social influence AO1

conformity

the tendency to change what we do, think or say in response to the influence of a real or imagined pressure from a majority group

who came up with the 2 types of conformity?

Kelman in 1985

what are the 2 types of conformity?

compliance and internalisation

what is compliance in the context of conformity?

• the most shallow level of conformity

• you agree in public but disagree in private as you do not actually believe what you are saying

what is internalisation in the context of conformity?

• the deepest form of conformity

• you agree in public AND private as your view on the matter/subject/opinion has actually been changed

who developed the 2 process theory that there are 2 central human needs?

deustch and gerard 1955

what are the 2 central human needs?

• the need to be right

• the need to be liked

what is 'the need to be right'?

informational social influence (ISI)

what is 'the need to be liked'?

normative social influence (NSI)

informational social influence (ISI)

• leads to a permanent change

• a cognitive process, so most likely leads to internalisation

what does ISI most likely lead to?

internalisation

normative social influence (NSI)

• an emotional process, so most likely leads to compliance

• leads to a temporary change

what does NSI lead to?

compliance

What was Asch's baseline procedure for his study?

• 123 American, male, white participants

• saw 2 white cards with 4 lines on, 2 of the lines matched

• the answer is obvious

• everyone but one participant (naïve participant) is a confederate who knows which is the right answer and picks the wrong one

what were Asch's baseline findings?

• 5% conformed on every trial

• 75% conformed at least once

• 37% overall conformity

what were Asch's baseline conclusions?

conformity due to:

• 'I must be wrong'

• 'I don't want to be laughed at'

• didn't notice the answer was wrong

Asch variation- group size: PROCEDURE

• 1 all the way to 15 confederates tested repeatedly

Asch variation- group size: FINDINGS

• curvilinear relationship

• conformity increased with group size up to a point

• with 3 confederates, conformity to the wrong answer = 31.8%

Asch variation- group size: CONCLUSIONS

conformity increases with group size, only up to a certain point

Asch variation-unanimity: PROCEDURE

confederate who disagreed with the other confederates- either gave the correct or an incorrect answer

Asch variation-unanimity: FINDINGS

participant conformed less in the presence of the new confederate

Asch variation-unanimity: CONCLUSIONS

unanimity increases conformity- if unanimity is broken, then conformity goes down

Asch variation- task difficulty: PROCEDURE

make the lines repeatedly more similar (more similar)

Asch variation- task difficulty: FINDINGS

as task difficulty increased, so did conformity

Asch variation- task difficulty: CONCLUSIONS

task difficulty increases conformity, as suggested by informational social influence

strengths of Asch's research

• research was highly controlled so easily replicated

• the research clearly demonstrated people conforming when the correct answer was obvious

weaknesses of Asch's research

• research only used male, white participants

• the research uses a very fake, contrived situation

• the research is ethically questionable

• this research is only relevant to other individualist cultures (western culture)

• this research only reflects the culture of the time it was carried out

Where was Milgram's obedience study conducted?

Yale University

What was the sample size and demographic of participants in Milgram's obedience study?

40 male students

How many confederates were involved in Milgram's obedience study?

Two confederates

What roles did the confederates play in Milgram's obedience study?

An experimenter and a man introduced as a volunteer participant

How were the roles of teacher and learner assigned in Milgram's obedience study?

Participants picked out of a hat (rigged, participant was always the teacher)

What task was the teacher required to perform in Milgram's obedience study?

Test the learner on their ability to remember word pairs

What happened if the learner gave an incorrect answer in Milgram's obedience study?

The teacher administered increasingly strong electric shocks

What was the starting voltage for the shocks in Milgram's obedience study?

15V

What was the maximum voltage that could be administered in Milgram's obedience study?

450V

examples of prods in Milgram's study:

• please continue

• you have no other choice, please go on

• it is absolutely essential that you continue

findings/statistics of Milgram's study

• 100% of ppts delivered all shocks up to 300V

• 12.5% of ppts stopped at 300V

• 65% continued to the highest level of 450V (fully obedient)

examples of some qualitative data Milgram collected

• sweating

• stuttering

• trembling

• 3 ppts had 'full blown uncontrollable seizures'

in the follow up after Milgram's study, how many ppts said they were happy that they had participated?

84%

what were the 3 situational factors of obedience that Milgram investigated?

proximity, location, uniform

Milgram's situational variables of obedience: touch proximity

• teacher had to force learners hand onto an 'electroshock plate' when the answer was wrong (obedience dropped to 30%)

Milgram's situational variables of obedience: proximity

• teacher and learner in the same room (obedience dropped from 65% to 40%)

Milgram's situational variables of obedience: remote instruction

• experimenter left the room and gave the teacher instructions by phone (obedience dropped to 20.5% and ppts faked giving shocks)

Milgram's situational variables of obedience: proximity- FINDINGS

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

Milgram's situational variables of obedience: location

• variation set in a run-down office block instead of Yale university (like the baseline study)

• obedience fell to 47.5%

Milgram's situational variables of obedience: location- FINDINGS

the prestigious environment gave the study legitimacy and ppts were more obedience there as they believed the experimenter shared that legitimacy

• obedience was still high in the run-down office building due to ppts perceiving the 'scientific' nature of the procedure

Milgram's situational variables of obedience: uniform

• experimenter was called away due to a inconvenient phone call at the start of the procedure

• role of experimenter was taken over by 'ordinary member of the public' (confederate) in everyday clothes, rather than a lab coat

• obedience dropped to 20% (lowest out of all of the variations)

Milgram's situational variables of obedience: uniform- FINDINGS

uniforms encourage obedience as they are widely recognised symbols of authority- we accept someone in uniform is entitled to expect obedience as their authority is legitimate (someone without uniform has less right to expect obedience)

situational explanations of obedience- agentic state

purely carrying out options as instructed by an authority figure- has no responsibility for their actions

situational explanations of obedience- agentic shift

autonomous state (independent, free, responsible for own actions) ----> agentic shift ----> agentic state (agent of authority, no responsibility for actions)

situational explanations of obedience- binding factors in the agentic state

• factors that keep people in the agentic state e.g. societal pressure, embarrassment, the 'prods' in Milgram's experiment

situational explanations of obedience- legitimacy of authority

• based on how legitimate an authority figure is

• granted power, if you are filling the stereotype of authority you are given power e.g. my lai massacre, Milgram and Hitler

dispositional explanation for obedience: authoritarian personality

TRAITS

• show extreme respect for authority

• very submissive

• view society as 'weaker' than it once was

• subscribe to the idea that we need strong and powerful leaders

• enforce traditional values e.g. love of country and family

AP- Adorno et al's research: procedure

• studied over 2000 middle-class white Americans (bias sample)

• wanted to look at unconscious attitude towards other ethnic groups

• ppts were given the F-scale (potential for fascism)

AP- Adorno et al's research: findings

• higher the score on the F-scale = more AP

• high score of F-scale, identify with 'strong' people, and dislike 'weak' people

• high on F-scale = highly aware of status and show extreme respect for those of a higher status

(traits are the basis for obedience)

when did Adorno et al think AP developed?

during childhood as a result of overly harsh parenting

right-wing authoritarianism (RWA)

• branch of AP

3 personality traits associated with them RWA

1) conventionalism- 'it's what you do'

2) authoritarian aggression- get angry at people who threaten their conventionalism

3) authoritarian submission- submit to authority

external locus of control (externals)

tend to believe things that happen are out of their control

e.g. did well on a test=good textbook, failed a test=bad luck bc of hard question

internal locus of control (internals)

believe things that happen to them are largely controlled by themselves

e.g. did well on a test=you worked hard, failed a test=didn't work hard

LOC continuum

people are not just internals or externals, LOC is a scale and individuals vary positions on it

high internal LOC- resistance to social influence

• more able to resist pressures to conform or obey (person takes responsibility for action and experiences, they tend to base decisions on their own beliefs, rather than others)

• also tend to be more self-confident, achievement orientated and have higher intelligence (traits lead to a greater resistance to social influence), also characteristics of leaders who have less need for social approval than others

minority influence

situations where one or more person influences the beliefs and behaviours of other people- most likely to lead to internalisation

moscovici’s blue-green slides study

• groups of 6 people with 2 confederates asked whether a slide was blue or green (all 36 were blue)

• when confederates said it was green and 8.42% of the time the ppts agreed

• when confederates sometimes said blue or green 1.25% of ppts agreed

what are the 3 parts of minority influence?

consistency, commitment and flexibility

minority influence- consistency

diachronic consistency (saying the same thing for ages) or synchronic consistency (all people say the same thing)

minority influence- commitment

augmentation principle, extreme actions show a deeper commitment to the cause/idea

minority influence- flexibility

extreme consistency can be dogmatic and will not alone influence the majority. the minority has to be reasonable and accept valid counterarguments

social support- resisting conformity

pressure to conform can be resisted if there are other people present who are not conforming (show in asch’s unanimity variation)

• they provide social support- confederate acts as a model for independent behaviour

social support- resisting obedience

• pressure to obey can be resisted if there is another person who is seen to disobey

• in Milgram’s study, obedience dropped from 65% to 10% when ppt was joined by a disobedient confederate

• acts as a model of dissent and challenges the legitimacy of the authority figure