Social influence

Conformity + types, conformity to social roles,

Who came up with the 3 types of conformity

Kelman (1958)

what are the three types of conformity

identification

internalisation

compliance

Identification

to be part of a group

external change (public)

change to the demands of social role

only around group

internalisation

accepts group’s norms

external/internal change (private & public)

permanent even with group absence

compliance

going along publicly

external change stops once pressure is removed

no internal/private change

superficial/temporary

majority view

who came up with the two-process theory of conformity

Desutch & gerald (1955)

two reasons we confrom

informational social influence

normative social influence

informational social influence

cognitive process

to be right

think the group has better information

permanent change/internalisation

occurs during ambiguity/crisis

Normative social influence

emotional process

to be liked/accepted

need for social approval

occurs in situations with rejection or approval

temporary change/compliance

\

Strength for NSI

__Research support__

Asch interviewed participants

reported some conformed out of self-consciousness

writing answers down decreased conformity to 12.5%

removal of NSI pressure

limitation of NSI

__does not predict conformity/individual differences__

nAffilators more likely to conform than someone who is confident (McGhee & Teevan)

too general of theory

nAffilators

individuals who are more concerned with being accepted and liked

strong need for affilation

lower confidence

Strength of ISI

__research support__

Lucas et al (2006) maths study

participants conformed to wrong answers when they were hard/ambigious

wanted to be right

counterpoint to ISI

unclear which explanation

Asch (1955) found conformity reduced if there was a dissenter as it reduces NSI/provides social support but also ISI

hard to separate

\

aim of Asch’s line experiment (1955)

to see to what extent people will conform to the opinion of others

Asch (1955) baseline procedure

123 american men

judged line lengths

groups of 6-8 with 1 genuine p

unaware they were the only participant

\

how many didn’t conform in Asch (1955)

25%

average of participants agreeing with incorrect answer

36\.8% or 32%

over 12 critical trials, how any conformed at least once

75%

Asch’s 3 situational varibles

group size

unanimity

task difficulty

task difficulty

lines became more similar

conformity increased

Group size

curvilinear relationship between conformity & group size

1-1 = 3%

1-2 = 12.8%

1-3 = 32% = then levelled off

1/2 confederates was enough to sway opinion

unanimity

presence of a non-conforming dissenter

1 dissenter giving correct answer = fell to 5%

1 dissenter gave different answer = fell to 9%

dissenter acts like a model

limitations for Asch (1955)

__Individual factor__

Lucas found that conformity is more complex = higher abilities are less likely to conform

__task was articifiadcal__

fiskle = they knew they were in research study

demand characteristics

__cultural bias/sample bias__

not everyday group you’d experiences in everyday

universalistic standards

__ethical issues__ = deception

strength for asch (1955)

__Research support__

Lucas et al (2006) found p were more likely to conform if it was a harder question

who did stanford university prison experiment

Zimbardo (1971)

aim of Zimbardo’s study (1971)

to understand why prison guards act brutally

Zimbardo’s baseline procedure (1971)

mock prison

21 american men student volunteers

tested emotionally stable

randomly assigned roles

how were p encouraged to confrom to their social roles

__instructions__

guards are in charge

rather than withdraw had to apply for parole

__uniform__

prisoners = smock & cap, identified by number (dehumanisation/loss of personal identity)

Guards = uniform, mirrorshades, club

what happened within 2 days

prisoners rebelled against enthusiastic guards

harassed prisoners (fire extinguishers/divide and conquer)

headcounts at night to disorientate

hunger strike = in the hole

prisoners became depressed

guards identified closer with roles

when did the prison experiment end

after 6 days = meant to be 14 days

what were the findings of ZImbardo’s prison experiment

social roles had a strong influence over individuals behaviour

were behaving to role not study

Limitations of zimbardo’s prison experiment (1971)

__Lack of realism__

play-acting = behaving based on stereotypes not social role 

One of the guards based his role on a movie

*Counterpoint* = P behaved as if it was real to them

90% of the prisoner’s conversations were about prison life

\
__Exaggerates the power of roles__

Only ⅓ of the prisoners behaved brutally 

Another third tried to apply the rules fairly

Most guards could resist 

overstated brutally

\
__ethical issue__

prisoners weren’t protected from harm

strengths of zimbardo’s prison experiemnt (1971)

__Control__

Zimbardo had control over key variables

Selection of p = randomly assigned > unbiased

> not personality but rather the role

Internal validity

who conducted the shock experiment

Milgram (1961 actual experiment, published findings 1963)

Milgram’s shock experiment (1961) baseline procedure

40 American men volunteered

Advertised as a memory study

volunteer introduced to another ‘p’ + an experimenter

fixed draw = p was ‘teacher’

E ordered the P to give an increasingly strong shock to L located in a different toom

15 volts - 450 volts (a fatal shock)

Milgram’s shock experiment (1961) aim

to assess obedience in a situation where an authority figure (experimenter who  took

4 prods given to P in milgram’s experiment

1. Please continue or go on
2. the expriement requires you to continue
3. its absolutly essential you continue
4. you have no other choice but to continue

findings of Milgram’s shock experiment (1961)

every p went to 300v

12\.5% stopped at 300V

65% continued to highest shock/fully obedient

what qualitative data was observed in Milgram’s shock experiment (1961)

sweating

trembling

3 sezuires

strengths of Milgram’s baseline procedure (1961)

__replicable__

findings replicated in a french documentary (*Game of Death*)

external validity

\
__Sheridan & King (1972)__

shocks to a live puppy

real distress from puppy

54% of men

100% of women obeyed giving the fatal shock

suggested effects were genuine

Limitation of Milgram’s base line procedure (1961)

__Low internal validity__ 

Milgram reported 75% believed that the shocks were real

Orne & Holland (1968) argued they were play-acting

Perry (2013) reviewed tapes confirms this

P responding to demand characteristics > half believed it + ⅔ disobedient 

\n __Ethical issues__

deception meant P couldn’t properly consent

pressured by prods = psychological harm

\
__Alternative interpretation = blind obedience not justified__

Haslam (2014)

p obeyed to first 3 prods but disobeyed on 4th

social identity theory = only obeyed when they identified with scientific aims

\

Milgram’s situational variables

proximity

uniform

location

proxmity situational variable

baseline = hear not see

proximity = same room = 40%

touch = t recieved shock from plate = 30%

remote = E left room + gave instructions via phone = 20.5%

location situational variable

baseline = yale university

office block = 47.5%

uni’s prestige gave authority

uniform situational variable

baseline = lab coat

member of the public = 20%

uniform is symbol of legitimate authority

strength of milgrams situational variable

__Bickman’s field experiment (1974)__

3 confederates

jacket & tie, milkman and security guard

asked passers to pick up litter or hand over a coin for parking meter

2x a likely to obey if they wore security guard than jacket

\
__cross-cultural replication__

Meesus & Raaijmakers (1986) Dutch experiment

p ordered to say stressful things in an interview to confederate desperate for a job

90% obeyed

not just limited to americans

limitations of milgrams situational variable

__Low internal validity__ 

Orne & Holland (1968) argued they were play-acting

Perry (2013) reviewed tapes confirm this

P responding to demand characteristics > half believed it + ⅔ disobedient 

\
__Offensive__

offensive to survivors of the holocaust by suggesting they were just obeying (excuses behaviour)

\
__individual characteristics__

Dispositional factors ignored (personality traits, temperament)

what is the situational explanation of obedience

the situation is the most important = milgram’s agency theory (1973)

agentic state

acting on the behalf of an external authrotiy

do not take responsibility as they asct as an ‘agent’

agentic shift

change from autonomy to agency

may experience moral strain but cannot disobey

binding factors

aspects that allow a person to ignore/minimise damage of their behaviour

when does agentic shift occur

when a person percieves someone else as an authority figure

Legitimacy of authority 

Society is hierarchical > accepted

Authority is legitimate as its agreed by society

Some people have the power to punish others

Give up someone of our independence and hand to people to exercise authority appropriately

Shifting responsibility to the victim or denying the damage they cause

Destructive authority

charismatic leaders using powers for destructive purposes

strength of the situational explnation of obedience

__Research supports__

Milgram = E took responsibility which meant the p was perceived to not be responsible

\
__Obedience alibi revisited__

Mandel

ww2 Police battalion 101

behaved autonomously but destructively

shot civilians

\
__Explains cultural differences__

Kilham & Mann (1974) = 16% pf austrialian women went to 450v in milgrams style study

Mantell (1971) = 85% german p

Limitation of the situtaional explanation of obedience ffm

__Limited explanation__

Rank & Jacobson (1977)

can only account for some

16/18 nurses refused to overdose patients under doctors’ orders (remained autonomous)

what is the dispositional explnation of obedience

personality is the most important in obedience

who came up with the dispositional explanation for obedience and why

Adorno

to understand the antisemitism of the holocaust

what did research suggest about the dispositional explanation

high level of obedience was pathological/psycholgoical disorder

authoritarian personalities (AP)

show extreme respect/submissiveness to authority

view society as weaker

need a strong leader to enforce traditional views

contempt for others/less than

no grey areas

where does AP come from

harsh parenting/conditional love creates hostility that cannot be expressed against parents displaced on scapegoats

Andorno’s resarch (1950)

Studied 2000 middle-class white Americans + their unconscious attitudes towards other racial groups.

\
found AP identified with strong individuals

contemptuous for the weak

conscious of status

AP had certain fixed cognitive styles = black & white stereotypes

Potential-for-facism (f-scale)

measures authoritarian personality

“obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtues for children to learn”

Strengths of the dispositional explanation of obedience

__Research support__

milgram’s study

interviewed sample of P

completed 5-scale

20 obedient p scored significantly higher than control

supports view that obedient p show AP characteristics

\
*Counterpoint*

Researchers analysed individual subscales of the F-Scale

p had unusual characteristics of AP = didn’t glorify their parents or receive extreme punishment in childhood

link between obedience and authoritarianism is complex

__Limited explanation__

Authoritarianism cannot explain obedient behaviours in the majority of a country’s population

In pre-war Germany = obedient, racist and anti-Semitic behaviour despite different personalities = Unlikely all be AP

social identity theory more realistic

\
__Political Bias__

F-scale only measures extreme right-wing ideology

Christie & Jahado (1954) = politically biased

Extreme right and left similar

Not comprehensive explanation

social identity theory

an organization can change individual behaviours if it can modify their self-identity or part of their self-concept

two explanations for resistance to social influence

social support

locus of control

social support: resisting conformity

pressure to conform is reduced if others aren’t

Asch = even if wrong answer = ↓ 9%

dissenter begins to conform so will P (not long-lasting)

social support: resisting obedience

pressure to obey is reduced if others aren’t

gives power to ‘break free’

Milgram’s variables = 65% → 10% when confederate disobeys

may not follow behaviour but acts as a model

challenged legitimacy of authority

strength of social support

__Asch type study__

Allen & Levine (1971) conformity decreased if there was 1 dissenter

doesn’t have to be right answer/even with glasses

*counterpoint*

resistance only 36%

\
__Real-world support__

teen fresh start USA = Albrecht (2006)

8-week programme to stop pregnant teens smoking

if they had a mentor less likely to smoke than control group

\
__Oil company smear campaign__

Gamson et al (1982)

told to produce evidence

higher levels of resistance as they discussed in groups

88% resist orders

Locus of control (LOC)

Rotter (1966) = sense of what directs events in our lives

internal loc

things that happen are controlled by themselves

“failed because they didnt study”

external loc

thigns that happen are out of their control

“failed because it was hard”

LOC continumm

Higher I on one end high E on other

How does LOC effect social infleunce

internals mroe likleuy to resist

more likley to take accountability as actions are based on their own morals

confident and had less need for social approval

Strength of LOC

__Research support__

Holland (1967) repeated Milgram’s baseline study

37% of internals & 23% of externals didn’t continue to highest shock

limitation of LOC

__Contradictory evidence__

Twenge (2004) anaylsed data from american LOC stuies over 40 yrs

more external but more resistant

\
__limted explanation__

depends on situation = new ones

Rotter = conformed once will conform again

what is minority influence

person/small group infleuncing the beleifs of others

leading to internalsition

3 main processed of minority infleucne according ot Moscovi

consistnecy

commitment

flexibility

consistnecy

must be consistent in their views

increases the amount of interest from others

makes others reconsider their views/deeper processing

two types of consistency

Synchronic consistency

Diachronic consistency

Synchronic consistency

all saying the same things (agreement between people)

Diachronic consistency

saying the same things for a period of time

commitment

must demosntate level of dedication to the casue

some element of risk/extreme actibity

augmentation pricniple = increases attention

augmentation principle

the risk results in majority valuing the cause

flexibitiy

Nemeth (1986) = consistency may be off putting/negative

needs to be prepared to adapt view + accept valid counter arguments 

balance between consistency and flexibility

process of change

More likely to think deeply about something if its a new, consistent, committed and flexible resource

Switch for minority > to majority (converted)

more this happens the faster the rate of conversion

Snowball effect

Gradually the minority becomes the majority and a change has occurred

Deeper processing

process of conversion to a minority view point

Moscovi blue slide green slide

172 women in groups of 6

judged colour of 36 blue slides

2 confederats said slide was green consistent

wrong asnwer was given 8.4%

control group (inconsistent) 1.25%

limitation of moscovi study

gender bias = women more likely to conform

culture bias = only american

strength of minority influence

__research support__

wood et al (1984) meta-analysis of 100 studies

minorities who were consistently most influential

\
__deeper processing__

Martin et al (2003) presented message about viewpoint

1 group minority & 1 group majority

exposed to conflicting views

less likely to change if listened to minority

*counterpoint*

real-world influences more complicated

commitment is absent from studies

limitation of minority influence

__artificial task__

lack mundane realism/external validity

doesn’t show how minority influence works in real life

lack of commitment/no consequences

Social change

when whole society rather than individual adopt a new attitude/behaviour

how social influence creates social change drawing from SI studies

Social change:  Lessons from minority influence 

__Drawing attention - through social proof__

Marches grew attention to segregation in the south

__Consistency__

Non- violent

__Deeper processing__

many that had accepted view started thinking deeply about injustice

__Augmentation principle__

Individuals risked lives

__Snowball effect__

activists (such as MLK) gather more attention (leading to the civil rights act 1964, voting right act 1965)

__Social cryptomnesia__

some have no memory of how the change occurred, just that it did.

Social change: Lessons from conformity research 

__Asch__

research showed a dissenter broke the power of the majority

dissent has the potential to lead to social change

ENSI draw attention to what the majority is doing

Social change: Lessons from obedience research

__Milgram__

showed importance of disobedient role models

Zimbardo = suggests obedience can be used to create social change through gradual commitment

small instructions obeyed makes it harder to resist large ones

\

Strength for social change

Research support for NSI

Nolan (2008) change in energy use habits can be message on doors everywhere for a month

significant decrease in energy usage

\
__Minority influence explains change__

Nemeth claims social change is due to the type of thinking minorities inspire = divergent thinking

broad thinking which weights up more options

lead to better decisions = dissenting minority valuable

Limitation for social change

__doesn’t produce long-term change__

70 studies where social norms was used to reduce student drinking

a small reduction in drinking quantity but not frequency