All social influence

what is resistance to social influence?

the ability of people to withstand the social pressure to conform or obey can help others to do the same

what are 2 factors to explain resistance of social influence?

• situational - social support

• dispositional - locus of control

how does social support mean help resistance to social influence?

• the presence of people who resist pressure to conform or obey can help others do the same.

• they act as models - show that disobedience/non-conformity is possible

what is a locus of control?

• refers to the sense we have about what directs events in our lives.

what are the 2 locus of control?

• internal

• external

what is an internal locus of control?

when people believe they are mostly responsible for what happens to them

what is an external locus of control?

when people believe what happens to them is mainly a matter of luck or fate

how does locus of control explain resistance to social influence?

high internal LOC are more able to resist pressure to conform or obey actions because:

• they take personal responsibility for their behaviours and their actions

• they base their actions on their own beliefs and not their beliefs of others

how does social support explain resistance to conformity?

• someone else not conforming = social support (don’t have to match your behaviour, just have to be not conforming)

• they act as a model of independence - raises the possibility that there re other ways of thinking

• breaks the unanimity of the majority

how does social support explain resistance to obedience?

• someone else disobeying = social support

• they act as a model of dissent - raises the option of behaving due to your own conscience

• challenged the legitimacy of authority - undermine the agentic shift

what is a dissenter?

an individual who expresses disagreement or opposition to prevailing opinions, decisions or group norms

what is an evaluation point to support social support as an explanation for resistance to social influence? (PET)

P- teen fresh start program supports social support as an explanation for resistance to social influence

E- USA program to help pregnant teens resist pressure to smoke. each teen had a slightly older mentor who provided social support. At the end of the study teens w buddy were significantly less likely to smoke than those without a buddy

T- social support o buddy helped break the unanimity of the majority, buddy = dissenter, enabling the teen to see that not smoking is an option.

what is an evaluation point which only conditionally supports social support as an explanation for resistance to social influence?

P- presence of dissenter reduces conformity but only conditionally

E- Asch like task redone, but with the dissenter with different levels of eyesight (no glasses, thick glasses, thin glasses). More conformed to the dissenter if thy had better eyesight (no glasses)

T- this suggests that we need to take other factors into consideration, not just whether there is social support

what is an evaluation point which supports locus of control as an explanation for resistance to social influence?

• Externals have lower resistance to social influence which means it makes sense for them to conform more to normative social influence

• Externals conform more to normative social influence but there is no difference in terms of informational social influence

• Not as straight forward as external and internal

• There is an interaction with the type of social influence that individuals are exposed to - again suggesting locus of control is only a partial explanation.

what is an evaluation point against locus of control being an explanation for resistance to social influence?

• Meta analysis of 40 studies, overtime people became more resistant to obedience but also more external

• If people became more disobedient over time it would be assumed they were becoming more internal as internal people make choices based off their own decisions not other peoples and so they are more likely to disobey.

• However, they became more external which doesn't make sense

who did a key study on obedience?

• Milgram

what was Milgram’s procedure?

• 40 participants.

• Told it was a study to test effects of punishment on learning.

• 2 confederates: an experimenter and a 47 year old man who was the 'learner'.

• Teacher had to ask questions to the learner and every time they got one wrong the teacher gave them increasingly large electric shocks, starting at 15 volts and getting to 450 volts in 15 volt increments.

• The learner mainly gave wrong answers and received his 'fake' shocks.

• After 300 and 315V shock the 'learner' pounded on the walls and screamed then remained silent on the remaining questions. 

• If the 'teacher' asked to stop at any point the experimenter insisting they 'must go on'.

• 'Teachers' were stressed anxious and wanting to stop, 3 even had full seizures from stress.

what were Milgram’s findings?

• Before study Milgram asked people to predict how long participants would go before refusing.

• Majority predicted that many few would go past 150V and only 1 in 1000 would administer the full 450V.

• However, in reality 26 of 40 (65%) continued to maximum shock level.

what happened after Milgram carried out his procedure?

• Had a debrief afterwards.

• Behaviour was assured it normal.

• Sent a follow up questionnaire and 84% said they were glad they participated.

• Milgram concluded German people are not different.
  

what was Milgram’s aim?

To investigate whether ordinary people would obey an authority figure, even when the instructions conflicted with their personal conscience.

what were Milgram’s 5 variations?

• location

• proximity 1

• proximity 2

• proximity 3

• uniform

how did the location variable change Milgram’s study, what was found and what was the explanation for this?

• Went from Yale to a rundown office block.

• Decrease to 48% obedience to 450 V.

• Legitimacy was lower which explains the decrease in obedience but it is still high as it is still a scientific study they have consented to.

how did the proximity 1 variable change Milgram’s study, what was found and what was the explanation for this?

• Teacher and learner in same room.

• Decrease to 40% obedience at 450 V.

• Its more personal and they can see the effects.

how did the proximity 2 variable change Milgram’s study, what was found and what was the explanation for this?

• Teacher forces learners hand onto the shock plate.

• Decrease to 30% obedience at 450V.

• Even less psychological distance from effect of actions.

how did the proximity 3 variable change Milgram’s study, what was found and what was the explanation for this?

• Experimenter was out the room and gave instructions via telephone.

• Decrease to 20.5% obedience at 450 V.

• Participants pretended to give shocks, or pretended to increase volts but actually stayed on lower voltage.

• Much easier to resist obedience if there is distance between authority figure and individual.

how did the uniform variable change Milgram’s study, what was found and what was the explanation for this?

• Experimenter called away and replaced by 'member of public'.

• Decrease to 20% obedience at 450 V.

• Looked less official. Uniform is a recognised symbol of authority – legitimacy reduced with ordinary clothes.

what is one strength (research support) of Milgram’s study?

• it has been replicated many times (high external validity)

• another researcher used 'Obedience Lite' approach to avoid ethical issues in Milgram's procedure.

• After participant reached 150 volt level, the data collection ended.

• Anyone who reached this point was classes as fully obedient as Milgram found 79% of participants who went beyond 150V continued to the end.

what are some alternative explanations to Milgram’s experiment?

• Blind obedience may not be justified.

• When participants were given the prompt 'You have no choice you must go on.' every participant stopped and disobeyed. 

• When other participants were given the prompt 'the experiment requires you to continue', they continued.

• This shows social identity theory.

• This shows identifying with science is a reason for obedience.

what is other research supporting what Milgram found in his uniform variation?

• Field experiment conducted in New York City

• Had 3 confederates dressed in different outfits – jacket and tie, a milkman's outfit and a security guards uniform.

• Confederates individually stood on the street and asked by passers to perform tasks such as picking up litter or handing over a coin for a parking meter.

• People were twice as likely to obey the security guard then the one in a jacket and tie.

• Supports the view that a situational variable, such as uniform, does have a powerful effect on obedience.

what were the cross cultural replications of Milgram’s study and what did they find?

• Milgram's findings have been replicated in different cultures.

• For example another set of researchers did a test on obedience (more realistic) on Dutch participants (women and men)

• Participants were ordered to say stressful things at an interviewee (a confederate) desperate for a job.

• They found 90% of participants obeyed.

• Researchers also tested effects of proximity.

• When person giving orders wasn’t present, obedience decreased.

• Proves Milgram's findings weren't just limited to American men.

what is a social hierarchy and how does this effect authority?

• societies are structured in a hierarchal way

• people in higher positions in the hierarchy have authority over those above below them

• this authority is legitimate because it is agreed by society

• it allows society to function effectively

what is legitimacy of authority?

• an individuals authority is justified by the position they have in the social hierarchy

• legitimate = real or justified

what is the agentic state?

• a mental state where we feel no responsibility for our own state - we believe we are agents of the authority figure e.g. acting on their behalf, obeying destructive authority

what is the autonomous state?

a mental state where we are free to behave as we choose, according to our own principles - we feel responsible for our own actions

when does the agentic shift happen?

cognitive shift from autonomous to agentic state occurs when given an order by someone higher in the social hierarchy e.g. someone with legitimate authority

what are binding factors?

aspects of social situations that make disobedience difficult or aspects that allow one to minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour e.g. factors which keep people in the agentic state

what is some research to support the agentic shift as an explanation for obedience? (PET)

P- research support from Milgram’s own studies

E- most commonly asked q in study was ‘who takes responsibility?’ as soon as experimenter took responsibility the P’s continued quickly

T- therefore, as no longer felt responsible they obeyed. Suggests that obedience occurred when P’s had undergone agentic shift.

what is an evaluation point against the agentic shift as an explanation for obedience? (PET)

P- agentic state cannot explain the diff in obedience across the variations

E- in all variations relating to proximity and location orders were given by legit authority. Therefore, agentic state explanation means that P’s shld shift to agentic state in all conditions and obedience should be the same

T- this suggests that other characteristics of the situation also affect and explain obedience - agentic state and legit authority are not a full explanation

what is a dispositional explanation?

suggests a behaviour is due to internal traits such as personality, rather than situational/external factors

what is an authoritarian personality?

a personality type defined by Adorno as being especially susceptible to obeying authority.

what type of explanation is authoritarian personality (important)?

a dispositional explanation

what are some characteristics of someone with an authoritarian personality?

• extreme respect for authority - susceptible to obeying those in authority

• inflexible outlook (black and white)

• harsh/hostile and dismissive towards people perceived as having a lower status than themselves (social hierarchy)

what are the origins of authoritarian personality? (how is it caused)

• developed due to harsh parenting: strict/rigid discipline, expectations of extreme loyalty, impossibly high standards, severe critisisms of failing

• conditional love in childhood

how does harsh parenting cause authoritarian personality?

• creates resentment and hostility in child

• child cant express this to parents

• child uses scapegoating and so displaces resentment onto inferiors

what research is there into the authoritarian personality?

• 2000 middle class white Americans - unconscious attitudes to racial groups

• used the F scale (fascist scale) - questionnaire ^agree or disagree with the statements

• found high scores on the f scale linked with: identification with the string, contempt towards the weak, deference and servility to those of higher status and black & white thinking

what is an evaluation point supporting the authoritarian personality and one that links not supporting it?

P- research support from Milgram and Elms in 1966

E- interviewed P’s from M’s original study

compared F scale score for fully obedient vs disobedient

sig diff - fully obedient score sig higher

also found obedient reported = less close to fathers

T - demonstrates link between AP and obedience

• However, further investigation revealed that many fully obedient participants did have a good relationship with their parents.

• contrary to the harsh parenting associated with the authoritarian personality.

• implausible that the high number of obedient participants in Milgram's study all had poor relationships and harboured resentment.

• suggests there are important differences between authoritarianism and proneness to obedience which needs to be considered.

what is another evaluation point against the authoritarian personality being an explanation for obedience?

P- could be argued that AP is a deterministic approach to explain obedience

E- AP explanation of obedience suggests all children who have harsh parents and use defence mechanisms will become highly obedient (to the point of obeying malevolent authority -e.g. holocaust)

also does not fit with our perception of free will and control over our destinies

T- problem as it suggests AP is intergenerational cycle of obedience and cannot be broken, which we know is not true in all cases

define social influence

The process by which a person's attitudes, beliefs or behaviours are modified by the presence or action of others.

Who proposed the 2 types of conformity and in what year?

Kelman in 1958

What are the 2 types of conformity?

• compliance

• internalisation

what is compliance?

• People often follow the group to gain approval or avoid rejection.

• When they see what most others think or do, they compare themselves and adjust their behaviour to fit in.

• Wanting to fit in motivates this type of conformity.

• It only changes what people say or do in public, not their true private beliefs.

what is internalisation?

• People may follow the group because they genuinely believe the group is right.

• They use the groups opinions as information for reality.

• Hearing others’ opinions makes them reflect on their own and check whether they might be mistaken.

• After thinking it through, they may decide the group’s answer makes more sense than their own.

• This is more likely if the group is trusted and has been right before.

• This leads to a real change in beliefs, both publicly and privately.

What is the differences between compliance and internalisation?

• Compliance:

  • A shallow form of conformity.

  • A person agrees with the group publicly.

  • They keep their true private beliefs unchanged.

• Internalisation:

  • A deep form of conformity.

  • A person genuinely accepts the group’s beliefs.

  • Their beliefs change both publicly and privately.

what are the 2 explanations for conformity?

• Normative social influence

• Informative social influence

what is normative social influence?

• People can go along with the majority without genuinely accepting their views.

• This is called compliance.

• Humans naturally seek social acceptance and fear rejection.

• This forms the basis of normative social influence—conforming to gain approval, avoid disapproval, or achieve social goals.

• Normative influence is most likely when individuals believe they are being watched or judged by the group.

• When this happens, people conform publicly, but their private beliefs stay the same and the change does not last over time (Nail, 1986).

• Example: On social media, users often adjust their beliefs or attitudes to match those of others.

• Example: Online comments can influence how readers interpret and evaluate news (Alknjr, 2023).

what is informative social influence?

• Informational influence happens when someone accepts others’ information as evidence about what is true.

• People not only want acceptance but also want to feel confident that their beliefs and perceptions are correct.

• At first, they may try to check facts for themselves, but if that isn’t possible, they rely on what others say.

• Informational influence is strongest when a situation is unclear or ambiguous.

• In these cases, people don’t just change their behaviour publicly—they also change their beliefs to match the group.

• Because both public and private attitudes change, this is a form of internalisation.

what are 3 evaluation points surrounding the reasoning for conformity?

• Distinguishing between compliance and internalisation - its assumed that  a person who publicity agrees with a majority yet disagrees with them in private is demonstrating compliance rather than internalisation. However, it is also possible that acceptance of the group's views has occurred in public dissipates later when in private.

• Normative influence may not be detected – it is possible that people don't actually recognise the behaviour of others as a casual factor in their own behaviour.

• Informational influence doesn't fully account for individual differences in conformity - not everyone conforms to the same extent in ambiguous situations.

 

what is a minority influence?

a form of social influence which a minority influences the majority to adopt their beliefs, attitudes and behaviours

what does minority influence usually lead to?

internalisation or conversion = public and private change

how is minority influence different to conformity?

• Minority influence = when the minority influences majority, this leads to internalisation or conversion

• For majority (conformity), majority is influencing minority this leads to compliance or internalisation

how is minority influence similar to conformity?

• it is a form of social influence - there is a change in behaviour and attitude of some people as a result of exposure to the attitudes and behaviours of others

what is the key study for minority influence?

Moscovici et al.

what was the procedure of Moscovici’s research?

• Each group comprised four naïve participants and a minority of 2 confederates

• There was a control group with no confederates

• They were shown a series of blue slides which varied in intensity and were asked to judge the colour of the slide. (confederates said green)

• There were 3 conditions: 2 confederates who were consistently giving the wrong answer, 2 confederates who gave the wrong answer 2/3's of the time (inconsistent) and one control group with 0 confederates

what were Moscovici’s findings?

• Consistent condition = 8% influenced

• Inconsistent condition = 1.25% influenced

• Control condition = 0.25% influenced

what were Moscovici’s conclusions?

• Small but significant changes

• Minority can sway the majority

• Consistency is very important - 8% is significantly different to 1.25%, so it is unlikely that the change in opinion is due to chance

what are 3 factors to consider in minority influence?

• consistency

• flexibility

• commitment

what is consistency in minority influence and what does it do?

• Keeping the same beliefs

• Over time = diachronic

• Between members = synchronic

• Draws attention

• Increases amount of interest

• Makes people start to evaluate and consider views in comparison

what is flexibility in minority influence and what does it do?

• Majority may need to be prepared to adapt their position

• e.g. accept reasoning and valid counterargument

• Not flexible creates rigid, unbending and dogmatic minority

• Minorities have to strike the right balance between consistency and flexibility (too flexible then it'll undermine the consistency)

what is commitment in minority influence and what does it do?

• Demonstration of their dedication

• e.g. personal sacrifices (like the suffragettes)

• Extreme activities draw attention

• If risky then it'll draw even more attention = augmentation principle

how do we explain the process of change due to minority influence?

• New information makes people stop and think

• This causes deeper processing - makes people compare their own views to the minority view

• This can lead to conversion

• This then has the snowball effect as the more this happens the faster the conversion rate

• This then makes the minority view become the majority view

what is an evaluation point to support the role of consistency in minority influence?

P- research support for the role of consistency

E- Moscovici et al (1969) see previous notes

  - Wood at al (1994) meta-analysis - 100 studies - found that minorities who were consistent were the most influential

T- consistency is a minimum for a minority to be influential

research support for internalisation in minority influence

P- research support for internalisation

E- After study conducted by Moscovici - used coloured discs and asked them to sort them into blue or green, 3 definitely blue, 3 definitely green and 10 ambiguous (could be blue or green). The groups who had the consistent confederates sorted more into the green pile than the inconsistent group.

T- therefore, this shows their views have changed both in public and private meaning they have undergone internalisation

weakness of Moscovici’s research on minority influence?

P- artificial task

E- colour of slides vs issues with real consequences for people's lives

T- generalisability issue - lacks mundane realism 

What was Asch’s aim?

To see how a singular real participant would act to the behaviour of the confederates

What was Asch’s procedure?

• 123 male US undergraduates took part in the study.

• Only one person in each group was a real participant; the rest were actors (confederates).

• Everyone sat around a table and looked at a standard line.

• They were then shown three comparison lines of clearly different lengths and asked to choose which one matched the original line.

• Each person gave their answer out loud, with the real participant responding near the end.

• In 12 out of 18 trials, the actors intentionally gave the same wrong answer to see whether the real participant would conform and also choose the obvious wrong line.

What were Asch’s findings?

• In the 12 critical trials, participants gave the wrong (conforming) answer 36.8% of the time on average.

• There were clear individual differences:

  • 25% never conformed,

  • 50% conformed on 6 or more trials,

  • 5% conformed on all 12 critical trials.

• A control condition (with no confederates) showed participants made errors only 1% of the time, proving the task was easy and the correct answer was obvious.

• Post-study interviews revealed that most people who conformed knew the correct answer privately but changed their response to avoid social disapproval.

what year did Asch conduct his study in?

1951

what were the 3 variables Asch researched?

• unanimity of majority

• group size

• task difficulty

how did the experiment change for the group size variable and what effect did it have on conformity (Asch variable)?

• More confederates took part making a majority.

• When more confederates join, conformity increases.

• However, further increases of confederates above the number of 3 didn’t significantly affect conformity.

how did the experiment change for the unanimity of majority variable and what effect did it have on conformity (Asch variable)?

• Another non confederate was added or a confederate who was instructed to give the right answer.

• The percentage of wrong answers dropped from 33% to 5.5%.

how did the experiment change for the task difficulty variable and what effect did it have on conformity (Asch variable)?

• Asch made the differences between the lines much smaller and so the wrong answer less obvious.

• Levels of conformity increased, when a situation is ambiguous people are more likely to look to others to rely on for reassurance.

how good is the population validity in Asch’s study?

• Asch's study lacks population validity due to the sample he used which was only undergraduate males.

• This is not representative of the entirety of society as in society there is other genders, ages and races in the global population which therefore suggests it can't be generalised past male undergraduates.

how good is the temporal validity in Asch’s study?

• Asch's study lacks temporal validity as it was in the 1950's which makes it outdated as it was post-world war two which made conformity high.

• This suggests it is not representative of conformity today.

how good is the ecological validity in Asch’s study?

• The ecological validity of Asch's study is low as being in a classroom setting is a more intense setting then other places in day to day life.

• This suggests that conformity could be altered due to feeling pressure to get it correct in that setting, meaning it can't be generalised.

how is the mundane realism of Asch’s study?

• Asch's study has low mundane realism as it is an very unlikely we would ever have to compare obviously different lengths of lines in front of random people in day to day life.

• Therefore, this means it cannot be generalised to conformity in day to day life

define social influence

the process by which a person's attitudes, beliefs or behaviours are modified by the presence or action of others