social influence

why do we conform

1. need to be right

2. need to be liked

3 types of conformity

1. compliance- conform publicly but disagree privately

2. identification- act same as group but change is often temporary

3. internalisation- conform publicly and privately

normative social influence

when we wish to be liked

schultz et al- found when told people reuse towel in hotel, the request for towels dropped 25%

informative social influence

when we look to the majority as we are unsure what way to behave

wittenbrink and henely- found ppts exposed to negative thoughts about African Americans were more likely to report negative opinions back later on

conformity AO3

• NSI- doens’t effect everyone the same way

• McGhee and Teevan- students who feel like they need more of a belonging are more likely to conform

• Lucas et al- students conformed more when a maths question is more challenging

asch original

• original study had 1 ppt and 7 confederates and had to say what line matched the sample

• they said the wring answer 12/18 times

• 32% of ppts confromed when obviously wrong

• 75% conformed at least once

asch adaptions

• changed group size, 2- 12% conformed, 3-32% conformed

• unanimity- when someone else said the correct answer conformity reduced

• difficulty- more challenging it increased

asch ao3

• lab study and standardised

• bad temporal validity as after war

• bad population validity - individualistic less likely then collectivist

• bad ecological validity

• demand characterises as people knew they were part of a study

zimbardo ao1

• 21 male American ppts put into a jail simulation to see if conformity was due to internal disposition they were arrested at their house and randomly assigned a role. ZImabrdo was superintendent

• found people quickly identified with their role and guards became abusive

• only lasted 6 days due to ethics

• findings: people quickly conform to roles, situation is a large factor. Only 1/3 went violent so due to personality

zimbardo ao3

• mimics real life situation so can be applied eg the holocaust

• good internal validity- lot of control over the pitch and tested personality

• contradictory evidence- bbc prison study conformity didn’t happen

• exaggerated his findings- only 1/3 violent due to personality not pitch

• ethics

• pop validity

milgram ao1

• 40 male ppts, put in room with scientist in lab, if confromative answered wrong would send a shock

• 180v- weak heart, 300v- knock and want to leave, 315v- silent

• all ppts went to 300 volts

• 65% went to full 450

milgram ao3

• ppts Were debriefed and followed up after

• BURGER- repeated 46 years later and same results

• BICHMAN- repeated in 3 diff settings to find ecological validity was high

• ethics- ppts were deceived

• ethics- withdrawal wasn’t there as it was hard for ppts to leave

• they knew it was experiment so knew it was fake

milgram variation

• proximity

• location

• uniform

Base test= 65% obedient to full volts

location

og- office in yale- 65%

var- run down office- 47%

proximity

og- teacher and learner in adjoining rooms

var- same room- 50%

physically put hand on plate- 30%

uniform

og- lab coat

var- member of public- 20%

milgram variations AO3

• Bichman for ecological validity

• bushman

• standardised settings

• lots of demand characteristics

• replications were western so hard to generalise

• the obedience alibi

social- psychological explanations

• the agentic state, where we act as an agent and someone in authority is uncharge if us

• kelmann and Hamilton, legitimacy of the system, authority of system and demands given

• agentic shift- where we go from autonomous to agentic when authority, binding factors keep us in

social- psychological explanations AO3

• milgarm and blass and Schmitt studies- found milligram ppts blamed experimenter

• historical evidence

• Alt theory- personality

• incomplete- why do we disobey

• culture variation

dispositional factors

situation is irrelevant and we obey due to personality

Adorno wanted to find out why nazi officer did what they did and claimed it was due to obedient personality type

he asked 100 white Americans about their unconscious opinions of minorities

he created an F scale to measure prejudice, personality

Adornos findings

• people high on F scale identified as strong people and very concious of their and others statusus

• they had no grey areas and found a strong correlation between authoritarian personality and prejudice

authoritarian personality

• distinct personality pattern characterised by strict conventional values and beliefs in obedience

• they have rigid beliefs and hostile to other groups

• develops through a discipled and corporal punishment and unconscious hospitality

authoritarian personality AO3

• milgram, followed ppts and found those who went up to 450V were authoritarian

• limited, can’t generalise to majority of countries population as 1 characteristics, not all nazi would be this type

• political bias, very right wing ideology therefore lacks pop validity

• methodical problems, interview bias as knew the aim and may of only reordered results that match the hypothesis

• not all prejudice people have harsh upbringing and only correlation not cause and effect

resistance to SI

This refers to the ability of people to withstand the social pressure to conform to the majority or to obey authority.

both conformity and obedience are reduced when given a dissenting peer that allows you to speak up freely

resistance to SI AO1

• Asch, conformity reduced 5.5% when one of confederates gave a different answer to the rest of the group

• Milgram, dispodence dropped 55% when joined by a disobedient confederate

resistance ao3

• Allen and Levine, found conformity decreased when joined by someone else who dissented even if they wore thick glasses so had poor vision

• Gamson et al, They had to produce evidence to help an oil company run a smear campaign 29 out of 33 groups of pps rebelled This shows that peer support is linked greatly to resistance 

Locus of Control

Rotter, the sense we have about how much control we have over our life

internal- Internals believe that they are mostly responsible for what happens to them, more likely to resist conformity

external- Externals believe that things happens without their own control

locus of control ao3

• tweneg et al, Meta analysis from obedience studies over 40 years and showed more resistance but people were more external LOC, results may change based on time

• Rotter et al, LOC only important in certain situations

define minority influence

rejecting the established norm of the majority of the group and trying to influence them, most likely to lead to internalisation

minority influence ao1

• need to be consistent, flexible and committed

• Synchronic consistency – people in the minority are all saying the same thing

• Diachronic consistency – they have been saying the same thing for a long time  

• the snowball effect that overtime people switch and the more this happen conversion rates increase

• when minority becomes majority social views has changed

minority influence ao3

• moscovici, 36 slides of clearly blue slides with confederates, when they answered green more 8.42% success, when inconstant only 1.25%

• Nemeth, flexibility mock jury of 3 ppts 1 confederate

• Martin et al, depth of thought

• artificial tasks

• stats can be incorrect as some people do not agree publicly

Social change definition and process

when society as a whole adopt new attitude, beliefs or behaviours

1. Draw attention to the issue, Highlight a concern

2. Consistency in position

3. Deeper processing

4. The augmentation principle 

5. The snowball effect, Minority become majority

6. Social cryptomnesia occurs,People have memory that change has occurred but some people have no memory of the events leading to that change

social change ao1

• conformity research, dissenters make social change more likely, Asch

• majority influence and NSI, social change is encouraged by highlighting the majority behaviour

• disobedient models make change more likely, milgram one confederate disobeyed

• commitment leads to drift, zimbardo one small change makes it harder to say no to big changes

social change ao3

• Nolan, posters of energy cost, rates dropped on poster that said ‘most residence’

• nemeth, effect is indirect or delayed, min influence is short lasting and not effective. Maj is only influenced on specific issue not the full issue eg recycling not global warming

• deeper processing, they are often seen as devious and undesirable

• identification, need to identify with min as well as agreeing

• methodical issues, can’t reflect emotions and passion in a lab