypereactanceatthebargaining
table:Theeffectofstereotypeactivationandpoweronclaimingandcreating
value.PersonalityandSocialPsychologyBulletin,30,399-411.
Krueger,J.I.,&Funder,D.C.(2004).Socialpsychology:Afieldinsearchofacenter.Behavioral
andBrainSciences,27(3),361-367.doi:10.1017/S0140525X04570085
52
Kurzban,R.(2010).Doesthebrainconsumeadditionalglucoseduringself-controltasks?
EvolutionaryPsychology,8,244-259.
Langer,E.J.,Blank,A.,&Chanowitz,B.(1978).Themindlessnessofostensiblythoughtfulaction:
Theroleof“placebic”informationininterpersonalinteraction.JournalofPersonality
andSocialPsychology,36(6),635-642.doi:10.1037/0022-3514.36.6.635
Langer,E.J.,&Newman,H.(1979).Themindlessnessofthetypicalsocialpsychological
experiment.PersonalityandSocialPsychologyBulletin,5,295-298.
LeBon,G.(1947).TheCrowd.NewYork,NY:Macmillan.
Legault,L.,Green-Demers,I.,Eadie,A.L.(2009).Wheninternalizationleadstoautomatization:
Theroleofself-determinationinautomaticstereotypesuppressionandimplicit
prejudiceregulation.MotivationandEmotion,33(1),10-24.
Levine,M.,&Crowther,S.(2008).Theresponsivebystander:Howsocialgroupmembership
andgroupsizecanencourageaswellasinhibitbystanderintervention.Journalof
PersonalSocialPsychology,95(6),1429-1439.DOI:10.1037/a0012634.
Levy,B.(1996).Improvingmemoryinoldagebyimplicitself-stereotyping.Journalof
PersonalityandSocialPsychology,71,1092-1107.
Lewin,K.(1946).Behavioranddevelopmentasafunctionofthetotalsituation.InK.Lewin(Ed.),
Fieldtheoryinsocialscience(pp.238-305).NewYork:Harper&Row.
Lewis,N.A.&Sekaquaptewa,D.(2016).Beyondtestperformance:Abroaderviewof
stereotypethreat.CurrentOpinioninPsychology,11,40-43.
doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.05.002
53
Manning,R.,Levine,M.,&Collins,A.(2007).TheKittyGenovesemurderandthesocial
psychologyofhelping:Theparableofthe38witnesses.AmericanPsychologist,26(6),
555-562.doi:10.1037/0003-066X.62.6.555
Markus,H.R.,&Kitayama,S.(1994).Culturesandselves:Acycleofmutualconstitution.
PsychologicalScience,5(4),420-430.doi:10.1177/1745691610375557
McAdams,D.P.(1993).Thestoriesweliveby:Personalmythsandthemaking
McCaul,K.D.(1983).Observerattributionsofdepressedstudents.PersonalityandSocial
PsychologyBulletin,9,74-82.
McGuire,W.J.(1973).Theyinandyangofprogressinsocialpsychology:Sevenkoan.Journalof
PersonalityandSocialPsychology,26,446-456.
Milgram,S.(1963).Behavioralstudyofobedience.JournalofAbnormalandSocialPsychology,
67(4),371-378.doi:10.1037/h0040525
Milgram,S.(1974).Obediencetoauthority:Anexperimentalview.NewYork:HarperandRow.
Molden,D.C.,Hui,C.M.,Scholer,A.A.,Meier,B.P.,Noreen,E.E.,D’Agostino,P.R.,&Martin,
V.(2012).Motivationalversusmetaboliceffectsofcarbohydratesonself-control.
PsychologicalScience,23(10),1137-1144.doi:10.1177/0956797612439069
Mook,D.G.(1983).Indefenseofexternalvalidity.AmericanPsychologist,38,379-387.
Morton,T.A.,Haslam,S.A.,Postmes,T.,&Ryan,M.K.(2006).Wevaluewhatvaluesus:The
appealofidentity-affirmingscience.PoliticalPsychology,27,823-838.
DOI:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2006.00539.
Moscovici,S.(1976).Socialinfluenceandsocialchange.London:AcademicPress.
54
Muraven,M.&Baumeister,R.F.(2000).Self-regulationanddepletionoflimitedresources:
Doesself-controlresembleamuscle?PsychologicalBulletin,126(2),247-259.
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.126.2.247
Myers,D.G.(2014).Socialpsychology.NorthRyde,Australia:McGraw-HillEducation.
Nisbett,R.E.,&Wilson,T.D.(1979).Tellingmorethanwecanknow:Verbalreportsonmental
processes.PsychologicalReview,84,231-259.
Pandey,K.,Stevenson,C.,Shankar,S.,Hopkins,N.P.,&Reicher,S.D.(2013).Coldcomfortat
theMaghMela:Socialidentityprocessesandphysicalhardship.BritishJournalofSocial
Psychology,53,675-690.
Perry,G.(2013).BehindtheShockMachine:TheUntoldStoryoftheNotoriousMilgram
PsychologyExperiments.TheNewPress:NewYork.
Pittman,T.S.,&D'Agostino,P.R.(1989).Motivationandcognition:Controldeprivationand
thenatureofsubsequentinformationprocessing.JournalofExperimentalSocial
Psychology,25,465-480.
Pittman,T.S.,&Pittman,N.L.(1980).Deprivationofcontrolandtheattributionprocess.
JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,39,377-389.
Pittman,T.S.,Quattrone,G.,&Jones,E.E.(1985).Controldeprivationandtheaccuracyof
attributionalinferences.PaperpresentedatthemeetingoftheEasternPsychological
Association,Boston.
Pittman,T.S.,&D'Agostino,P.R.(1985).Motivationandattribution:Theeffectsofcontrol
deprivationonsubsequentinformationprocessing.InG.Weary&J.Harvey(Eds.),
Attribution:Basicissuesandapplications(pp.117-141).NewYork:AcademicPress.
55
Postmes,T.,&Spears,R.(1998).Deindividuationandantinormativebehavior:Ametaanalysis.PsychologicalBulletin,123,238-259.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/00332909.123.3.238
Quarantelli,E.L.(2001).Panic,sociologyof.InN.J.Smelser&P.B.Baltes(Eds.),International
encyclopediaofthesocialandbehaviouralsciences(pp.11020-11023).NewYork:
PergamonPress.
Reicher,S.D.(1984).TheSt.Paulsriot:Anexplanationofthelimitsofcrowdactionintermsof
asocialidentitymodel.EuropeanJournalofSocialPsychology,14,1-21.
Reicher,S.D.,Haslam,S.A.,&Smith,J.R.(2012).Workingtowardstheexperimenter:
ReconceptualizingobediencewithintheMilgramparadigmasidentification-based
followership.PerspectivesonPsychologicalScience,7,315-324.doi:
10.1177/1745691612448482.
Reicher,S.D.,&Haslam,S.A.(2006).Ontheagencyofindividualsandgroups:Lessonsfromthe
BBCPrisonStudy.InT.Postmes&J.Jetten(Eds.),Individualityandthegroup:Advances
insocialidentity(pp.237-257).London:Sage.
Ross,L.(1977).Theintuitivepsychologistandhisshortcomings:Distortionsintheattribution
process.InBerkowitz,L.(Ed.),Advancesinexperimentalsocialpsychology(pp.173–220).
NewYork:AcademicPress.
Ross,L.,&Nisbett,R.E.(1991).Thepersonandthesituation:Perspectivesofsocialpsychology.
Philadelphia:TempleUniversityPress.
Rozin,P.(2001).Socialpsychologyandscience:SomelessonsfromSolomonAsch.Personality
andSocialPsychologyReview,5,2-14.
56
Russell,N.J.C.(2011).Milgram'sObediencetoAuthorityexperiments:Originsandearly
evolution.BritishJournalofSocialPsychology,50(1),140-162.
Sackett,P.R.,Hardison,C.M.,Cullen,M.J.(2004).Oninterpretingstereotypethreatas
accountingforAfricanAmerican-Whitedifferencesoncognitivetests.American
Psychologist,59(1),7–13.DOI:10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.7
Schlesinger,A.(2004).TheSchlesingerReport:AninvestigationofAbuGhraib.NewYork:
CasimoInc.
Schmader,T.,Johns,M.&Forbes,C.(2008).Anintegratedprocessmodelofstereotypethreat
effectsonperformance.PsychologicalReview,115(2),336-356.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.115.2.336
Schmader,T.J.,&Michael.,F.C.(2008).Anintegratedprocessmodelofstereotypethreat
effectsonperformance.PsychologicalReview,115(2),336–356.doi:10.1037/0033295X.115.2.336.
Sedek,G.,&Kofta,M.(1990).Whencognitiveexertiondoesnotyieldcognitivegain:Towardan
informationalexplanationoflearnedhelplessness.JournalofPersonalityandSocial
Psychology,58,729-743.
Seligman,M.E.P.,Steen,T.,Park,N.,&Peterson,C.(2005).Positivepsychologyprogress:
Empiricalvalidationofinterventions.AmericanPsychologist,60,410-421.
Seligman,M.E.P.(1975).Helplessness:Ondepression,development,anddeath.SanFrancisco,
CA:Freeman.
57
Shankar,S.,Stevenson,C.,Pandey,K.,Tewari,S.,Hopkins,N.P.,&Reicher,S.D.(2013).A
calmingcacophony:Socialidentitycanshapetheexperienceofloudnoise.Journalof
EnvironmentalPsychology,36,87–95.doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.07.004
Simmons,J.P.,Nelson,L.D.,&Simmonsohn,U.(2012).A21-wordsolution.Dialogue:The
officialnewsletteroftheSocietyforPersonalityandSocialPsychology,26,4-7.
Skitka,L.(2014).Thepsychologicalfoundationsofmoralconviction.InJ.Wright&H.Sarkissian
(Eds.),AdvancesinExperimentalMoralPsychology(pp.148-166).NewYork,NY:
BloomsburyAcademicPress.
Slater,M.,Rovira,A.,Southern,R.,Swapp,D.,Zhang,J.J.,Campbell,C.,&Levine,M.(2013).
Bystanderresponsestoaviolentincidentinanimmersivevirtualenvironment.PLoS
ONE.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0052766
Smelser,N.J.(1962).TheoryofCollectiveBehavior.NewYork:FreePress.
Smith,L.G.,&Postmes,T.(2010).Shapingstereotypicalbehaviourthroughthediscussionof
socialstereotypes.BritishJournalofSocialPsychology,50(1),74-98.doi:
10.1348/014466610X500340.
Snyder,M.,&Ickes,W.(1985).Personalityandsocialbehavior.InG.Lindzey&E.Aronson
(Eds.),Thehandbookofsocialpsychology(3rded.,Vol.2,pp.883-948).NewYork:
McGraw-Hill.
Spears,R.&Smith,H.J.(2001).Experimentsaspolitics.PoliticalPsychology,22,3019-3033.
Spencer,S.J.,Steele,C.M.,&Quinn,D.M.(1999).Stereotypethreatandwomen'smath
performance.JournalofExperimentalSocialPsychology,35,4-28.
58
Steele,C.M.(1997).Athreatintheair:Howstereotypesshapeintellectualidentityand
performance.AmericanPsychologist,52(6),613-629.doi:10.1037/0003-066X.52.6.613
Steele,C.M.,&Aronson,J.(1995).Stereotypethreatandtheintellectualtestperformanceof
AfricanAmericans.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,69(5),797-811.
Stollberg,J.,Fritsche,I.,&Bäcker,A.(2015).Strivingforgroupagency:threattopersonal
controlincreasestheattractivenessofagenticgroups.FrontiersinPsychology,6(article
649).doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00649
Sutton,R.,&Douglas,K.(2013).Socialpsychology.Basingstoke,UK:PalgraveMacmilan.
Swann,W.B.,Jr.(1983).Self-verification:Bringingsocialrealityintoharmonywiththeself.InJ.
Suls&A.Greenwald(Eds.),Psychologicalperspectivesontheself(Vol.2,pp.33-66).
Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum
Swann,W.B.,Jr.(2012).Self-verificationtheory.InP.VanLange,A.Kruglanski,&E.T.Higgins
(Eds.),HandbookofTheoriesofSocialPsychology(pp.23-42).London,UK:Sage.
Swann,W.B.,Jr.,&Ely,R.J.(1984).Abattleofwills:Self-verificationversusbehavioral
confirmation.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,46,1287-1302.
Swann,W.B.,Jr.,&Hill,C.A.(1982).Whenouridentitiesaremistaken:Reaffirmingselfconceptionthroughsocialinteraction.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,43,
59-66.
Swann,W.B.,Jr.,Jetten,J.,Gómez,Á.Whitehouse,H.,&Bastian,B.(2012).Whengroup
membershipgetspersonal:Atheoryofidentityfusion.PsychologicalReview,119,441456.
59
Swann,W.B.,Jr.,Pelham,B.W.,&Chidester,T.(1988).Changethroughparadox:Usingselfverificationtoalterbeliefs.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,54,268-273.
Swann,W.B.,Jr.,&Schroeder,D.G.(1995).Thesearchforbeautyandtruth:Aframeworkfor
understandingreactionstoevaluations.PersonalityandSocialPsychologyBulletin,21,
1307-1318.
Swann,W.B.,Jr.,Stephenson,B.,&Pittman,T.S.(1981).Curiosityandcontrol:Onthe
determinantsofthesearchforsocialknowledge.JournalofPersonalityandSocial
Psychology,40,635-642.
Turner,J.C.,Hogg,M.A.,Oakes,P.J.,Reicher,S.D.&Wetherell,M.S.(1987).Rediscovering
thesocialgroup:Aself-categorizationtheory.Oxford,UK:Blackwell.
Vaughan,G.M.,&Hogg,M.A.(2014).Socialpsychology(7hed.).FrenchForest,Australia:
Pearson.
Vezzali,L.Drury,J.Versari,A.,&Cadamuro,A.(2015)Sharingdistressincreaseshelpingand
contactintentionsviasocialidentificationandinclusionoftheotherintheself:
Children’sprosocialbehaviourafteranearthquake.GroupProcesses&Intergroup
Relations,1–14
Wachtel,P.L.(1973).Psychodynamics,behaviortherapy,andtheimplacableexperimenter:An
inquiryintotheconsistencyofpersonality.JournalofAbnormalPsychology,Vol82(2),
324-334.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0035132
Walton,G.M.,&Spencer,S.J.(2009).Latentability:Gradesandtestscoressystematically
underestimatetheintellectualabilityofnegativelystereotypedstudents.Psychological
Science,20(9),1132-1139.
60
Watson,J.B.(1913).Psychologyasthebehavioristviewsit.PsychologicalReview,20,158-177.
Wilson,T.D.(2002).Strangerstoourselves:Discoveringtheadaptiveunconscious.Cambridge,
MA:BelknapPress.
Wortman,C.B.,&Brehm,J.W.(1975).Reponsestouncontrollableoutcomes:Anintegrationof
reactancetheoryandthelearnedhelplessnessmodel.InL.Berkowitz(Ed),Advancesin
ExperimentalSocialPsychologyVol.8(pp.277–336).NewYork:AcademicPress.
Yost,J.H.&Weary,G.(1996).Depressionandthecorrespondenceinferencebias.Personality
andSocialPsychologyBulletin,22,192-200.
Zimbardo,P.G.(1969).Thehumanchoice:Individuation,reason,andordervs.deindividuation,
impulse,andchaos.InW.J.Arnold&D.Levine(Eds.),NebraskaSymposiumon
Motivation(pp.237-307).Lincoln:UniversityofNebraskaPress.
Zimbardo,P.G.(1971).Thepsychologicalpowerandpathologyofimprisonment.Hearings
beforeSubcommitteeNo.3oftheCommitteeontheJudiciaryHouseofRepresentatives
Ninety-SecondCongress,Firstsessionsoncorrections–PartII,Prisons,prisonreform,
andprisoners’rights:California(SerialNo.15,October25).
Zimbardo,P.G.(2007).TheLucifereffect:Howgoodpeopleturnevil.Douglas,UK:RyderBooks.