Social influence

Conformity

an individual/ group change their behaviour and/or attitudes as a result of the influence of a larger group where there is no direct request for them to do so

2 main reasons why people conform, Deutsch and Gerald

1. Normative social influence (want to be liked) - emotional process

   • agree with opinion of majority as want to be accepted and gain approval

   • likely to happen in situations where we care about someone’s social approval or where we are concerned about rejection

     e.g. everyone loves a movie- you don’t but agree to gain approval

2. Informational social influence (want to be right)- cognitive process

• agree with opinion of majority as we believe it is correct and don’t want to be wrong

• most likely in new situations where we don’t know what is right or if the answer is unclear

• tend to follow majority where we are unsure about something e.g. following cues from coworkers on how to behave when starting a new job

Three types of conformity, Kelman

1. compliance- going along with others

   • person conforms publicly but privately continues to disagree

   • temporary change: behaviour stops when group pressure stops

   • shallowest form of conformity

2. Identification- agree with values as identify with group and want to be a part of

   • publicly change opinions/ behaviours to be accepted by the group even if we don’t agree with everything the group stands for

   • change is often temporary

3. Internalisation

• conform publicly and privately as have internalised and accepted views of the group

• results in permanent change

• deepest form of conformity

Evaluating ISI and NSI

Research support for NSI- people conform to avoid being rejected

• Asch’s participants in his study of conformity said they conformed because they felt self conscious and were afraid of disapproval

• when participants wrote down their answers instead of saying them out loud in front of people, conformity dropped to 12.5% as group pressure was removed

Research support for ISI- people conform when they don’t know the answer

• Lucas et al. students asked to give answers to maths problem with range of difficulties

• findings showed there was greater conformity when questions were difficult

• those who believed they were good at maths were less likely to conform than those who thought they had a poor ability

Individual differences in NSI- desire to be liked underlies conformity for some more than others

• does not affect everyone’s behaviours in the same way: those who are less concerned with being liked are less affected by NSI

• nAffiliators- greater need for affiliation/ connection with other

• McGhee and Teran: students who are nAffiliators are more likely to conform

NSI or ISI causing conformity- unclear which causes conformity

• in Asch’s study having another participant agree with their answer lessened their conformity- because they had a chance to be liked or right?

• in a real world setting they probably work together

Asch’s experiments

• correct answer was obvious to see if people are influenced by what others think

• used 123 US Male Undergraduates who believed study was about visual perception

1. each participant tested with group of 6-8 actors (Ps were unaware of this)- control group of 36Ps tested individually in 20 trials to see if it was actually easy- error rate of 0.04%.

2. Ps shown 2 large white cards at a time- which of 3 comparison lines matched standard line?

3. 18 trials in total- first few trials all actors gave the right answers but on 12 critical trials they gave the same wrong answer and the naive particioants always gave answer prematurely or last.

75% Ps conformed at least once

36.8% overall

“conformed to avoid rejection”

Asch’s variations

1. Group size- changing number of Ps (increasing increases conformity)

   • 3 actors vs 1 P =36.8%, further actors made little difference- no need for majority more than 3

2. Unanimity- introducing actor who gave the right answer

   • meant conformity reduced by 25%

   • group power reduced unaninimity punctured

3. Task difficulties- made all lines more similar in length

• conformity increased

• ISI is more imporanr when task was harder

Sherif’s experiment

used the autokinetic effect where a small spot of light is projected on a dark screen and appears to be moving but is actually a visual illusion. - people conform to majority in an ambiguous situation

1. participant estimated how far they thought light travelled

2. then put in groups of 3 where 2 people had similar individual estimates and 1 person whose estimate was very different

3. each person in the group had to say outloud how far light had moved

• each group converged to common estimate- the person with the different estimate conformed

• people will look for others on guidance for how to be right

Evaluating Asch’s experiment

real world application- juries can be affected by pressures to conform, now has been prevented by the individual having to declare opinion privately first.

uses artificial situation and task- lacks ecological valdity

• unrealistic to be in a situation where you disagree so much with others (group also not like everyday type)

• demand characteristics as knew they were in study

• in real life, consequences of conforming are more important- here there is no real reason not to conform

sample is biased as consisted of all males so findings cannot be applied to females

• Eagy and Carli: meta analysis showed women are more likely to conform than men in public

cultural differences in conformity

• Ps were all from US which is a more individualistic culture (focused on self)

• similar research in China which is a more collectivist (interdependent) culture found higher conformity rates

• Smith and Bond: collectivist cultures had higher rates of conformity

Ethical issues

• deceived Ps as said study was about visual perception and there were actors- did not give informed consent

• also psychological harm as Ps stressed due to disagreeing with others

• worth weighing up costs and benefits e.g. deception meant no demand characteristics

Stanford Prison Experiment, Zimbardo

social role-parts people play as members of various social groups, they all come with expectations of what is appropriate behaviour in each role

• mock prison in basement of psychology department

• volunteer sampling- 21 male university students who then underwent extensive psychology testing and checks that they had no criminal convictions

Uniforms- help conform to social role

• prisoners: loose smock, head cap, only identified by number

• guards: khaki uniform, reflective sunglasses, wooden clubs

Instructions for behaviour- guards encouraged to play role because they had complete power over prisoners. To leave early, prisoners applied for parole.

Deindividuation- loss of personal identity so more likely to conform to perceived social role.

findings

prisoners rebelled within 2 days e.g. ripped off uniforms, swore at guards who retaliated with fire extinguishers

guards harassed prisoners- became increasingly brutal and agressive, seemingly enjoying power

prisoners became subdued, depressed and anxious- one released on day 2, and two on day 4, psychological disturbance- one went on hunger strike and was then put into ‘the hole’

social roles have strong influence on individual’s behaviour even when roles override an individual’s moral beliefs about their personal behaviour

Evaluation of the Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison experiment

Zimbardo had control over key variables e.g. selection of participants as were all emotionally stable meaning that researchers could rule out individual personality differences meaning behaviour was due to social role.

Lack of realism, Banauzizi and Movahedi- participants were play acting not conforming to the role. Performances were baed on stereotypes of how prisoners and guards were meant to behave e.g. one guard had based his brutality from a character in ‘Cool Hand Luke’- so findings say little about actual conformity to social roles.

→ McDermott- participants did behave as if the person was real to them. 90% of conversations were about prison life e.g. discussed how it was impossible to leave before ‘sentences’ were over. Prisoner 416 thought that prison was real but run by psychologists- so did replicate social roles, higher validity

May have exaggerated the power of social roles- only 1/3 behaved brutally, 1/3 fairly and 1/3 tried to help by reinstating priviledges, offering cigarettes (resisted situational pressures to conform)- Zimbardo overstated view of Participants conformity to social roles and minimised the personality factors.

Weaker sampling as participants volunteered and were all US male undergraduate students- unrepresentative

Reicher and Haslam, Did not account for behaviours of non brutal guards- used social indity theory to argue that the brutal guards must have actively identified with social roles to act as they did as would not have come naturally

ethical concerns (before modern rules)

• psychological harm: prisoners became subdued, depressed

• deception: prisoners did not know they would be arrested

• right to withdraw declined

Milgram’s obedience study

obedience- outcome of social influence where an individual acts according to the orders of an authority figure

Aim: to investigate whether in certain cirumstances a ‘normal’ person would give somebody a potentially lethal electric shock if told to do so by an authority figure

• 40 US males aged 20-50 volunteered and were paid $4.50 (£36)

1. When each volunteer arrived they were introduced to other participants (actually confederates)- then drew lots to see who would be learner (draw fixed so that the participant was always learner)

2. Teacher was given small electric shock to experience for themselves. Had to give learner electric shock every time they made a mistake on memory pairs, getting increasingly higher. (fake)

15V ‘slight’

300V ‘intense’- learner pounded on wall then gave no response (12.5% stopped here)

450V ‘danger- severe’- 65% continued to here (predicted only 3% would continue)

They showed signs of extreme tension e.g. sweat, stutter, bite their lips, groan, 3 had seizures

if teacher hestiated, experimenter had standard prods e.g. please continue, you have no choice go on

Evaluating Milgram’s baseline study

Milgram’s findings were replicated in a french documentary where participants thought they were in a pilot episode of ‘Game of Death’

• 80% delivered the maximum voltage

• nervous laughter, nailbiting

• supports Milgram’s findings

Milgram claimed his study had real world application as it helped explain real world obedience e.g the Holocaust

Evidence showing that participants did think that the study was real- 75% of them in post interviews thought the electric shocks were real

• also showed extreme physical reactions

Holfing: phoned 22 nurses to give an overdose of astrofen to patients 21/22 complied- supports Milgram’s study because they unquestionably obey somebody in authority

→ Rank and Jacobson: did similar study but with 3x dosage of valium which was a drug they were familiar with, order was from a doctor they knew and were able to discuss it with nurses- in this instance 2/18 continued. This challenges Milgram’s study because in a more realistic scenario they did not blindly obey.

There were many ethical issues

• could not give informed consent as they did not know the true aims

• deceived as they thought the study was about learning and were told shocks were real

• had a lack of explicit right to withdraw due to prods.

→ Milgram argued that it was necessary to do the study and make the behaviour realistic. They did have the right to withdraw as 35% did. They debriefed the participants post study, only 2% had regrets about taking part and 74% learnt something useful about themselves. A year on from the study, they did psychological assessments of the study and there was no long term damage.

Milgram’s conclusions about blind obedience may not be justifiable. Haslam argued that because every participants given the prod “You have no choice, you must go on” disobeyed this showed, through social identity theory, that participants only obeyed when they identified with the study aims, when blindly forced they disgreed.

Milgram may not have been testing what he intended to- they were listening to demand characteristics and trying to fulfill the aims of the study.

• Orne and Holland: argued the participants were play acting and gave shocks as they knew it was not real.

• Perry: listened to tapes of the participants and argued that only ½ thought the shocks were real and 2/3 of these people stopped meaning the actual obedience was rate was 1/6 of people.

→ Sheridan and King: study same but they gave real shocks to puppies who showed real distresseed, 54% of males and 100% of females continued- showed that the effects in Milgram’s study was genuine as people behaved obediently even when the shocks were real.

→ this also undermines Milgram’s study because it cannot be generalised to females as it shows females are more obedient. This may be due to gender roles which make them more obedient and unquestioning.

Situational variables, Milgram’s study- proximity

The physical closeness of authority figure to person they’re giving orders to, or the closeness of the teacher to the learner.

1. teacher and learner being in the same room → 40%

2. touch: teacher had to put learner’s hand on the electroshock plate → 30%

3. Remote instruction: experimenter gave the instructions by phone → 20.5%

   • participants often pretended to shock

decreased proximity allowes people to psychologically distance themselves from the consequences of their actions because they are less aware of harm

Situational variables, Milgram’s study- location

place the order is issued and the associated status with it

Conducted variation in run down office block rather than the prestigious Yale → 47.5%

Yale environment gave Milgram’s study legitimacy and authority. they were more obedient in baseline as perceived the experimenter was also legit so authority was expected, (obedience was still high as ‘scientific’

Situational variables, Milgram’s study- uniform

symbolic with authority as we are expected to be obedient

Experimenter was called away by an inconvenient phone call so an ‘ordinary member of the public’ (actually confederate) took over wearing every day clothes → 20"%

Uniforms encourage obedience as they are widely recognised as symbols of authority. We are more obedient because the authority is legitimate and granted by society.

Definition of a situational variable and extra examples

features immediately in the physical or social environment that influence behaviour.

support from 2 other refusing teachers → 10%

assistant delivered the shocks → 92.5%

Evaluating situational variables, Milgram

Research support, Bickman

• 3 confederates dressed in different outfits- suit, milkman and security guard individually stood in streets asking pedestrians task e.g. pick up litter

• they were 2x as likely to obey the security guard than others due to the effect of uniform on obedience.

Replicated in other cultures, Meels and Raajmakers: 90% obeyed in a Dutch study when ordered to say stressful things to an interviewee. When the person given orders was not there, obedience decreased. This supports the research as it is valid across other cultures and genders.

→ Smith and Bond: apart from 2, all replications were done in western cultures which have very similar culture to the US meaning they will have similar notions about authority so research is not applicable to other cultures.

Changed one variable at a time but kept all procedures the same and also replicated with 1000+ participants meaning the research was valid.

Low internal validity because the participants were aware that the procedure was fake. Orne and Holland did also criticised variations because the extra manipulation of variables made it even less believable e.g. when the experimenter was just replaced by a member of the public, the participants may have seen through deception.

Milgram’s findings supported the situational aspect of obedience but this perspective was criticised by Mandel who argues it offers an excuse for evil behaviours. It is offensive to those affected by the Holocaust that the Nazis were just following orders and were victims of situational factors beyond their control.

Agentic state

we feel no responsility for our behaviour as we believe ourselves to be acting as an agent for an authority figure, we experience high anxiety and moral strain when we realise what we are doing is wrong but we feel powerless to disobey

autonomous state

free to behave according to your own principles so feel responsible for your own actions

agentic → shift

from being autonomous to being agentic

happens when a person perceives someone else as an authority figure meaning they have greater power because they are higher in the social hierachy

binding factors

aspects of the situation that allow the person to ignore/ minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour and reduce the moral strain they are feeling

e.g Milgram argued this was why many of his participants could ignore their high anxiety- such as blaming the victim for volunteering

Legitimacy of authority

more likely to obey people who we perceive to have authority over us.

as societies are structured in hierarchical ways, people in certain positions have legitimate authority over us to allow society to function properly e.g. police

we learn acceptance from childhood

give some people the power to punish others and trust them to act appropriatly

Destructive authority

misuse/corruption of authority

• powerful and charismatic leaders e.g. Stalin

• order people to behave in ways that went against conscience

e.g. experimenter used prods to order participants to behave in ways that went against conscience.

Evaluation of agentic state

Research support from Milgram’s study

• participant asked experimenter questions when resisting giving the shocks

e.g. who is responsible if the learner is harmed?- experimenter replied “I am”

• participants then went through procedure quickly with no objections showing when Ps perceieved they were in agentic state and no longer responsible for their own behaviour they acted more easily.

Agentic shift does not explain all research findings about obedience

• Rank and Jacobson: 16/18 nurses disobeyed orders from the doctor who is an authority figure but they remained autonomous and felt they were still responsible as did 35% of Milgram’s participants

Must be another explanation as does not account for all bad behaviour

• Mandel: German reserve police battalion killed civilians in Poland despite not being ordered to: they were not in agentic state so were not powerless to disobey- no explanation for their behaviour

Evaluation for legitimacy of authority

Explains cultural differences in obedience

Milgram: Australia- 16%, Germany- 85%

in some cultures authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimate so demands obedience

reflects ways different societies are structured and how children are raised to perceive authority figures

Helps explain real life obedience

Kelman and Hamilton: My Lai massacre can be understood in terms of the power hierachy of teh US army as commanding officers have clear authority and greater power to punish so soldiers followed orders.

Cannot explain instances of disobedience where there is a hierachy where legitimacy of authority is clear and accepted

Rank and Jacobson: 16/18 disobedient nurses despite working in a rigidly hierarchical authority structure

many of Milgram’s participants disobeyed despite experimenter’s scientific authority - some people may just be more/ less obedient due to their personality

Characteristics of Authoritarian personality

Adorno believed obedience to such a high level was a psychological disorder and it is the personality that matters not the situation

Authoritarian personality- susceptive to obeying people in authority and submitting to those in high status but dismissive of inferiors

• society is ‘weaker’ than it once was so need strong and powerful leaders to enforce traditional values

• show contempt to those of inferior social status

• inflexible outlook no ‘grey’ areas so uncomfortable with uncertainty

• people belonging in different ethnic groups are responsible for ills of society

Origins of authoritarian personality

• became obedient due to having insecurities

• formed in childhood due to harsh parenting: extremely strict discipline and expectation of absolute loyalty, impossibly high standards and severe criticisms of perceived failings

• parents give unconditional love: affection depends on how child behaves

• this creates resentment and hostility which the child cannot express against parents because they fear punishment

• means fear is displaced on others they perceive to be weaker- scapegoating

Adorno’s study on the authoritarian personality

Aim: invesigate causes of obedient personality

sample: 2000 middle class white americans

procedure: used severeal measurement scales including potential for fascism (F-scale)

Findings: those who scored highly on the F-scale so had authoritarian leanings identified with ‘strong’ people and were generally contemptous of the ‘weak’. they were conscious of status (their own and others) and showed extreme respect, deference, and servility to those in high status. They had fixed and distinctive stereotypes of other people.

Evaluation of authoritarian personality

Elms and Milgram, research support

• interviewed small sample who had been fully obedient in Milgram’s shock study

• all completed F-scale: scored significantly higher than a comparison group of disobedient participants

• shows obedient people have similar characteristics to Authoritarians

→ when researchers analysed individual subscales of the F-scales, they found that obedient participants had a number of unusual authoritarian characteristics e.g. did not glorify fathers, did not experience unusual levels of childhood. shows link is more complex- authoritarianism is unlikely to be useful predictor for obedience

Authoritarianism cannot explain obedient behaviour in the majority of a country’s population. In pre-war Germany, millions of individuals displayed obedient and racist behaviours despite having different personalities and parenting- unlikely all the Nazis had authoritarian personalities.

• majority of Germans identified with anti- semetic Nazi state and scapegoated Jews- social identity theory

Harsh parenting—> Authoritarianism

• correlation does not mean causation, may be influenced by a 3rd factor

F-scale only measures tendency towards an extreme form of right-wing ideology (political bias)

• Christie and Jahoda: F-scale is politically biased, can also be left wing and authoritarian e.g. Russian Bolsheviks

• extreme left and right wings have common values

• therefore not a comprehensive explanation that accounts for obedience across whole political spectrum

Greenstein: F-scale is based on flawed methodology.

• each item is measured in the same direction, meaning that if you show response bias and press agree that will make you authoritarian

• knew aim so may have shown demand characteristics

Minority influence

form of social influence in which a minority of people persuades others to adopt their beliefs, attitudes or behaviours. it happens through conversion- accepted both publicly and privately through internalisation e.g. suffragettes, anti-apartheid

consistency, minority influence

being consistent increases the amount of interest from other people as makes other people start to rethink their own views

• synchronic consistency- everyone in the group saying the same thing

• diachronic consistency- being consistent over time

commitment, minority influence

must demonstrate commitment to their cause or views e.g. extreme activities that show risk

• augmentation principle- majority pay more attention as minority “must really believe it”

flexibility, minority influence- NEMETH

minority have to adapt their point of view and accept reasonable and valid counter arguments

NEMETH, consistency can be off putting as repeating same arguments seem rigid and unbending so will not change people’s views- need to have a balance between consistency and flexibility

• groups of 3 participants and 1 conferate deciding compensation to pay victim of ski accident

• when the confederate argued for low amount and refused to change his position, it had no effect on minority but when he compromised a little the minority changed

Moscovici, minority influence and evaluation

groups of 4 participants and 2 confederates viewed 36 blue-coloured slides varying in intensity

• consistent minority: confederates said they were green all the time- participants said green 8.42% of time

• inconsistent minority: confederate said green 2/3 of times- particpants said they were green 1.25% of time

• control group: were in accurate 0.25% of time (no confederates)

dissimilar to minority influence in the real world

deception over what the study was about (said it was perception) so no informed consent

psychological harm- stress involved

population validity- only female sample, does not represent population (other studies show women conform more)

Process of change

1. consistency, commitment and flexibility make people think about the topic

2. if you hear something new you might think more deeply about it

3. deeper level thinking is important in process of conversion to agreeing with minority

4. augmentation principle

5. the more people convert, the faster it happens (snowball effect- picks up more snow ❄ )

6. social cryptomnesia: have memory change has occured but not what events led to change

Evaluation of minority influence

Research evidence demonstrating the importance of consistency

• Moscovici’s blue/green slide study showed a consistent minority opinion had greter effect

• Wood carried out meta-analysis of almost 100 similar studies and found consistent minorities were most influential- shows presenting consistent view is minimum for minority influence

Research support for deeper processing

• change in majority’s position does involve deeper processing of minority’s ideas

• MARTIN et al: presented message supporting particular viewpoint and then measured participants agreement

• either minority agreed with initial view or majority group agreed with initial view then exposed to conflicting view

• people were less willing to change their opinions if they had listened to minority then majority

• minority has been deeply processed and had more enduring effect (supports how minority influence works)

→ real world social influence situations are more complicated e.g. less clear distinctions between majority and minority, majority have more power and status so research lacks ecological validity

Tasks involved are artificial e.g Moscovici’s identification of colour slides

• research far removed from how minorities attempt to change opinions (so lacks external validity)

Power of minority influence was very low (moscvoci’s→ 8%)

• therefore minority influence was rare and not useful

→ Ps wrote down answer- more likely to agree with minority (answers in public just tip of actual minority influence)

lessons for social change

Conformity research, Asch: confederate who broke power of majoirty allowed others to do the same

Normative social influence: provide information about what others do e.g. Bin it- others do, draws attention to majority so encourages conformity

Obedience research, Milgram: in variation where second teacher was conderate who refused to shock obedience went 65%-10%

Zimbardo, gradual commitment- once a small instruction is obeyed it becomes much more difficult to resist a bigger one

HOGG+ VAUGHAN: more likely to be influenced by members of in group (people with similar characteristics) e.g the british government in early 1900s-1920s were mainly upper class male MPs so more influenced by Suffragettes when they were also upper class

Evaluation for social change

Research has shown social influence processes based on psychological research do work

• NOLAN: tried to change people’s energy use habits, hung messages on front doors of houses in California every week for one month- message said residents were trying to reduce energy use (NSI)

• control group: just said to reduce energy usage

• significant decreases in energy usage for group who were told about other residents

• majority influence can lead to social change with NSI

→ Foxcroft: reviewed social norm interventions including 70 studies trying to reduce student alchohol use, research found a small reduction in drinking quality and no effect on drinking frequency (normative social influence does not lead to a long term change)

Psychologists can explain how minority influence brings about social change

• NEMETH: due to deeper thinking processes (divergent) minorities inspire more broad thinking so activily searching for infomation and weighing up options which leads to better decisions and more creative solutions- they were stimulated.

Deeper processing may not play role in how minorities begin change

• some people are supposedly converted due to thinking more deeply about minority’s views

• MACKIE: argues majority influence creates deeper thinking if you do not share their views because we want lots of people to think in the same way as us so we consider their arguments and reasoning more.

Methodological issues in this area of research

• explanations of social change rely on studies by Moscovici, Asch and Milgram

• all involve artificial tasks which don’t reflect real life situations as lack ecological validity

Social support, resisting conformity

pressure to conform can be resisted if there are other people present who are not conforming ( do not have to have the right answer)

this social support enables you to follow your own conscience as the non conformer is a model of independent behaviour, the majority is no longer unanimous.

Social support, resisting obedience

pressure to obey can be resisted when there is another person who disobeys e.g. Milgrams’ variation, having a disobedient confederate who did not shock, obedience went 65% → 10%

the disobedient behaviour acts as a model of dissent and acts as a model for you to follow your own conscience as they challenge the legitimacy of authority

Evaluation for social support

Research evidence for the positive effects of social support

• ALBERECHT: evaluated teen fresh start, a US 8-week programme to help pregnant adolescents resist peer pressure to smoke

• adolescents who were given slightly older mentor or ‘buddy’ by the end were significantly less likely to smoke than a control group without a buddy

• shows social support helps to resist social influence

Research support for role of dissenting peers

GAMSON: particiapnts told to produce evidence to help oil company run smear campaign (find false accusations)

• 29/33 groups (88%) rebelled against orders as had peer support so could resist obedience

ALLEN AND LEVINE: social support can help individuals resist influence of the group.

• Asch lines study: with a supporter 64% did not conform, when without it was 3%

Locus of control, Rotter- resistance to social change

Internal LOC: things that happen to you are largely controlled by yourself

• take personal responsibility for your actions

• base decisions on your own beliefs

• more self confident, achievement orientated, higher intelligence

• greater resistance to social change

External LOC: believe things that happen to you are outside of your controll

loc is a continuum

evaluation for locus of control

Research evidence to support link between LOC and resistance to social influence

• HOLLAND: repated milgram’s baseline study and measured whether participants were internal or external

• 37% of internals did not continue to highest shock level vs 23% of externals

• internals showed more resistance

Evidence that challenges link between LOC and resistance

• TWENGE: analysed data from LOC studies over 40 year period

• data showed people had become more resistant to obedience but also more external ( if resistance is linked to internal LOC we would expect people to have become more internal)

ROTTER: LOC is not necessarily most important factor in determining whether someone resists social influence as it depends on the situation

• Your LOC is only significantly affected by behaviour in new situations as if you have conformed or resisted in the past, you are likely to do so again in that situation regardless of your LOC.

Dispositional factor so does not consider othe rfactors like social support- not just your personality is important