Social Influence

Social influence

When one person causes a change in the behaviour of another person

conformity

A change in a person’s behaviour or opinions as a result of real or imagined pressure from a person or group of people.

types of conformity

internalisation, identification and compliance

Internalisation

• When a person genuinely accepts the group norms

• The change is likely to be permanent because because attitudes have been internalised

• This change persists even in the absence of other group members

identification

• moderate type of conformity

• someone conforms to the opinions of a group because there is something about the group that they value

• they identify with the group and want to be part of it

• publicly change opinions, even if they don’t privately agree with what the group stands for

• the individual temporarily goes along with the norms as long as they’re a member

compliance

• a temporary type of conformity that occurs when a person simply ‘goes along with others’ in public, but privately does not change their personal opinions

• the particular opinion stops as soon as the group pressure stops, its only a superficial change

• the individual publicly agrees with the majority of the group, but does not privately agree

normative social influence

An explanation of conformity that says we agree with the opinion of the majority because we want to be accepted, gain social approval and be liked. This can lead to compliance

• its about what is ‘normal‘ or typical behaviour in social groups

• It’s an emotional process and is concerned with how you feel

Informational social influence

• an explanation of conformity that says we agree with the behaviour/opinion of the majority because we believe it is correct. We accept it because we want to be correct as well. This may lead to internalisation

• concerned with who has the better information

• individuals follow the behaviour of the majority of the group

• ISI is a cog process- concerned with how you think

Aim of Asch’s research into conformity

to investigate whether people would conform to the majority in situations where the answer was obvious (unambiguous)

Method of Asch’s research into conformity

• sample of 123 American male students who believed they were taking part in a vision test

• Participants were placed alone into groups of between 6-8 confederates, the naïve participants were not aware that the others were confederates. They sat in a line and the participant was sat either last or second last in the group

• Asch showed two large white cards. On one card was a ‘standard line’ and on the other card were three ‘comparison lines’. One of the three lines were the same length as the standard line, whilst the other two were obviously different

• Each person was then asked which one of the comparison lines matched the standard line, asking for them to voice their answer one at a time.

• On the first few trials, the confederates gave the correct answers. But then they started to deliberately state the same wrong answer.

• The participants took part in 18 trials in total and for 12 of these trials, the confederates gave the wrong answer

Results of Asch’s research into conformity

• The real participants gave the wrong answer 36.8% of the time.

• 75% of the sample conformed to the majority on at least one trial

• when interviewed after the experiment, participants said they conformed to avoid rejection by the group

which explanation of conformity can explain the results of Asch’s research?

NSI as they feared rejection from the group, they wanted to be accepted and liked - they knew the answer was wrong

conclusion of Asch’s research into conformity

individuals conform to avoid rejection even when the situation is unambiguous (obvious)

Unanimity

Agreement by all

Asch’s variations- group size

He wanted to know if the size of the group was more important than what the group said. With 3 confederates, conformity to the wrong answer increased to 31.8%. This suggest that the small majority is not sufficient for influence to be exerted but there is no need for a majority of more than 3.

Asch’s variations- Unanimity

He wanted to know if the presence of another non-conforming person affected conformity. Asch introduced a confederate who disagreed with the others. they sometimes gave the right answer and sometimes gave the wrong one. With them there, conformity reduced by 25%.

• The presence of a dissenter enabled the naïve to behave more independently. This suggests that the influence of a majority depends to some extent on the group being unanimous.

Asch’s variations- Task difficulty

Asch made the line-judging task harder by making the stimulus line and comparison lines more similar in length. Conformity increased due to informational social influence (task became harder, situation is more ambiguous so we look to others for guidance).

social influence

when one person causes a change in the behaviour of another person

Aim of Zimbardo’s research

His aim was to examine whether people would conform to the social roles of a prison guard or prisoner, when placed in a mock prison environment.

How did Zimbardo obtain his participants?

By volunteer sampling- He advertised for students willing to volunteer. Those who were deemed ‘emotionally stable’ after psychological tests were selected.

How were participants assigned to the role of prisoner or guard?

Students were randomly assigned

What instructions were participants given in the Stanford prison experiment?

• prisoners had heavily regulated daily routines

• they had to follow 16 rules which were enforced by guards

• Prisoner names were never used, only numbers (dehumanised)

• guards were told they had complete power over prisoners

What did the guards wear and what effect may this have had?

They had a uniform complete with wooden club, handcuffs, keys and mirror shade. They may have felt powerful and/or lost their identity

what behaviours were exhibited during the Stanford prison experiment?

• guards took up their roles with enthusiasm - became aggressive and brutal

• guard’s behaviour became a threat to the prisoner’s psychological and physical health

• prisoners rebelled against the harsh treatment - ripped their uniforms, shouted/swore at guards

• guards harassed prisoners to remind them that they were being monitored at all times

• prisoners became subdued, depressed and anxious

how long did the Stanford prison experiment last?

6 days instead of the intended 14

what were the reasons for Zimbardo’s experiment ending early?

• guards behaviour became a threat to prisoners’ psychological and physical health

• prisoners were subdued, depressed and anxious

• one showed signs of psychological disturbance

• one prisoner went on a hunger strike

• guards identified too much with their role and enjoyed the power

• Zimbardo’s future wife came to the prison and confronted him

conclusions of the Stanford prison experiment?

• The power of a situation can influence people’s behaviour

• guards, prisoners and researchers all conformed to their roles within the prison

• These social roles were taken on easily

obedience

a form of social influence where an individual follows a direct order. The person issuing the order is usually a figure of authority.

what is the difference between obedience and conformity?

Conformity describes behaviour that follows socially accepted rules whereas obedience is concerned with complying with an order or request from an authority figure.

What did Milgram want to find out?

Why the Germans had followed Hitler’s orders. He wanted to know if there was a difference between German people and people from other countries — were German people more obedient?

Aim of Milgram’s study of obedience

To test the extent of humans’ willingness to obey orders from an authority figure

Method of Milgram’s study of obedience

• 40 male volunteers (aged 20-50) were recruited through newspaper adverts/flyers in the post

• They were told they were taking part in a memory study and would receive $4.50

• Confederate was the learner, and participants were the teacher

• The teacher was told by the experimenter that they would have to give electric shocks every time the learner got the wrong answer

• The teacher could not see the learner, but as the shocks increased, the learner would scream for help. The fake electric shocks started with 15v and went up to 450v (lethal)

• If the participant questioned the study, they were told that the experiment must continue

findings of Milgram’s study of obedience

• 100% of ppts went to 300v

• 65% of ppts went to the highest level of 450v

• ppts showed signs of extreme tension (sweating, trembling)

• three ppts had seizures

• These findings were not expected — Milgram’s psychology students predicted only 3% would go to the highest level

• All ppts were debriefed and assured that their behaviour was normal

conclusion of Milgram’s study of obedience

• people will listen to an authority figure if they believe they aren’t responsible for the consequences.

• People obeyed because of the location, the pressure and the situation was new to them, not because of who they are

ethical guidance — Milgram’s study of obedience

Because of Milgram’s (and Zimbardo’s) research, ethical issues became an urgent priority for research

• a participant’s right to withdraw from research

• They need to get fully informed consent from the ppts

• The use of deception

• The importance of protecting ppts from the risk of psychological and physical harm (protection from harm)

situational variables

factors that Milgram believed influenced the level of obedience shown by participants. They are related to external circumstances rather than to the personalities of the people involved.

• proximity, location, uniform

proximity

• When the teacher and learner were in the same room, obedience dropped to 40% because the participants could see the consequences of their actions.

• When the teacher was asked to force the learner’s hand onto an ‘electroshock plate’ obedience dropped to 30% for the same reason.

• When the experimenter left the room and gave instructions via telephone obedience dropped 20.5% because the authority was further away.

location

When the experiment moved to a new location in a run down building, obedience dropped to 47.5% because the experimenter has less authority

Uniform

The experimenter was called away for a phone call at the start of the experiment. The role of the experimenter was taken over by an ‘ordinary member of the public’ (confederate) in everyday clothes. Obedience rates dropped to 20% (lowest of variations) because the member of the public has less authority than the experimenter.

What caused Milgram’s initial interest in obedience?

The trial of Adolf Eichmann inn 1961 for war crimes. Eichmann was in charge of the Nazi death camps and his defence was that he was only ‘obeying orders’

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 allow us to obey even a destructive authority figure

Why does obedience to destructive authority occur?

because a person does not take responsibility

How may ‘agents’ feel when completing destructive tasks?

• they experience high anxiety (moral strain) when they realise that what they are doing is wrong, but feel powerless to disobey

Autonomous state

• opposite of agentic state

• autonomy means to be independent or free

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

• The shift from autonomy to ‘agency’ is called agentic shift

When does Milgram suggest the agentic shift occurs?

When a person perceives someone else as a figure of authority. This person has greater power due to their position in a social hierarchy

Binding factors

a term used to explain why an individual might remain in the agentic state.

why did many participants in Milgram’s research speak like they wanted to quit but felt unable to do so?

There were aspects of the situation that allow the person to ignore or minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour and therefore reduce the ‘moral strain’ they felt (binding factors)

legitimacy of authority

An explanation for obedience which suggests that we are more likely to obey people who we perceive to have authority over us. This authority is justified (legitimate) by the individual’s position of power within a social hierarchy

• the authority that they have is legitimate and is agreed by society. We accept that these figures can exercise social power over others to allow society to function smoothly

• we are willing to give up some of our independence and to hand control of our behaviour over to people we trust to exercise their authority appropriately

destructive authority

• powerful people sometimes use their legitimate powers for destructive purposes. This can lead people to behave in ways that are cruel and dangerous.

Dispositional explanation

Any explanation of behaviour that highlights the importance of the individual’s personality (i.e. their dispositions). Such explanations are often contrasted with situational explanations

Authoritarian personality

a type of personality that Adorno argued was especially susceptible to obeying people in authority.. They are submissive to those of higher status and dismissive of inferiors

Adorno’s research into authoritarian personality

His research led them to draw a very different conclusion compared to Milgram. They believed that a high level of obedience was basically a psychological disorder, and tried to locate the causes of it in the personality of the individual.

Aim of Adorno’s research into authoritarian personality

To understand the anti-Semitism of the Holocaust (why Nazis had obeyed Hitler’s orders) by locating a personality related cause of high levels of destructive obedience.

Procedure of Adorno’s research into authoritarian personality

• Adorno obtained a sample of more than 2000 middle-class white Americans

• They developed several scales to investigate the causes of the obedient personality and their unconscious attitudes towards other racial groups

• This included the F-scale (potential fascism) which is still used today to measure authoritarian personality

Findings of Adorno’s research into authoritarian personality

• People with authoritarian learnings (who scored high on the F-scale) identified with ‘strong’ people and were contemptuous of the ‘weak’.

• They were very conscious of their own and others’ status, showing excessive respect to those of higher status.

• Authoritarian people have a cognitive style where there was no ‘fuzziness’ between categories of people. They have a fixed and distinctive stereotype about other groups

• There was a strong positive correlation between authoritarianism and prejudice

conclusion of Adorno’s research into authoritarian personality

people with an authoritarian personality have a tendency to be especially obedient to authority and have extreme respect/be submissive to it

Authoritarian characteristics

• very obedient to authority— it forms as a result of harsh parenting

• believe society needs strong, powerful leaders

• Rigid views, no ‘grey areas’, everything is right or wrong

• value enforcing traditions such as loving your country, religion and family

social support

The presence of people who resist pressures to conform or obey can also help others to do the same. They act as models to show others that you can resist social influence.

Locus of control

The extent to how much control we believe we have in our lives. Internals believe they have large amounts of control whereas externals believe things happen beyond our control.

How does social support affect conformity?

• the pressure to conform can be reduced if there are other people present who are not conforming

• In Asch’s study, the dissenter doesn’t have to give the ‘right’ answer but simply seeing someone else not give in to the majority is enough for others to not conform

• it allows a person to be free to follow their own conscience

• This other person acts as a ‘model’

How does social support affect obedience?

• the pressure to obey can be reduce if another person disobeys

• In one of Milgram’s variations, obedience dropped from 65% to 10% when the genuine participant was joined by a disobedient confederate

• They may not follow their behaviour but they acted as a ‘model’ for the participant to copy that frees him to act from his own conscience

How does internal locus of control link to resisting social influence?

• People who have an internal locus of control tend to be more self-confident, more achievement-oriented, have higher intelligence and have less need for social approval, leading to greater resistance and social influence.

• They take personal responsibility for their actions so are more likely to base their decisions on their own beliefs

How does external locus of control link to resisting social influence?

• People who have an external locus of control tend to be less self-confident, less achievement-oriented, have lower intelligence and have more need for social approval, leading to no resistance and social influence.

• They take very little personal responsibility for their actions so are more likely to base their decisions on their social pressures.

Minority influence

a form of social influence in which a minority of people persuade others to adopt their beliefs, attitudes or behaviours.

• This leads to internalisation or conversion, meaning that private attitudes are changes as well as public behaviours

• Moscovici (1969) was the first to identify minority influence as a contrast to majority influence

Moscovici’s blue-green slide study

• he gathered a group of 6 people to view a set of blue-coloured slides

• Participants were asked to state whether the slides were blue or green. In each group, there were 2 confederates (minority) who consistently said the slides were green (incorrect) on two-thirds of the trials. The real participants then gave the same answer as the minority on at least one trial.

Moscovici’s blue-green slide study (variations)

• A second group of participants was exposed to an inconsistent minority and agreement fell to 1.25%.

• For a third variation, there were no confederates and all the participants had to was identify the colour of each slide. They got it wrong on just 0.25% of the trials.

• This demonstrates not only the power of how a minority (2 confeds.) can sway the decision of the majority, but also the importance of them being consistent in their message

Consistency

Over time, the consistency in the minority’s views increases the amount of interest from other people.

• Synchronic consistency - agreement between the people in the minority group (they’re all saying the same thing)

• diachronic consistency - the people in the minority group have been the saying the same thing for a long period of time.

Commitment

Sometimes, minorities engage in extreme activities to draw attention to their views

• It is important that these extreme activities are at some risk to the minority because this demonstrates commitment

• Majority group members then pay more attention to it.

• This is the augmentation principle

Flexibility

Nemeth (1986) argued that consistency is not the only important factor in minority influence because it can be interpreted negatively

• Being extremely consistent and repeating the same arguments suggest you are rigid, unbending and inflexible, which can be off-putting to the majority. This makes it unlikely to result in any conversions to the minority position

• Instead members need to be prepared to adapt their point of view and accept reasonable and valid counter-arguments.

• The key is to strike a balance between consistency and flexibility

The process of change

• Hearing something that you already agree with won’t make you stop and think. However, hearing something new might make you think about it— especially if the source is consistent and passionate about it.

• It is this deeper processing which is important in the process of conversion to a different minority viewpoint.

• Overtime, increasing numbers of people switch from the majority position to the minority.

• The more this happens, the faster of conversion — snowball effect. Gradually, the minority become the majority

Social change

A process in which whole societies (rather than just individuals) adopt new attitudes, beliefs and behaviours. This is often as a result of minority influence

First step of social change

• drawing attention

• Individuals in the minority will use proof (statistics or evidence) to highlight to others that there is some sort of problem that needs addressing

second step of social change

• consistency

• the minority are consistent in their message. They show synchronic consistency and diachronic consistency

third step of social change

• deeper processing

• individuals who are listening to the minority will begin to think about the issue much more than they have ever before. They will begin to see it in a different way

fourth step of social change

• augmentation principle

• Members of the minority engage in risky behaviours to demonstrate to others that they are committed to the cause. If someone performs an action with known consequences, their motive for acting must outweigh the consequences.

fifth step of social change

• snowball effect

• more and more people adopt the minority opinion, until gradually the minority becomes the majority. The group becomes more powerful and more people join the cause at a quicker rate than before.

final step of social change

• social cryptomnesia

• People have a memory that change has occurred but don’t remember how it happened - they forget where this ‘new’ view came from. This often happens when the individual once held a negative view of the minority