SOCIAL INFLUENCE

conformity

change in behaviour/opinion due to real or imagined pressure from a person or group - yielding to group pressure

aim of asch’s study

to investigate to what extent people conform to the opinion of others

findings of asch’s study

participants conformed 36.8% of the time. 25% never conformed

participants in asch’s study

123 male US undergraduates in groups of 6, with 5 confederates

procedure of asch’s study

* ppts presented with 4 lines (3 comparison, 1 standard)
* asked to state which line was the same as the standard
* confederates gave the same incorrect answer for 12/18 trials
* asch observed how people would give the same incorrect answer as confederates vs their own correct answer

variables in asch’s study

group size, unanimity, task difficulty

group size

Asch increased size of group by varying number of confederates from 1-15.

* conformity increased with size but levelled off when majority was greater than 3 at 31.8% conformity
* suggests most are sensitive to opinions of others

unanimity

the extent to which all group members agree

* Asch introduced a dissenter who disagreed with others with (1) the correct answer and (2) a different wrong answer
* naive participants conformed less with the dissenter
* rates decreased to less than 1/4 of the level even when the majority was unanimous
* non-conformity gave more independence - crack in unanimous group.

task difficulty

line judging task became more difficult when it becomes harder to work out the correct answer (difference in lines were smaller)

* conformity increased
* naives assumes the majority is more likely to be right

limitation of Asch: artificial situation/task

* demand characteristics
* trivial task → no reason to conform
* group didn’t resemble everyday life
* not generalisable

limitation of Asch: limited application

* all men, women = more conformist (acceptance/social)
* study in US - individualist
* collectivist cultures have higher conformity

strength of Asch: research support

* support for effect of task difficulty
* Lucas et al: easy/hard questions to ppts and gave fake answers from 3 other students.
* ppts conformed more with harder questions

counterpoint to Asch’s research support

* Lucas et al: conformity = more complex
* ppts with high confidence in maths conformed less on hard tasks than those with low confidence
* individual level factors interact with situational variables

strength of Asch’s study: internal validity

* control over extraneous variables - assessment timing/task type
* ppts did task before to remove knowledge as CV
* cause - effect relationship

minority influence

a form of social influence in which a minority of people persuades other people to adopt their beliefs, attitudes or behaviours. leads to internalisation or conversion, in which private attitudes are changed as well as public behaviours

consistency

minority influence is most effective if the minority keeps the same beliefs both over time and between all the individuals that form the minority. it is effective because it draws attention to the minority view

commitment

minority influence is more powerful if the minority demonstrates dedication to their position, by making personal sacrifices. this is effective because it shows the minority is not acting out of self interest

flexibility

relentless consistency could be counter-productive if it is seen by the majority as unbending and unreasonable - therefore minority influence is more effective if the minority show flexibility by accepting the possibility of compromise

synchronic consistency

they’re all saying the same thing

diachronic consistency

they’ve been saying the same thing for some time now

augmentation principle

minorities engage in extreme activities that present risk to show commitment so the majority pays more attention (they really believe in what they are saying)

explaining the process of change

consistency, commitment and flexibility make people think about a minority cause more deeply → deeper processing leads to conversion to the minority viewpoint

snowball effect

the minority view gathers force and becomes a majority view

strength of minority influence: research support for consistency

* Moscovici *et al’s* blue/green slide study
* showed a consistent minority opinion had a greater effect on changing the views of other people than an inconsistent opinion
* Wood *et al:* meta-analysis of almost 100 similar studies
* found consistent minorities were most influential
* consistency is a minimum

strength of minority influence: research support for deeper processing

* change involves deeper processing of minority ideas
* Martin *et al* : presented a message supporting a particular viewpoint and measured participants’ agreement
* group one heard a minority group agree with the initial view
* group two heard a majority view agree with it
* participants were exposed to a conflicting view and attitudes were measures


* people were less willing to change their opinions if they had listened to a minority group than if they had listened to a majority group
* minority message had been more deeply processed

counterpoint of minority influence

* Martin et al’s study makes clear distinctions between the majority and the minority (controlled way is a strength)
* but real-world social influence situations are much more complicated
* majorities usually have a lot more power and status than minorities
* minorities are committed because they face hostile opposition (these features are absent from research - minority is simply the smallest group)
* findings are limited in real world situations

limitation of minority influence: artificial tasks

* Moscovici’s task of identifying the colour of a slide is artificial
* research is far removed from how minorities attempt to change the behaviour of majorities in real life
* in cases like jury-decision making and political campaigning, outcomes are important - life/death
* lack external validity, limited

power of minority influence

* minority influence is rare when even a consistent minority could only generate a change of view around 8% of the time.
* it is not a useful concept to explain the vast majority of social influence.
* the finding about writing answers down suggests that more people were influenced than were prepared to admit it.
* happens in the real world because people don’t want to be associated with a minority position for fear of being considered ‘radical’, ‘awkward’ or even ‘a bit weird’.
* people who go public hold their new views strongly. (internalisation)
* although minority influence is relatively unusual, it is a valid form of social influence because when it happens it influences people very powerfully and permanently.

resistance to social influence

refers to the ability of people to withstand the social pressure to conform to the majority or to obey the authority - the ability to withstand social pressure is influenced by situational and dispositional factors

social support

the presence of people who resist pressures to conform or obey can help others to do the same. these people act as models to show others that resistance to social influence is possible

locus of control

refers to the sense we have about what directs events in our lives → what extent they feel events in their lives are under their own personal control vs the control of other external powers

resisting conformity through social support

* pressure to conform can be resisted if there are other people present not conforming
* Asch: confederate who is not conforming may not be giving the right answer but the facto someone else isn’t following the majority is social support
* enables naive participant to follow their own conscience
* confederate = model. their dissent gives rise to more dissent because majority is no longer unanimous

resisting obedience through social support

* the pressure to obey is resisted if another person disobeys
* Milgram: rate of obedience dropped from 65% to 10% when the genuine participant was joined by a disobedient confederate
* may not follow behaviour but acts as a model of dissent
* challenges the legitimacy of the authority figure = easier for others to disobey

internal locus of control

* conform and obey less
* take more responsibility for their own actions and see themselves as having more control
* make decisions based on their own moral code

external locus of control

* conform and obey more
* believe the majority of their life events are beyond their control
* more likely to act on behalf of another (agent) and shift responsibility onto this individual

locus of control continuum

LOC is a scale and individuals vary in their position on it. high internal LOC is at one and and high external LOC at the other

high internal LOC

more able to resist pressures to conform or obey → a person takes personal responsibility for their actions and experiences - they base their decisions on their own beliefs rather than depending on the opinions of others

* more self-confident, more achievement-oriented and have higher intelligence → greater resistance to social

strength of social support: research support

* Albrecht: evaluated Teen Fresh Start USA, an 8 week programme to help pregnant adolescents aged 14-19 resist peer pressure to smoke
* social support was provided by a slightly older mentor or ‘buddy’
* at the end of the programme, adolescents who had a buddy were significantly less likely to smoke that a control group of participants who didn’t have a buddy.

strength of social support: research support for dissenting peers

* Gamson: participants were told to produce evidence that would be used to help an oil company run a smear campaign
* researchers found higher levels of resistance in their study than Milgram did in his
* participants were in groups so could discuss what they were told to do.
* 29/33 groups of participants (88%) rebelled against their orders
* undermining legitimacy of an authority figure

strength of LOC: research support

* Holland: repeated Milgram’s baseline study and measured whether participants were internals or externals
* 37% of internals didn’t continue to the highest shock level, whereas only 23% of externals didn’t continue
* internals showed greater resistance to authority in a Milgram type situation
* resistance linked to LOC - increases validity

limitation of LOC: contradictory research

* Twenge: analysed data from american LOC studies conducted over a 40 year period
* data showed that people became more resistant to obedience but also more external
* surprising outcome: if resistance is linked to internal LOC we would expect people to have become more internal
* LOC not valid explanation of resistance to SI

dispositional explanation

any explanation of behaviour highlights the importance of the individual’s personality

authoritarian personality

* a type of personality that Adorno argued was especially susceptible to obeying people in authority.
* such individuals are thought to be submissive to those of high status and dismissive of inferiors
* view society as weaker than it once was, believe we need strong leaders to enforce traditional values
* show contempt for those of inferior social status - inflexible outlook

who are the ‘other’ in the authoritarian personality?

people that belong to a different ethnic/social group and are perceived by the authoritarian personality to be responsible for the ills of society. they are a convenient target for authoritarians who are likely to obey orders

what is the origin of the authoritarian personality?

* forms in childhood as a result of harsh parenting
* parenting style features strict discipline, expectation of loyalty, impossibly high standards and severe criticism of perceived failings
* conditional love
* childhood experiences create resentment and hostility in a child - child can’t displace these feelings because they fear punishment
* fears are displaced onto others who they perceive to be weaker (scapegoating) → hatred for people considered socially inferior

what was adorno’s procedure?

* studied more than 2000 middle class white americans and their unconscious attitudes towards other ethnic groups.


* researchers developed several measurement scales including the potential for facism scale (F-scale)

what was adorno’s findings?

* people with authoritarian leanings identified with ‘strong’ people and were generally contemptuous of the ‘weak’ - they were conscious of status and showed extreme respect, deference and servility to those of higher status
* authoritarian people had a certain cognitive style in which there was no ‘fuzziness’ between categories of people (black and white thinking)
* fixed and distinctive stereotypes about other groups
* found a strong positive correlation between authoritarianism and prejudice

what are two example of the f-scale?

1. ‘obedience and respect for authority are the most important important virtues for children to learn’
2. ‘there is hardly anything lower than a person who does not feel great love, gratitude and respect for his parents’

strength of dispositional explanation: research support

* Milgram supports Authoritarian Personality
* Milgram and Elms interviewed a small sample of people who had participated in the original obedience studies and been fully obedient
* all completed the F-scale as part of the interview - these 20 obedient participants scored significantly higher on the overall F-scale than a comparison group of 20 disobedient participants
* the two groups were clearly different in terms of authoritarianism
* supports Adorno’s view that obedient people show characteristics to people with AP

counterpoint of dispositional explanations

* when the researchers analysed the individual sub-scales on the F-scale, they found that the obedient participants had a number of characteristics that were unusual for authoritarians
* unlike authoritarians, Milgram’s obedient participants generally did not glorify their fathers, didn’t experience unusual levels of punishment in childhood and did not have particularly hostile attitudes towards their mothers
* means the link between obedience and authoritarianism is complex
* obedient participants were unlike authoritarians in so many ways that it is unlikely to be a useful predictor of obedience

limitation of the dispositional explanation: limited explanation

* can’t explain obedient behaviour in the majority of a country’s population
* pre-war germany: millions of indviduals displayed obedient and anti-semitic behaviour
* despite the fact they differed in personalities
* unlikely they could all possess an Authoritarian Personality
* Alternative view: majority of german people identified with the anti-Semitic Nazi state, and scapegoated the ‘outgroup’ of Jews, - social identity theory approach
* alternative explanation is more realistic

limitation of the dispositional explanation: political bias

* F-scale only measures tendency towards an exreme form of right-wing ideology
* Christie and Jahoda: argued the F-scale is a politically biased interpretation of the Authoritarian Personality
* point out the reality of left-wing authoritarianism in the shape of Russian Bolshevism or Maoism
* extreme right wing and left wing ideologies have a lot in common
* both emphasise the importance of complete obedience to political authority
* adorno’s theory is not a comprehensive dispositional explanation that accounts for obedience to authority across the whole political spectrum

agentic state

a mental state where we feel no personal responsibility for our behaviour because we believe ourselves to be acting for an authority figure. this frees us from the demands of our consciences and allows us to obey even a destructive authority figure

legitimacy of authority

an explanation for obedience which suggests we are more likely to obey people who we perceive to have authority over us - this authority is justified by the individual’s position of power within a social hierarchy

agent

someone who acts for or in place of another - they experience high anxiety when they realise that what they are doing is wrong, but eel powerless to disobey

autonomous state

a person is free to behave according to their own principles and feels a sense of responsibility for their own actions

agentic shift

the shift from autonomy to ‘agency’ → occurs when a person perceives someone else as an authority figure. in most social groups when one person is in charge, others defer to the legitimate authority of this person and shift from autonomy to agency

binding factors

aspects of a situation that allow the person to ignore or minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour and thus reduce the ‘moral strain’ they are feeling. e.g. shifting responsibility to victims or denying the damage they were doing to the victims

social hierarchy

most societies are structured in a hierarchical way - people in certain positions hold authority over the the rest of us. authority is legitimate as it is agreed by society (learnt in childhood)

destructive authority

problems happen when legitimate authority becomes destructive - charismatic and powerful leaders can use their legitimate powers for destructive purposes, ordering people to behave in ways that are cruel and dangerous - evidenced in Milgram’s study

strength of the agentic state: research support

* Milgram’s study support the role of the agentic state
* most of his participants resisted giving the shocks at some point and asked the experimenter questions about the procedure
* e.g. ‘who is responsible if the learner is harmed? ‘
* when the experimenter replied ‘i’m responsible’, the participants went through with the procedure quickly with no objections
* showed once participants perceived they weren’t responsible they acted more easily as an agent

limitation of the agentic state: limited explanation

* agentic doesn’t explain research findings about obedience
* Rank and Jacobson’s study: 16/18 hospital disobeyed orders from a doctors to administer an excessive drug dose to a patient
* the doctor was an obvious authority figure - almost all nurses remained autonomous
* agentic shift only accounts for some situations of obedience

limitation of the agentic state: obedience alibi revisited

* Mandel: members of German Reserve Police Battalion 101 murdered civilians without being directly ordered to
* didn’t see themselves as acting as the agents of a higher authority and were given a choice so acted autonomously.
* they had many reasons for doing so – hatred, prejudice, racism and probably greed.
* = different picture from the oversimplified one presented by Milgram, in which such behaviour is the result of a single factor – acting as the agent of a destructive authority.
* This suggests that the agentic shift is not required for destructive behaviour.

strength of legitimacy of authority: explains cultural differences

* accounts cultural differences in obedience
* many studies show countries differ in the degree to which people are obedient to authority
* Kilham and Mann: found only 16% of Australian women went all the way up to 450 volts in a Milgram-style study
* Mantell: found a different figure for German participants - 85%
* shows in some cultures authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimate and entitled to demand obedience from individuals
* reflects how different societies are strucutred and how they raise children

limitation of legitimacy of authority: cannot explain all disobedience

* legitimacy can’t explain disobedience in a hierarchy where the legitimacy of authority is clear and accepted
* includes nurses in Rand and Jacobson’s study.
* Most were disobedient despite working in a rigidly hierarchical authority structure
* a significant minority of milgram’s participants disobeyed despite recognising the experimenter’s scientific authority
* suggests some people may be more or less obedient than others
* innate tendencies may have a greater influence on bhv

situational variables

features of the immediate physical and social environment which may influence a person’s behaviour. the alternative is dispositional variables where behaviour is explained in terms of personality

proximity

the physical closeness or distance of an authority figure to the person they are giving an order to

location

the place where an order is issued. the relevant factor that influences obedience is the status or prestige associated with the location

uniform

people in positions of authority often ave a specific outfit that is symbolic of their authority - indicates they are entitled to expect our obedience

location variant in milgram’s study

obedience at Yale = 65%

obedience in a run-down office block = 47.5%

* prestigious uni environment gave Milgram’s study legitimacy and authority - more obedient as they perceived that the Experimenter shared this legitimacy
* obedience was still quite high in the office block because the participants perceived the scientific nature of the procedure

uniform variant in milgram’s study

* baseline (experimenter wore lab coat as a symbol of authority) = 65%
* variation (experimenter called away, role of experimenter taken over by an ‘ordinary member of the public’ in everyday clothes) = 20%

uniforms encourage obedience - recognised symbols of authority, entitled to expect obedience → authority is legitimate

proximity variant in milgram’s study

* baseline (teacher could hear learner but not see him) = 65%
* proximity (teacher and learner in same room) = 40%
* touch proximity (teacher forced learner’s hand onto an electroshock plate if he refused to put it there) = 30%
* remote instruction (experimenter left room and gave instructions by telephone) = 20.5% + ppts pretended to give shocks

decreased proximity allows people to psychologically distance themselves from consequences of their actions

research support for situational variables: research support

* Bickman field experiment: 3 confederates dress in diff outfits - jacket + tie, milkman’s outfit, security guard.
* they stood in street asking passers-by to perform tasks like picking up litter
* 2x likely to obey the assistant dressed as a security guard than the jacket + tie
* uniform has a powerful effect on obedience

strength of situational variables: cross-cultural replications

* Milgram’s findings have been replicated in other cultures
* Meeus + Raaijmakers: realistic procedure to study obedience in Dutch ppts
* ordered to say stressful things in an interview to someone desperate for a job (confed)
* 90% ppts obeyed
* replicated Milgram’s findings of proximity - when orderer isn’t present, obedience decreased
* valid across cultures

counterpoint of situational variables

* replications of Milgram’s research aren’t cross-cultural
* Smith and Bond: identified only two replications between 1968 and 1985 taking place in India and Jordan - quite different from the US
* other countries involved are culturally similar to the US (similar notions about role of authority)
* can’t conclude his findings is applicable to all cultures

limitation of situational variables: low internal validity

* Orne + Holland: ppts may be aware procedure was faked
* criticised of baseline study - more likely in variations due to extra manipulation of variables
* e.g. when experimenter is replaced by a ‘member of the public’
* milgram recognised the situation was so contrived ppts may have worked it out
* unclear if findings are due to obedience or ppts saw through deception and responded to demand characteristics

obedience

a form of social influence in which an individual follows a direct order. the person issuing the order is usually a figure of authority, who has the power to punish when obedience isn’t forthcoming

Milgram’s study

created a baseline procedure used to assess obedience levels

Milgram’s baseline procedure

40 American volunteers (thought study was on memory)

each was introduced to a confederate (the learner)→ volunteer was teacher, experimenter in lab coat

learner had to remember pairs of words, each time they got it wrong teacher had to give a stronger (fake) electric shock (teacher given real shock to prove its real)

labelled from ‘slight shock’ to ‘severe shock’ (15v steps up to 450 v)

how many participants in milgram’s study stopped at 300V?

12\.5% (intense shock)

how many participants in milgram’s study continued to the highest level of 450 volts>

65%

what did milgram conclude?

germans aren’t different. american ppts were willing to obey even when they might harm another person and suspected there were certain factors that encouraged obedience

what qualitative data did milgram collect?

observations: ppts showed signs of extreme tension, sweat, tremble, stutter, biter their lips, groan and dig their finger nails into their hands, 3 even had ‘full blown uncontrollable seizures’

what other data did milgram collect?

* before the study, Milgram asked 14 psych students to predict ppts behaviour - estimated no more than 3% of ppts would continue to 450v
* all ppts were debriefed and assured their behaviour was normal, 84% were glad to have participated

strength of milgram’s study: research support

* findings replicated in a french documentary
* focused on a game show made for the programme, ppts believed they were contestants in a pilot episode of a new show.
* paid to give fake electric shocks to other participants in front of an audience
* 80% of ppts delivered maximum shock of 460v to an unconscious man - identical to milgram’s (nervous laughter, nail-biting)

limitation of milgram’s study: low internal validity

* milgram: 75% ppts said they believed the shocks were genuine
* Orne and Holland: ppts behaved as they did because they didn’t really believe in the set up - play acting
* Perry: listened to tapes of participants and reported only half believed the shocks were real - 2/3 of these were disobedient
* demand characteristics

counterpoint of milgram’s study

* sheridan and king: study using milgram’s procedure
* participants gave real shocks to a puppy in response to orders from an experimenter
* despite stress of animal, 54% of men and 100% of women gave what they thought was a fatal shock
* effects were genuine - people behaved obediently when shocks were real

limitation of situational variables: alternative interpretation to findings

* milgram’s conclusions about blind obedience may not be justified
* haslam *et al:* milgram’s participants obeyed when the Experimenter delivered the first three verbal prods
* every ppt who was given the fourth prod (‘You have no other choice, you must go on’) without exception disobeyed
* Social identity theory: ppts in milgram’s study only obeyed when they identified with scientific aims of the research (‘the experiment requires you continue’)
* SIT may provide a more valid interpretation of findings - milgram suggested ‘identifying with the science’ is a reason for obedience

social roles

the ‘parts’ people play as members of various social groups. they are accompanied by expectations we and others have of what is appropriate behaviour in each role

stanford prison experiment

zimbardo set up a mock prison at Stanford + selected 21 male volunteers who tested as ‘emotionally stable’ and randomly assigned them to play the role of prison guard or prisoner and were encouraged to conform through uniforms and instructions

what uniforms were ppts in the SPE given?

* prisoners = loose smock,cap to cover their hair, identified by numbers
* guards = uniform reflecting status, wooden clubs, handcuffs, mirror shades

de-individuation

the loss of personal identity caused by uniforms, and meant participants would be more likely to conform to the social role

what instructions were ppts given in the SPE?

* prisoners = encouraged to identify with their role by procedures e.g. applying for parole
* guards = encouraged to play their role by being reminded they had complete power over prisoners

why did zimbardo end his study after 6 days instead of 14?

guards identified more and more closely with their role and their behaviour became increasingly brutal and aggressive, some appeared to enjoy the power they had over prisoners

what was the behaviour of prisoners in the SPE?

prisoners rebelled within two days - ripped uniforms and shouted/swore at guards - who retaliated with fire extinguishers

after rebellion prisoners became subdued, depressed and anxious. one released due to signs of psychological disturbance, two released on the 4th day.

one went on a hunger strike - guards tried to force feed and punish him by putting him in a dark closet

what was the behaviour of guards in the SPE?

took up their roles with enthusians, treating prisoners harshly

used ‘divide-and-rule’ tactics by playing the prisoners off against each other

harassed prisoners to remind them of the powerlessness of their role (frequent head-counts)

guards highlighted difference in social roles by creating opportunities to enforce rules and punish

what was zimbardo’s conclusions?

social roles appear to have a strong influence on individual’s behaviour → guards became brutal and prisoners became submissive

role were taken easily on by all ppts - even volunteers behaved as if they were in a prison not a study

why did zimbardo conduct the stanford prison experiment?

there had been many prison riots in america and zimbaro wanted to know why prison guards behave brutally - sadistic personality or social roles?

strength of the SPE: control

* Zimbardo had control over key variables
* emotionally-stable individuals were chosen and randomly assigned to role of guard and prisoner
* researchers ruled out individual personality differences
* if guards and prisoners behaved very differently, but were only in roles by chance their behaviour must have been due to the role itself
* increases internal validity

limitation of the SPE: lack of realism

* SPE didn’t have the realism of a true prison
* Banuazizi + Movahedi: ppts were merely play-acting , not conforming to a role
* ppts performances were based on their stereotype o how prisoners and guards behave
* one guard claimed he based his role on a brutal character from the film *Cool Hand Luke*
* explains why prisoners rioted - thought it was what real prisoners do
* findings tell us little about conformity to social roles in actual prisons