Social Influence

Conformity

A change in a person’s behaviour due to real or imagined pressure from a person or group of people.

Asch’s Research (AO1)

Procedure:

• 123 American men were tested in a group with other apparent participants

• Each participant was show two large white cards, one with a standard line and the other with three comparison lines

• Participants had to say which comparison line was the same as the standard line

Findings:

• 36.8% of the participants agreed with the confederates wrong answers

• 25% never agreed

Variables:

Group Size -

• Curvilinear relationship - conformity increased but only up to a point

• 3 confederates = 31.8%, more confederates made little difference

Unanimity -

• Conformity decreased as dissenter appeared to free the participants to behave independently

Task Difficulty -

• Conformity increased with task difficulty as the task was ambiguous

Asch’s Research (AO3)

Artificial task

• Participants knew they were in a study so portrayed demand characteristics

• Task was trivial so there was no reason not to conform

• Groups did not resemble those that we experience in everyday life

Limited Application

• Other studies suggest that women conform more because they are more concerned about social relationships

• US = individualistic, similar studies in collectivist cultures show high conformity rates

Research support

- Todd Lucas et al:

• Participants were asked to solve easy and hard math problems

• Participants conformed to incorrect answer more often when math problems were difficult

Types and Explanations (AO1)

Types of conformity:

- Internalisation

• Occurs when we genuinely accept group norms

• Private, public and permanent change in behaviour

• Change persists even in the absence of group members

- Identification

• We identify with a group and want to be a part of it

• Publicly agree even if we privately disagree

- Compliance

• Superficial agreement

• Particular behaviour stops with group pressure

Explanations of conformity:

- Informational Social Influence (ISI)

• Based on our belief that others are more informed than us (we want to be right)

• Unclear, ambiguous, crisis situations

• Cognitive process = internalisation

- Normative Social Influence (NSI)

• Temporary change in behaviour (we want to be liked and gain social approval)

• Stressful situations

• Emotional process = compliance

Types and Explanations (AO3)

Research support for NSI

• Asch interviewed his participants and some said that they conformed because they felt self-conscious giving the right answer

• When participants were asked to write down their answers conformity fell to 12.5% because there was no normative group pressure

Research support for ISI

• Todd Lucas et al

• When problems were hard the situation was ambiguous and participants did not want to be wrong so relied on answers given

Individual difference in NSI

• nAffiliators are greatly concerned with being liked by others

• Studies show that students who are nAffiliators are more likely to confom

Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment (AO1)

Social roles: the parts people play as members of various social groups

Procedure:

• Set up a mock prison in the basement of the psychology department at Stanford University

• 21 men who were tested as ‘emotionally stable’ were selected and randomly assigned the role of a guard or prisoner

Uniform:

• Prisoners were given a loose smock and a cap to cover their heads and identified by numbers

• Guards were given wooden clubs, handcuffs and mirror shades

Findings:

• Guards treated prisoners harshly. Prisoners rebelled by ripping uniforms and swearing and shouting at the guards who retaliated with fire extinguishers

• Guards harassed prisoners and highlighted the difference in social roles

• Prisoners became subdued, depressed and anxious. One was released because he showed signs of psychological disturbance

• One went on a hunger strike and was force fed and put into a tiny dark closet.

• Zimbardo ended the experiment in six days instead of the intended 14

Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment (AO3)

High control

• Emotionally stable men were chosen and randomly assigned which ruled out individual personality differences and suggests their behaviour was due to the role.

• High degree of control over variables which increased internal validity

Lack of realism

• Participants were play-acting rather than genuinely conforming to roles

• Performance was based on stereotypes of how prisoners and guards are supposed to behave

• For example, one guard said his role was based on a character from Cool Hand Luke

Ethical issues

• Lack of informed consent due to deception required to avoid demand characteristics

• Psychological harm: participants were emotionally distressed, anxious and disturbed. One was released the first day and two the day after

Milgram’s Research (AO1)

Procedure:

• 40 American Men

• Drew lots to see who would be the learner and who would be the teacher (draw was fixed so participant was always the teacher)

• Experimenter asked the participant to give the learner shocks each time they answered incorrectly (15 volts to 450 volts)

Findings:

• Everybody gave all shocks until 300 volts. 12.5% stopped at 300 volts. 65% continued to the highest 450 volts

• Sweating, trembling, stuttering, biting their lips, digging nails into their hands and 3 had seizures

Milgram’s research (AO3)

Research support

• Replicated in a French Documentary and 80% of the participants gave maximum shocks to an apparently unconscious man

• Similar behaviour to Milgram’s participants: nervous, biting nails

Low internal validity

• Milgram reported that 75% of the participants believed the shocks were real but it was argued that participants were play-acting

• Gina Perry reviewed the tapes of Milgram’s Experiment and found that only half of them believed the shocks were real

Ethical issues

• Psychological harm: similar to Milgram’s experiment suggesting that these behaviours were not due to participant variables

Milgram - Situational Variables (AO1)

Proximity

• Obedience decreased to 40% when teacher and learner were in the same room

• Touch proximity variation: obedience decreased to 30% when teacher was asked to force to learner’s hand onto the electroshock plate

• Remote instruction variation: obedience decreased to 20.5% when experimenter left the room and gave instructions by telephone

Location

• Conducted the experiment in a run-down office block where obedience decreased to 46.5%

Uniform

• Obedience decreased to 20% when experimenter was replaced by an ordinary member of the public

Milgram - Situational Variables (AO3)

Research support

• Bickman et al conducted a field experiment in New York where three confederates were dressed in: security guard uniform, milkman outfit or jacket and tie

• Asked people to perform tasks such as picking up the litter

• More likely to obey confederate in security guard uniform

Low internal validity

• Extra manipulation of variables, for example, when experimenter was replaced by ordinary member of public

• Milgram recognised situation was contrived, participants responding to demand characteristics

Cross-cultural replication

• Dutch participants were ordered to say stressful things in a job interview = 90% obeyed

• Proximity = when the person who gave the instructions was not present, obedience decreased

Agentic State (AO1)

Agentic State: A mental state in which we feel no responsibility for our actions because we believe ourselves to be acting for a figure of authority

Autonomous State: Behave freely according to our own principles and feel a sense of responsibility for our actions

Agentic Shift: Shift from autonomous to agentic state

Agentic State (AO3)

Research support

• Milgram’s participants resisted giving shocks and asked the Experimenter ‘Who is responsible if the learner is harmed?’

• When the Experimenter replied ‘I’m responsible’ the participants continued without further objection

Limited explanation

• In Rank and Jacobson’s study, 16 out of 18 nurses disobeyed orders from a doctor to administer an excessive drug dose to a patient

• Doctor was a figure of authority but most nurses remained autonomous

Legitimacy of Authority (AO1)

• We are more likely to obey others who we perceive to have authority over us

• Authority is legitimate as it is agreed upon by society

• Justified by an individuals position within the social hierarchy

Legitimacy of Authority (AO3)

Explains cultural differences

• Countries differ in degrees to which people are obedient to authority

• 16% Australian women = 450 volts however 85% Germans

• In some countries authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimate

Limited Explanation

• In Rank and Jacobson’s study, 16 out of 18 nurses disobeyed orders from the doctor to administer an excessive drug dose to a patient

• Most were disobedient despite working in a hierarchical authority structure

• Milgram’s participants were disobedient despite recognising the Experimenter’s authority

Authoritarian Personality (AO1)

Adorno:

• Show extreme respect for authority and believe that we need powerful leader to enforce traditional values

• Contempt for those of inferior status

• Inflexible outlook on the world, no grey areas (either black or white)

Origins:

• Parenting style is harsh, severe criticism for perceived failures and conditional love

• Create resentment and hostility in children which cannot be directed towards parents so displaced onto those who they perceive as weaker

Adorno’s Research

• Studied more than 2000, middle-class white American men and their unconscious attitudes towards other ethnic groups using the F-scale

• Those who scored higher on the F-scale were more likely to have authoritarian learnings

• Positive correlation between authoritarianism and prejudice

Authoritarian Personality (AO3)

Research support

• Milgram interviewed participants who had been fully obedient in his study

• These 20 participants scored higher on the F-scale compared to a group of 20 disobedient participants

Limited explanation

• Authoritarian personality cannot explain obedient behaviour in majority of country’s population

• For example, pre-war Germany most of the people displayed obedient behaviour

• Highly unlikely that all of them could possess authoritarian personality

Lacks population/ temporal validity

• Only studied 2000 middle-class, white American men during the 1950s

• During this time period people were more likely to hold authoritarian views due to cultural and historical influences

• Cannot be applied to different cultures and genders

Resistance to Social Influence - Social Support (AO1)

Social support - the presence of people who resist pressures to conform or obey can help others to do the same

Conformity

• The pressure to conform can be resisted if there are other people who do not conform (Asch)

Obedience

• The pressure to obey resisted if there are other people who disobey

• Rate dropped from 65% to 10% when there was a disobedient confederate

Resistance to Social Influence - Social Support (AO3)

Real world research support

• Teen Fresh Start USA, a program which helped pregnant adolescents to resist peer pressure to smoke

• Social support was provided by an older mentor

• The adolescents who had a mentor were less likely to smoke than the control group

Research support for dissenting peers

• Participants were asked to produce evidence to help an oil company run a smear campaign

• Participants were in groups and so researchers found higher level of resistance than Milgram

• 29 out of 33 groups of participants disobeyed

Resistance to Social Influence - Locus of Control (AO1)

• Locus of control is a measurement of an individual’s sense of control over their lives

• High internal LOC = resist the pressure to conform or obey

• Responsibility for their actions and more self-confident, greater personal efficacy so are more likely to make decisions based on their own moral code

• External locus of control are prone to learned helplessness and follow others because they don’t think they can control what happens anyways

Resistance to Social Influence - Locus of Control (AO3)

Research support

• Repeated Milgram’s Experiment and measured whether participants were internals or externals

• 37% of internals did not continue to maximum shock whilst only 23% of externals did not continue

Contradictory research

• Analysed data from American LOC studies over 40 years

• In this time span people became more resistant but also more external

Minority Influence (AO1)

Minority influence - A form of social influence in which a minority of people persuade others to adopt their behaviours

Consistency

• Consistent of their views which increases the interest and allows people to rethink their own views

• Synchronic consistency - they’re all saying the same thing

• Diachronic consistency - they’ve all been saying the same thing for a some time now

Commitment

• Engage in extreme activities that present some risk to draw attention to their views known as the augmentation principle

Flexibility

• Repeating the same old arguments may be seen as rigid and unbending

• Adapt their point of view and accept valid counterarguments

Snowball effect: Overtime, more people switch from majority to minority position and gradually minority view becomes the majority view

Moscovici et al:

• 4 participants were in a group with 2 confederates

• They were shown 36 blue slides, each varied in intensity. The confederates consistently said the slides were green

• Participants agreed with the confederates wrong answer 8% of the time

• When confederates were inconsistent, participants only agreed 1% of the time

Minority Influence (AO3)

Research support for consistency

• Moscovici’s study showed that a consistent minority had a greater effect on changing views than an inconsistent minority

• Wood et al carried out a meta-analysis of 100 similar studies and found that minorities that were consistent were most influential

Research support for deeper processing

• In Martin et al’s study, one group heard the opinion of minority and the other heard the opinion of a majority

• Participants were exposed to a conflicting view and those who heard the opinion of the minority group were less likely to change their opinions

• Minority message is more deeply processed

Artificial task

• Moscovici’s task lacks realism as it does not represent scenarios within which minority groups would act in real life

• Findings lack ecological and external validity

Social Influence and social change (AO1)

Social change - this occurs when whole societies adopt new attitudes, beliefs and ways of doing things

1) Drawing attention
2) Consistency
3) Deeper processing
4) Augmentation principle
5) Snowball effect
6) Social cryptomnesia

Conformity:

Asch

• The presence of a dissenter breaks the power of majority and encourages others to do likewise

• Draw attention to what the majority are doing leading to NSI

Obedience:

Zimbardo suggests that gradual commitment can be used to create social change as once a small instruction is obeyed, it is difficult to resist a bigger one

Social Influence and social change (AO3)

Research support for NSI

• Hung notes on people’s front doors with a message about reducing energy usage every week for a month

• As a control, some residents had a message that asked them to save energy but did not refer to other people’s behaviour

• Decrease in energy usage in the first group compared to the control group

• This shows that majority influence can lead to social change through normative social influence

Minority influence explains change

• Social change is due to the type of thinking that minorities inspire, they engage in divergent thinking

• This thinking is broad, thinker actively searches for information and weighs up more options

• This leads to better decisions and more creative solutions

Role of deeper processing

• People supposedly change their view because they think deeply about minority’s view, however Diane Mackie disagrees

• She suggests that majority influence creates deeper processing because we like to believe that others share our views and think in the same way as us

• When we find that a majority thinks differently, then we are forced to think deeper