PSYCHOLOGY - SOCIAL INFLUENCE

What is the definition of conformity?

A change in behaviour or belief as a result of real or imagined group pressure

What is compliance?

The individual changes their behaviour to fit in with the group. They don't necessarily privately agree with the behaviour or belief, but they agree publicly.

What is identification?

The individual adopts the behaviour or beliefs of a group. They may or may not privately agree. They accept the groups norms out of a desire for a relationshipor association ith a group.

What is internalisation?

The individual accepts the behaviour or belief of the majority both privately and publicly, and it becomes a part of their own belief system.

What is normative social influence?

Conforming to a majority to avoid rejection. Its driven by a desire to be liked and gain social approval. NSI leads to compliance.

What is informational social influence?

Conforming to the majority because of a desire to be correct in situations where the right action or belief is ambiguous. ISI is driven by a belief that others have more knowledge and correct information. leads to internalisation.

What was the procedure of Asch (1951) study?

Groups of 8-10 male college students, only one was an actual participant, and the others were confederates. 
Participants were shown a standard line and three comparison lines. They were asked to publicly identify which of the three lines matched the standard line in length. The real participant was seated, so they would always answer near the end after most answers had already been given. Six control trials were conducted where confederates gave the correct answer, and in 12 critical trials, confederates were instructed o give the same incorrect answer unanimously.

What were Aschs (1951) findings and what did the research therefore suggest?

A significant degree of conformity was shown, with about 75% of participants conforming at least once, 5% conforming every time, and the overall conformity rate in the critical trials being around 32%.

The research therefore suggests that people will conform due to normative social influence; they conform for social approval, avoiding rejection or being seen as an outcast.

What happened in Asch (1951) group size variation?

Asch varied the number of confederates from 1-16,.with only one confederate, conformity was only 3%. with two confederates, conformity was 13%. With 3 confederates, conformity was 33%. Conformity rate remained steady after this point, with a rate of 31% at 16 confederates. 

What happened in Asch (1951) unanimity variation?

A confederate broke the groups unanimity by responding correctly. In this variation, the conformity rate dropped to 5.5%. This suggests the presence of a dissenter provides social support.

What happened in Asch (1951) Task difficulty variation?

Asch repeated the experiment with smaller differences between the line lengths, making the task more ambiguous. In this more difficult condition, the rate of conformity increased. Asch argued that this was due to participants being more uncertain about their judgements, making them more susceptible to informational social influence.

What's a strength of Asch (1951) line study?

High internal validity - It was carefully controlled, and standardised procedures were followed, giving each participant presicely the same experience

What's a limitation of Asch (1951) line study? 

Perrin and Spencer (1981) argue Asch's work lacks temporal validity, suggesting the high conformity rates were due to cultural conditions in cold was 1950's America. In their 1980's replication with British students, they found conformity was only in one trial out of 396. They suggested that societal changes may exlain the lower conformity rates they observed.

What is both a strength and limitation of Asch's (1951) line study?

Asch used an entirely American sample, and are critisised for being culturally biased. However the use of clear standardised procedures has led to multiple replications, allowing the assessment of conformity in multiple cultures. In a meta-analysis of 133 studies across 17 countries, Bond (1996) found support for Asch's original findings but also a much higher conformity rate in collectivist cultures compared to individualistic societies. This suggests the pressure to conform is not universal but is influenced by cultural background.

What are the evaluation strengths for explanations of conformity?

Asch's original research supports NSI, 75% if participants conformed to the incorrect majority at least once despite the correct unambiguous. Participants conformed not because they were unsure of the correct answer, but because they wanted to avoid the discomfort of standing out. This is further supported by a variation in which participants could privately write down their responses, avoiding disproval. In this variation, the conformity rate dropped to 12.5%.

What are the evaluation limitations of the explanation of conformity?

There are alternative dispositional factors that suggest that conformity is not solely determined by situational factors. Affiliators strongly desire to belong to a group, e liked, and maintain positive interpersonal relationships. As these individuals are more sensitive to social rejection, they are more likely to conform. In contrast, individuals with high confidence or an internal locus of control are less likely to be influenced by the pressure to conform.

What is obedience?

Behaviour in compliance with a direct command, often issued by a person of authority

What was Milgaram’s (1963) procedure?

Advertised his study as a memory study to avoid biasing the results. 40 male participants were greeted by individuals they assumed were a scientist in a lab coat and a participant; these were confederates.
The roles of “teacher” and “learner” were assigned, with the setup fixed so that the real participant was always the teacher. The learner was then strapped to a chair and connected to electrodes.
The real participant was led to another room containing a device with switches labelled from 15 to 450 volts, with the descriptions ranging from slight shock to danger. The teachers task was to ask the learner questions and give an electric shock for each incorrect answer, escalating the voltage by 15v for each mistake.
As the socks increased, the participant could hear the learners reactions from the other room and silence after 300v.
If a participant questioned their responsibility, the scientist would say that he was responsible for the experiment. If the participant refused to continue with the shocks, the scientist would encourage continuation using a series of four scripted prompts: “please continue”, “The experiment requires that you continue”, “it is absolutely essential that you continue”, and “you have no other choice, you must go on.”

What were Milgram’s (1963) findings and what does the research suggest?

100% of participants shocked up to 300v, 65% of participants continued all the way to 450v.

the research suggests the majority of people will follow the orders of an authority figure, even if the order will lead to harm.

What is the agentic state?

A mental state in which the individual sees themselves as acting as an agent of an authority figure, and the individual doesn’t feel guilt or responsibility for their behaviour, since they believe it lies with the authority figure.

What is the autonomous state?

Occurs when individuals act according to their principles and feel responsible for their actions.

What is the agentic shift?

the movement from an autonomous state to an agentic state happens in the presence of an authority figure.

What is legitimacy of authority?

Where through socialisation, people learn their position within the social hierarchy. It’s communicated through visible symbols such as uniform, and settings such as police stations, centres of government, and courts, can also communicate legitimacy of authority.

What were Milgram’s situational variable and how were they carried out?

Proximity - The authority figure provided instructions via telephone. Obedience rates dropped from 65% to 21%.
Location - Milgram initially held his experiment at Yale university, and when replicated at a run-down office block, obedience rate dropped to 47.5%.
Uniform - Milgram’s original experimenter wore a grey lab coat. In one variation, the researcher in the lab coat received a phone call, made an excuse to leave, and was replaced by another confederate dressed in regular clothes; this new experimenter had reduced legitimacy of authority, explaining the drop in obedience rate to 20%.

What is a strength of explanations of obedience?

Milgram argues that his participants act with extreme obedience due to being in an agentic state; when questioned the experimenter accepts responsibility for any harm to the learner and the scientist wore a grey lab coat and had legitimacy of authority in the Yale university. The manipulation of these variables supports Milgram’s conclusions. Obedience dropped in uniform, distance, and, and location.

What are the limitations of explanations of obedience?

Milgram’s research for the agentic state and legitimacy of authority has been criticised for multiple methodological flaws. The tasks, shocking, lacks mundane realism; cant be compared to everyday life. It also lacks ecological validity since the environment of Yale university isn’t normal for participants. Orne and Holland (1968) claim the task was so unusual the participants might’ve figured out they weren’t actually shocking anyone and acted to demand characteristics. Another issue is gender bias, since only men were tested and therefore the results cannot be generalised to women.

A significant proportion, 35%, resisted the authority figure; this level of resistance cant be explained by situational factors of agentic state and legitimacy of authority alone, as each participant had precisely the same experience. However Adorno’s dispositional authoritarian personality theory acknowledges that the willingness to obey an authority figure could vary from person to person.

What are the strengths of evaluating Milgram’s experiment (and variations)?

• Milgram’s use of standardised procedures led to a high level of control, ensuring each participant had the same level of experience. The clear instructions also enabled replications. The results found in Milgram’s original experiment have been shown by Blass (2012) to be reliable bot across eight additional countries and across time periods.

• Holfing (1966) conducted a field experiment in a hospital. 22 real nurses were called by an unfamiliar voice claiming to be Dr Smith; he ordered the nurses to give twice the daily dose of an unfamiliar drug to a patient. Unknown to the nurses it was a placebo. 21out of 22 nurses completed this order, suggesting that even in a situation with ecological validity, and a task with mundane realism, people are highly obedient to those they feel have legitimacy of authority.

• Bickman (1974) conducted a filed experiment in the ecologically valid environment of the streets of New York. An experimenter approached passers by in either a guard uniform, a milkman’s uniform, or no uniform at all, and asked them to complete a task. When asked to play for a parking meter, the obedience rate was 89% when dressed in the guard uniform and only 33% in no uniform. This study supports Milgram’s theory that uniforms are a visible symbol of authority.

• Sherdian and King (1972) avoided the possibilities of demand characteristics and gender bias by ordering 13 male and 13 female participants to deliver real electric shocks to a puppy by electrifying the puppy’s cage, causing it to run, yelp, and howl. At the more intense shock levels, the puppy responded more strongly. Despite many participants showing extreme emotional reactions, 54% of the male and 100% of the female delivered the maximum shock to the puppies.

What are the limitations of evaluating Milgram’s experiment (and variations)?

• Milgram’s original experiment and later variations have been criticised for multiple methodological flaws. The tasks, shocking, lacks mundane realism; cant be compared to everyday life. It also lacks ecological validity since the environment of Yale university isn’t normal for participants. Orne and Holland (1968) claim the task was so unusual the participants might’ve figured out they weren’t actually shocking anyone and acted to demand characteristics. Another issue is gender bias, since only men were tested and therefore the results cannot be generalised to women.

• Milgram’s research methods are considered highly unethical; his participants suffered emotional distress during the study, it was difficult for them to withdraw, and they were unable to provide informed consent. However, it can be argued that these actions were necessary for Milgram to conduct his research, and considering the influence of Milgram’s work on our understanding of obedience, from a cost-benefit perspective, the temporary harm his participants experienced was worth it.

What is the Authoritarian personality?

high respect for people with a higher social status, fixed stereotypes about groups of people hostile to people they see as having a low status, conformists with conventional beliefs and behaviours, and views on morality are dogmatic, having very clear ideas about right or wrong.

What was the F-Scale?

Adorno (1950s) studied the Authoritarian personality with a questionnaire called the F-Scale. People who scored highly had fixed stereotypes, identified with strong people, disliked weak people were inflexible with ideas of right and wrong. Questions measure nine factors including Authoritarian submission and power and “toughness”.

What are the strengths of evaluating dispositional explanation of obedience?

• In Milgram’s study, a significant proportion, 35%, resisted the authority figure; this can’t be explained by situational factors alone, as each participant had precisely the same experience. However, Adorno’s theory acknowledges that the willingness to obey an authority figure can vary from person to person, offering an explanation as to why there are extreme variations in Milgram’s participant’s.

• Elms and Milgram (1966). 20 obedient males who had given the highest levels of shock in Milgram’s previous studies and 20 defiant males who had refused were given the F-Scale. The obedient males scored significantly higher on the F-Scale, suggesting they had authoritarian personalities; they also tended to dehumanise or hold more negative attitudes towards the learner and see the experimenter as someone knowledgeable and trustworthy.

What are the limitations of evaluating dispositional explanation of obedience?

• Adorno’s theory of a link of an abusive childhood, the development of the authoritarian personality, and obedience can only be studied using correlation. However, alternate situational explanations of obedience, such as the agentic state and legitimacy of authority, are backed up by significant experimental research.

• The F-Scale has been criticised as a measurement of an authoritarian personality; one reason is due to acquiescence bias; people tend to agree to questions; the F-Scale was written in a way that agreeing to all the questions would artificially inflate their score on the authoritarian scale leading to inaccurate measurement. Additionally, Adorno was a left-wing thinker, and some questions are argued to be biased against people with a right-wing political view.

• Relying solely on the authoritarian personality theory can lead to stereotyping, where complex historical events such as WW2 are overly simplified into personality flaws of the people involved. This approach risks reducing the accountability of social structures and leaders. It also ignores how societal norms, peer pressure, or legal force can lead people with non-authoritarian personalities to feel they need to participate in widespread social obedience.

What is social support?

The presence of others who defy authority figures or go against the majority opinion, this gives individuals the confidence to stand against majority pressure or authoritarian commands.

What is diffusion of responsibility?

The more people who disobey or dissent, the less severe the consequences are likely to be

What is resistance to conformity?

Individuals with a non-conformist ally are more likely to resist conforming to group pressure because the ally breaks the group’s unanimity and creates an alternate group to belong.

What is resistance to Obedience?

Individuals with a disobedient role model are more likely to resist obeying the order of an authority figure because the role model challenges the legitimacy of authority.

What are the strengths of evaluating explanations of resistance to social influence?

• Social support has been shown to help individuals resist the pressure to obey. Milgram conducted a variation of his original experiment in which he gave the participant social support in the form of two confederate “teachers”; one of these teachers refused to continue at 150v, and at 210v, the second teacher refused to continue. The obedience rate dropped from 65% to just 10% in this variation. Milgram argues this reduction in obedience was due to the defiant actions of the peers, reducing the experimenter’s legitimacy of authority.

• Social support has been shown to help individuals resist the pressure to conform. In Asch’s unanimity variation, one of the confederates breaks the unanimity of the group by providing the correct response, and the conformity rate drops from 32% to 5.5%. In an experiment set-up similar to Asch, Allen and Levine (1971) found even when they gave the participant a dissenting ally with thick glasses who claimed they had “extremely limited eyesight”, participants still used this “invalid social support” and conformity was significantly reduced.

What is the limitation of evaluating explanations of resistance to social influence?

As there are still some individuals who continue to obey and conform, even with the presence of significant social support, 10% of participants in the Milgram variation and in 5.5% of the critical trials in the Asch variation, it seems social support is incomplete as an explanation for resistance, and there are other important factors; these may be dispositional, such as the individual’s locus of control, or if they have an authoritarian personality.

What is locus of control?

Measured on a scale from internal to external, Rotter’s (1966) locus of control refers to a personality trait/belief system regarding what people consider to be the causes of their experiences and the factors that influence their successes or failures. This perspective influences how people perceive and interact with their environment.

What is an internal locus of control?

Individual’s that believe they have personal control over their lives and the outcomes of their actions.

What is an external locus of control?

Individuals that believe that external factors, such as fate, luck, or powerful others control their lives.

What are the strengths of explanations of locus of control?

• Holland (1967) replicated Milgram’s study, participants were assessed for internal or external locus of control. 37% of those with an internal LOC refused to continue to the highest shock level, compared to 23% of those with an external LOC. However, while this suggests those with a high internal LOC are more able to resist pressure and obey, 63% of those with an internal LOC still obeyed suggesting LOC is only a partial explanation of resistance to SI.

• Spector (1983). 157 undergraduate participants completed a questionnaire that measured locus of control and a questionnaire that measured the tendency to conform to normative and informational social influence pressure. There was a statistically significant correlation with internal LOC participants being more able to resist normative SI, however they were just as likely as externals to conform to informational SI, suggesting both externals and internals look to others for correct information so LOC does influence conformity, but it is not a complete explanation.

What is the limitation of explanations of locus of control?

• The relationship between LOC and resistance to social influence is only correlational, there are other related factors that have been suggested as being involved in resistance to social influence, such as levels of social anxiety, sense of personal morality, individuals who see an action as morally wrong are likely to resist regardless of social pressures, and social status, as individuals with higher social status may feel more empowered to resist social pressure.

What is minority influence?

When members of a majority group are converted to the views of a minority. The effectiveness of a minority can be affected by consistency, commitment, and flexibility.

What is consistency?

If members of the minority repeat the same message over time (diachronic consistency) and all group members give the same message (synchronic consistency), members of the majority group are more likely to consider the minority position and reconsider their own.

What is commitment?

If the members of a minority are willing to suffer for their views but still hold them, members of the majority will take the minority and their ideas seriously, as people consider the causes of behaviour. If the majority members know the minority is not acting out of self-interest, they carefully consider their position.

What is attribution theory?

The processes people use to assign motives to behaviour, both their own and others. One feature Kelley is the augmentation principle, which suggests that if someone performs an action despite costs and risks, the underlying motive or attribute driving that action is considered particularly strong.

What is felxibility?

If seen as dogmatic, minorities will not be persuasive; they need the ability to appear to consider valid counterarguments and show they are reasonable by slightly compromising. This flexibility encourages majority members to move closer to the minority position.

What is the snowball effect?

Minorities changing majority opinions starts as a slow process, as each person only converts a few members of the majority. However, this rate of conversion picks up speed as more and more of the majority convert. Additionally, the process of conversion also speeds up as the minority view improves in its acceptability.

What are the strengths?

• Flexibility has been shown to help minorities influence members of the majority. Nemeth (1987) asked three real participants and one confederate to act as a mock jury and decide on the level of compensation for the victim of an (imaginary) serious ski lift accident. When the confederate was inflexible, arguing for level of compensation ($50,000) and not changing their position during negotiations, they were less able to convince members of the majority to lower their offers, than when they showed flexibility by increasing their offer to $100,000 during the negotiation.

• There are many real-life examples of minority groups using commitment, flexibility, and consistency to influence members of the majority population. For example, the suffragettes showed commitment by going on hunger strike, and the leaders of the civil rights movement delivered speeches with a consistent message of equality. The LGBTQ+ rights movement campaigned for civil partnerships, a strategic (flexible) compromise that ultimately led to the ultimate goal, the full legalisation of same-sex marriage. The lessons from these previous campaigns and psychological theory can be practically applied to future movements.

What are the limitations of evaluating minority influence?

• Lab-based studies on factors affecting minority influence, such as Moscovici and Nemeth, are highly artificial and may not be valid when generalised to real-world minority influence. In real life, those trying to convince us are often friends and family, and the topics are likely to be important social issues, not meaningless tasks like stating the colour of a slide.

What is social change?

When a view held by a minority group challenges the majority view and is eventually accepted by the majority. Then, whole societies adopt new attitudes, beliefs, or behaviours.

What is social crypto-amnesia?

How society adopts ideas from a minority group; however, once the mainstream accepts these ideas and they become the norm, the sacrifices made by the minority group in initiating these positive social changes are not acknowledged but are forgotten over time.

What are the evaluation strengths of social change?

• Leaders and activists in the civil rights movement in the united states demonstrated consistency and commitment n their fight against racial segregating and for equality. They presented a consistently united front through nonviolent protests, sit-in’s, and marches. In many cases, they suffered abuse at the hands on law enforcement. These committed actions led many white Americans to reconsider their beliefs of segregation, and ultimately, this movement led to significant social change, including the passing of the civil rights and voting rights act.

• The LGBTQ+ rights movement has used a combination of consistency in its core message of equality and rights, alongside flexibility to influence societal change. E.g. the gay community successfully campaigned for civil partnerships, a flexible compromise that ultimately led to the full legalisation of same-sex marriage.

• Social influence research has practical applications, such as helping governments understand how to change people’s behaviour. E.g. persuading people to eat healthily or take sensible social distancing precautions during a pandemic. In these cases, understanding social change can help the economy by reducing society’s healthcare costs.

What is the evaluation limitation of social change?

• social change often occurs over extended periods, deals with highly sensitive topics, such as inequality, discrimination, or social unrest, and is the sum of the interactions of millions of members of society; for this reason, highly controlled experimental laboratory research on social change is not possible, meaning clear cause-and-effect relationships can’t be established. Instead, researchers depend on natural experiments, case studies, and correlational studies to understand social change