psychology- paper 1- social influence

3 types of conformity

compliance

identification

internalisation

compliance

going along with people’s views in order to fit in/ gain approval

agree in public but disagree in private

temporary & likely to occur due to NSI

identification

accepting influence in order to be associated with a group

some elements of compliance and internalisation

accept the attitudes and behaviours being adopted as true (internalisation) but are conforming due to wanting to fit in (compliance)

internalisation

making the beliefs, values and attitudes of a group your own

agree in public & in private

often occurs due to ISI

explanations for conformity

informational social influence (ISI)

normative social influence (NSI)

informational social influence (ISI)

somebody conforms because they believe it is the right thing to do

e.g. following the direction of a crowd we you don’t know where to go

usually leads to internalisation

normative social influence (NSI)

conforms because they want to be liked or fit in with a certain group

e.g. a person smoking because they want to be a part of a friend group of smokers

usually leads to compliance

types of conformity AO3

difficulties distinguishing between compliance & internalisation

difficulties distinguishing between compliance & internalisation (types of conformity AO3)

complicated by how we measure public compliance and private acceptance

It is possible that someone accepts a view in public but later forgets in private

or somebody may comply in public to fit in but convince themselves that that is what they really believe

explanations of conformity AO3

research support for NSI and ISI

NSI and ISI may not be entirely separate

research support for normative influence

studies show that telling people the majority do or do not do something causes people to replicate the behaviour

For example, teens who were told most the people their age don’t smoke weed were less likely to smoke weed

Also, people in a hotel were told 75% of people reuse their towels every day and this reduced towel usage by 25%

research support for information influence

Fein et al. - asked participants to vote for a US presidential candidate after seeing someone else vote. Most changed their view to the one they had witnessed because they wanted to be ‘correct’

NSI and ISI are not separate (explanations for conformity AO3)

Deutsch and Gerrard’s ‘two process model’

people have both the need to be right and the need to be liked

Asch’s study APFC

Aim- to test conformity and majority influence

procedure- 123 US undergraduate participants, groups of 1 real participant & rest confederates, all presented with 3 comparison lines and a standard line and asked to say which comparison line was same length as standard. on 12 of 18 occasions the confederate would all give the same incorrect answer

Findings- on the 12 critical trials the conformity rate was 33%

25% never conformed

50% conformed on 6 or more

5% conformed all 20

In control study with no confederates participants answered incorrectly 1% of the time

Asch interviews the participants afterwards and most stated they trusted their own views but still conformed (compliance)

variables affecting conformity

Group size

Unanimity

Task difficulty

Group size

Asch found with just 2 confederates there was little conformity but with 3 this rose by 30%

More than 3 had little affect on the conformity suggesting group size is an indicator up to a certain point

Unanimity of the majority

When just one of the confederates gre a correct answer the conformity to majority dropped from 33% to 5.5%

When a confederate gave an incorrect answer different to the majority conformity to the majority was 9%

Suggesting it was reading the groups unanimous position that was the major factor in reducing conformity

Task difficulty

Asch made the differences in the lines much smaller

Conformity increased

Further research showed it was the level of self-belief that affecting conformity as a maths problem study (similar to Asch’s) showed people who were confident in their ability were less likely to conform no matter the difficulty

Asch’s study AO3

lab experiment

ethical issues

temporal validity

sample not reflective of whole population

Asch’s study is a lab experiment (AO3)

strengths- high control over the variables meaning there should not be extraneous variables, suggests valid and reliable cause & effect relationship

limitations- lacks ecological validity, asking about length of lines has little relevance to real life situations and ignores the complexity of real life scenarios (where there are many confounding variables)

Asch’s study ethical issues (AO3)

deception- as the pps believed the study was about perception, not conformity

could also be psychological harm if the pps are embarrassed when finding out the true aim of the study

means a cost-benefit analysis is needed to evaluate whether the costs outweigh the benefits. The benefits being that they do not affect the reliability and validity of the findings

Asch’s study suffers from temporal validity (AO3)

social context of the 1950s- anti-communist period in America, meaning people were scared to be different

Asch’s sample is not reflective (AO3)

only US undergraduate male students

gender bias, assuming findings are generalisable to women

& culture bias for same reasoning

Also possibility younger people are more/less likely to conform

conformity to social roles key study

Zimbardo Stanford prison experiment

Zimbardo’s study APFC

aim- to investigate if people conform to social roles in a simulated environment

procedure- 24 male American undergraduate students, basement of Stanford University turned in to mock prison, pps were volunteers paid for taking part, randomly issued ‘guard’ or ‘prisoner’ role, guards had props including handcuffs and wore reflective sunglasses, prisoners were taking from their homes in the night, put through a delosuing procedure and only referred to by a number Zimbardo took role of Prison Superintendent, study planned to last 2 weeks

findings- identification occurred quickly guards quickly became abusive (e.g. forcing prisoners to clean toilet in middle of the night. Appears they forgot it was a study, both sides still conformed even when unaware of being watched (1 prisoner asked for parole), 5 prisoners had to be released early due to their extreme reactions, prisoners only talked about prison struggles (not past life) and would tell on other prisoners (suggesting that their behaviour was not due to demand characteristics) had to be stopped after just 6 days after a woman told Zimbardo it was harming the pps (later became his wife)

conclusions- people do conform to social roles and can quickly become a certain way because of their roles, especially stereotyped roles like a prison guard

other research into conformity to social roles

the BBC prison study 2006

the BBC prison study procedure & findings

procedure- randomly assigned men to the role of guard or prisoner, 15 male participants divided into 5 groups closely matched as possible on key personality variables from each group of 3 there was 1 guard and 2 prisoners

findings- participants did not conform to automatically to their assigned role prisoners worked together to oppose the guards and the guards struggled to conform and did not impose their authority

(could be critiques as the groups of 3 were so small and it would be naturally harder for 1 guard to impose their authority & is not very realistic to a prison setting)

conformity to social roles AO3

demand characteristics

unethical

real life applications (Abu Ghraib)

population validity

demand characteristics (conformity to social roles AO3)

critics argue the participants knew what the experiment expected form them so acted in a manner they thought Zimbardo wanted them to. Also, the guards were told to act ‘tough’ by Zimbardo showing researcher bias

the details of the SPE were given to a large sample of students who had never heard of the study & they correctly guessed the aim & predicted that the guards would act in an aggressive & hostile manner

unethical (conformity to social roles AO3)

Zimbardo considered his study ethical because it followed the guidelines of the Stanford University ethics committee However, the study should have been stopped sooner as there was psychological harm (participants were not protected from stress, anxiety, emotional distress & embarrassment), e.g. pps had to be released for having emotional breakdowns & anxiety with one participant going on a hunger strike to cope

Real life applications of Zimbardo’s study (A03)

Abu Ghraib - conformity to social roles can be used as an explanation for the actions of guards in Abu Ghraib prison, a prison in Iraq used during the Iraq war for torture and abuse after this was authorised by a US military leader.

Zimbardo would suggest they did this because they were conforming to their role as a guard and thought that was what they were supposed to be

The creators of the BBC study would argue differently and put full blame on the guards

population validity

only used American male students, not reflective of the whole population so findings can not be generalised

variables affecting conformity key study

Milgram

Milgram’s study APFC

Aim- to observe whether participants would commit harm to another person when told to do so by an authority figure

procedure- 40 randomly selected male participants, participants were ‘teacher’ while confederates were ‘learner’, participants asked a number of questions and whenever learner got one wrong the participants was told to shock them, shocks increased by 15V each time up to 450V, ‘learner’ gave mostly incorrect answers and responded silently to the shocks until 300V where they banged on the wall, same for 315V, researcher gave a series of prods when the participants wanted to stop including ‘it is essential you continue’ and ‘you have no other choice, you must go on’

findings- 65% continued to maximum level, all participants went to 300V with only 5 (12.5%) stopping there

conclusions- humans can be coerced by an authority figure to harm another human even when they would not do so under normal circumstances

situational factors in obedience

proximity

location

uniform

proximity

participants conformed more when the experimenter was in another room (62.5%), reduced to 40% when the experimenter and participant were in the same room, reduced to 30% when in the touch proximity condition (when the experimenter forcibly placed the participants hand on the shock buttons

location

the study was conducted at Yale university, several pps remarked that the location gave them confidence in the integrity of the study

follow up study conducted a run-down office showed obedience levels dropped slightly with 48% still going to the 450V maximum shock

uniform

research shows uniform affects conformity- woman either wore police uniform, business wear or dressed as a beggar, she went up to people and asked for money for an expired parking ticket. 72% gave her money when wearing police uniform, 48% for business wear and 52% when dressed as a beggar

situational variables affecting obedience (AO3)

ethical issues

individual differences (gender)

low temporal validity

low ecological validity

ethical issues (Milgram’s study AO3)

Milgram has been criticised for a lack of concern over participants mental health

participants were deceived as they were told they were in a study concerning the effects of punishment on learning, participants could not give an informed decision on whether they wished to consent

Also, although Milgram claimed the participants had the right to withdraw, the sue of prods ‘ it is essential you continue’ made it difficult for some participants who felt they were compelled to continue

individual differences e.g. gender (situational variables affecting obedience AO3)

a commonly held assumption is that women are more susceptible to social influence than men but Milgram’s study only evaluated male participants

Milgram did have one condition in which pps were female and found females were more distressed when administering the high level shocks but obedience levels were the same

Poor criticism, as an other researcher imitated Milgram’s studies using male and female participants and found no gender differences

low temporal validity? (Milgram’s study AO3)

May be argued the studies are no longer relevant because they were conducted over 60 years ago, more recently Blass carried out an analysis on all studies over a 20 year period and found no correlation (no changes)

Also, in 2009 a study was carried out and found similar obedience levels to what Milgram found

Therefore, the study does not suffer from low temporal validity and is still relevant

low ecological validity (Milgram’s study AO3)

because the researcher was acting so calmly when the ‘learner’ was crying in distress some pps assumed that they must be fine

many were sceptical about whether the shocks were real which may explain why they went all the way up to the ‘lethal’ shocks

Therefore, if the study was conducted legitimately with legitimate shocks it is much more unlikely that 65% of pps would have administered the 450V shock

agentic state

when a person believes someone else will take responsibility for their actions

shift from the autonomous state (taking responsibility of your own actions) to the agentic state is called an agentic shift

agency theory is the idea that people are more likely to obey if they are in the agentic state as they do not believe they will suffer the consequences, as they believe they are acting on behalf of an agent

legitimacy of authority

people are more likely to obey authority figures if they are legit (meaning they ae perceived to be in a position of social control)

Milgram believes most people are under the conception that most situations will have a controlling figure

In Milgram’s study, the pps enter expecting a authority figure and when introduced to the experimenter that person fills the void

self-image and the agentic state

people may adopt an agentic state to maintain a positive self-image, by not taking responsibility the person doe not believe their self-image can be harmed so does not think about the potential consequences of their actions

other factor in legitimacy of authority

the institution- the fact Milgram’s study took place in a laboratory setting makes the experimenter seem more legitimate

agentic state and legitimacy of authority AO3

real-life applications

agentic state can be used as an excuse for cruelty

supporting evidence for legitimacy of authority

real life applications (agentic state & legitimacy of authority AO3)

both can be used to explain the actions of many who obey authority figures

most notably, the Nazis, many used the excuse that they were just carrying out the orders of Hitler and they had no other choice but to do so as there was the threat that they would suffer otherwise. Therefore, some Nazis did not take personal responsibility because the believed they were acting on Hitler’s behalf

Hitler was seen as legitimate authority by Germans as he was the Fuhrer meaning he was the leader of the country and therefore people believed he could be trusted

agentic state can be used as an excuse for cruelty (AO3)

The pps in Zimbardo’s study rapidly became more cruel in their treatment of the prisoners even though there was nobody directly instructing them to do so.

supporting evidence for legitimacy of authority (AO3)

study of aviation accidents in the US between 1978 and 1990 found that the pilots had excessive dependence on their captains. One second officer claimed he knew an approach was risky but assumed the captain knew best

‘lack of monitoring’ errors found in 19 of 37 accidents investigated

dispositional explanation for obedience

the authoritarian personality

the f scale

psychologists found people who obey share similar characteristics

these characteristics have been measured using the f scale which using a Likert-style scale to measure how people agree with statements, and how many traits they share with the authoritarian personality

Adomo found that people who scored higher on the F scale had more authoritarian parents

the authoritarian personality

belief that people should obey to authority figures and suppress their own beliefs

right-wing authoritarianism

people who possess 3 important characteristics:

conventionalism- an adherence to conventional norms and values

authoritarian aggression- aggressive feelings towards people who violate these norms

authoritarian submission- uncritical submission to legitimate authorities

relationship between RWA and obedience was tested and it was found people with high RWA scores were more likely to press a button to shock themselves for getting questions wrong

the authoritarian personality key study

elms and milgram (1966)

elms and milgram (1966)

PROCEDURE:

follow up study to Milgram’s original study

20 ‘obedient’ and 20 ‘defiant’ pps recalled and completed the MMPI scale and the F scale to measure their levels of authoritarianism

pps also asked questions about their relationship with parents in childhood & their feelings towards the ‘experimenter’

FINDINGS:

little difference in MMPI variables

higher levels of authoritarianism found amongst obedient pps

obedient pps reported being less close to their father during childhood

obedient pps were more likely to see the ‘experimenter’ as admirable & the learner as less so

suggesting that the obedient group was higher on the trait of ‘authoritarianism’

authoritarain personality AO3

lacks ecological validity

left-wing authoritarianism is disregarded

social context is more important

lacks ecological validity (authoritarian personality AO3)

does not explain real life examples

for example not everyone in Germany in the 1930s had an authoritarian personality yet Hitler was still elected and supported

This was due to the money struggles in Germany, therefore, the Nazis were obeyed because they promised to help the German society

Also, the people’s fear meant they were happy to use a scapegoat and obey the Nazis decision to try and exterminate the Jewish race

left wing views are disregarded (AO3)

F in F scale stands for fascism therefore proving that it only measures right wing authoritarianism and suggests that left wing authoritarianism does not exist but that is incorrect (e.g. Bolshevism)

Left and rigth are much more similar then many believe therefore Fascist-like beliefs can be found across the political spectrumand the authoritarian personality does not account for this

social context is more important (the authoritarian personality AO3)

Milgram accepted their could be a dispositional basis to obedience but did not believe the evidence was very strong

instead showed variations in social context (proximity, location and uniform) were the primary cause in differences of obedience

Relying on an explanation of obedience around the authoritarian personality disregards this and goes against Milgram’s findings

2 factors influencing resistance to social influence

social support

locus of control

social support

the perception that an individual has assisatnce available from other people, and that they are part of a supportive network

locus of control

people differ in their beliefs about whether the outcome of their actions are dependent on what they do (internal) or on events outside their personal control (external)

social support and resisting conformity

Asch found that the prescence of social support enabled an individual to resists conformity

the most important aspect of social support is it breaks the unanimity allowing the individual to individually assess the situation without conforming

conformity dropped from 33% to 5.5% in Asch’s study

social support and resisting obedience

research has shown individuals are more confident in their oability to resisit the temptation to obey if they find an ally willing to disobey the authority figure

For example, in a variation of Milgram’s study, pps were part of a team of 3 testing the leaner ( with 2 confederates) when the other two refused to continue the experiment only 10% continued to the max. 450V shock

the nature of locus of control

people with high internal locus of control believe they have control over what happens in their life, they are more independent and so less likely to accept the influence of others and more likely to resist social influence

high externals believe behaviour is determined by external factors such as other people or luck, they approach events with a more passive attitude, take less personal responsibility and are more likely to accept the influence of others

3 characteristics of high internals

1. active seekers of information so they can make informed decisions

2. more achievement-oriented and consequently more likely to become leaders rather than followers

3. better able to resist coercion

resistance to social infleunce AO3

social support

-importance of response order

-real world example

Locus of control

-related to NSI but not ISI

research support

3 stages to minority influence

Consistency

Commitment

Flexibility

consistency

Minority influence is effective provided there is stability in the expressed position over time and agreement among different members of the minority.

commitment

The degree to which members of a minority are dedicated to a particular cause or activity. The greater the perceived commitment, the greater the influence.

flexibility

A willingness to be flexible and to compromise when expressing a position.

minority influence key study

Moscovici et al (1969)

moscovici et al. (!969) APFC

Aim- to observe how minorities can influence a majority

Procedure- pps in a group with 2 participants acting as a minority and 4 as a majority, everyone was shown 36 blue slides each a different shade and asked to state whether each slide was blue or green

confederates said they were green on 2/3 of occasions, producing a consistent minority view

control group also used with participants only, no confederates

Findings- when the confederates were consistent in their answers, 8& of pps said the screen was green. When the confederates were not consistent, pps conformed 1% of the time.

Conclusions- consistency is important for a minority to exert maximum influence on the minority, but it does not have a huge impact on its own, or instantly

minority influence AO3

real-life applications

Moscovici study lacks mundane realism

research support for flexibility

real-life applications (minority influence AO3)

if a minority knows how to convince a majority they can use the information to achieve their aims

there is evidence from real life e.g. the suffragettes who were undoubtedly committed and consistent, allowing them to achieve their goals

However, the majority have more numbers and often greater connections and more power meaning they are often difficult to be convinced, meaning the techniques are not always useful

Moscovici study lacks mundane realism (minority influence A03)

the tasks in the study do not reflect real life scenarios in which the minority will be trying to influence others. Therefore, the findings lack ecological validity because the extent to which the findings can be generalised is limited

research support for flexibility (minority influence AO3)

role of flexibility studied in a simulated jury situation where group members discussed the amount of compensation to be paid o someone in a ski-lift accident

When a confederate put forwards an alternative point of view and refused to change their position, they had no influence

whereas, a confederate who compromised and showed a degree of shift towards the majority was able to have influence on the rest of the group

However, this was only the case when the shift occurred late in negotiations, as shifting early was seen as 'giving in' to the majority

5 steps for social change through minority influence

1. drawing attention to the issue

2. cognitive conflict

3. consistency of position

4. the augmentation principle

5. the snowball effect

5 steps to social change through minority influence, explanations

1. drawing attention to the issue- minorities draw the majority's attention to an issue, creating a conflict

2. cognitive conflict- a conflict causes the majority to consider the minority's view more deeply

3. consistency of position- minorities are more influential if they express their arguments consistently

4. the augmentation principle- if a minority appears willing to suffer for their views, they are seen as more committed ad taken seriously

5. the snowball effect- initially has a small effect then spreads more widely as more people consider the issues being promoted until a 'tipping point' is reached, leading to widespread change

example of minority influence

the suffragettes

the suffragettes and the 5 processes

1. drawing attention to the issue- suffragettes used educational, political and militant tactics to draw attention to the fact women did not have equal voting rights

2. cognitive conflict- drew a conflict between the majority group (only men allowed to vote) and the position advocated by the suffragettes (votes for women)

3. consistency of position- protests continued for years, the fact women played a key role in WWI convinced society women were deserving of the vote

4. the augmentation principle- suffragettes were willing to be imprisoned and go on hunger strikes which gave them more powerful influence

5. the snowball effect- universal suffrage (all adult citizens having the vote) was finally achieved

social change through majority influence

Research consistently shows the effects of normative social influence (the need to fit in). For example, if students think heavy drinking is the norm they'll drink more

social norms interventions

Attempt to correct misperceptions of the normative behaviour of peers in an attempt to change the risky behaviour of a target population. Identifies misconceptions such as young adults misperceiving the frequency and quantity that their peers drink alcohol. Media campaigns can be used to challenge this misconception to communicate to the target population that the norm they believe is not the actual norm, in the hope that the audience will alter their behaviour to fit the true norm

an example of social change through majority influence

'Most of us don't drink and drive'

designed to reduce drinking and driving among young adults in Montana USA

the amount of crashes due to drink driving in this area was high

20% admitted to drinking and driving but 92% believed the majority of their peers had driven after consumption of alcohol

message was printed on posters ' MOST Montana young adults (4 out of 5) don't drink and drive'

researchers found that this message reduced drinking after driving by 14%

therefore the correction of misperceptions led to positive change and reduced risky behaviour that was thought to be the norm

social influence processes in social change (AO3)

social change is difficult

the role of minority influence is limited- due to NSI and the minority being seen as 'deviant'

the 'boomerang effect'