Social Influence

Types of Conformity

Compliance, Internalisation, Identification

Who identified 3 types of conformity

Kelman in 1958

Define Compliance

Most superficial form of conformity

Only a public change

Define identification

Middle change of conformity

Public change in behaviour, person thinks there is something in a group that is valued

Define internalisation

Deepest level of conformity

Person genuinely accepts norms

Changes behaviour publicly and privately

What are the two explanations of conformity

NSI (Normative Social Influence)

ISI (Informational Social Influence)

Define NSI

When an individual conforms to avoid feelings of rejection or gain approval

EMOTIONAL CHANGE

Define ISI

When an individual conforms because they accept others information

COGNITIVE CHANGE

Often occurs in new situations

NSI Studies

Asch: Conformity decreased when PPTs were told to answer on paper instead of aloud

McGhee and Teevan : Students with a greater need to be affiliated to others (naffiliators) were more likely to conform

ISI Studies

Lucas et al. : Asked students maths questions ranging in difficulty, harder the questions = more likely to conform

Perrin and Spencer : STEM students are less likely to conform, more secure in knowledge

EVAL: ISI and NSI work together

Both processes work together, cannot always tell which one is the driving factor behind conformity

EVAL : Individual differences in ISI

Asch: students are less conformist (28%) than other participants (37%)

EVAL: Support for NSI

Asch: Repeated his study and had participants write answers down, conformity fell to 12.5%

When was Asch’s Study

1951

ASCH

Aims

Study the extent social pressure can change a person’s mind and lead them to conform

ASCH

Procedure

123 Male Undergraduate American Students

18 test, 12 of those are critical

ASCH

Findings

33% conformity on the 12 critical tests, 75% of participants conformed at least once

ASCH

3 variations

Group size

Unanimity

Difficulty

ASCH

Variations : Group size

Increase to 3 confederates = Conformity increases by 30%

Most conformity occurred at 7 confederates

ASCH

Variations: Unanimity

Add a non-conforming dissenter = decreased conformity by 25%

ASCH

Variations: Difficulty

Make difference between lines harder = Increase in conformity

EVAL: Asch ‘s study is product of it’s time

Perrin and Spencer reproduced study in 1980, found 1 student conformed

1950’s America VS. 1980’s UK could be a large differentiating factor between the results

EVAL: Demand characteristics in Asch

Task of identifying lines is trivial, less likely to be taken seriously

Group was not one that formed bonds of a regular group, less incentive to conform

Limits the generalisability of the study

EVAL: Limited application of Asch

Collectivist (china, India) vs. Individualistic (USA,uk) cultures

Bond and Smith: Collectivist cultures are more oriented to group needs, more likely to conform for own good

Neto: Women are more likely to conform than men, but only men were in the study

EVAL: Asch only applies to certain scenarios

Williams and Sogon: Conformity is higher when group is friend, not strangers

ZIMBARDO

When was the SPE

1971

ZIMBARDO

Aims

Examine whether people would conform to rules in a role

ZIMBARDO

Procedure

Newspaper ad = 24 male participants

Arrested, blindfolded and deloused during night

Randomly assigned roles, given uniforms and numbers

ZIMBARDO

Define deindividuation

Loss of social awareness through fact that they cannot be identified individually

ZIMBARDO

Findings

After 2 days = Prisoners rebelled, guards retaliated, punishments began for minor infractions

3 prisoners removed due to psychological damage

EVAL: Control of SPE

High levels of control over variables: random assignment of roles, made sure all volunteers are stable

High internal validity = more confidence in conclusions drawn

EVAL: Lack of realism in SPE

Banuazizi and Mohavedi: Ptp were play-acting, used stereotypes to guide their behaviours

BUT Zimbardo said 90% of prisoner conversations were about ‘prisoner life’

EVAL: Role of dispositional influences

Fromm: Accusses Zimbardo of over exaggerating how the situation influenced behaviour, and minimised personality factors. Claimed 1/3 behaved harshly, 1/3 stuck to the rules, 1/3 were sympathising with prisoners

EVAL: BBC prison study

Reicher and Haslam: Reproduced study, prisoners overtook the mock prison

Claim it was due to social identity theory, prisoners managed to form a cohesive, social identity which made them strong as a group

EVAL: Zimbardo’s ethics

Dual roles - Superintendent and lead researcher, when a prisoner would ask to leave he would act in a way as the superintendent not as a researcher allowing someone’s right to leave

EVAL: Real life application to Abu Ghraib

Could argue that social positions and the shared social identity between soldiers in Abu Ghraib could explain their behaviours

When was Milgram’s study

1963

MILGRAM

Aims

Wondered why so many Germans went along with Hitler’s plan

He wanted to know if Germans were inherently more obedient

MILGRAM

Procedure

40 male participants from flyers about memory test

Between 20 and 50

Offered $4.50

MILGRAM

Procedure of test

Experimenter and student were always confederate

Student strapped to electrodes, teacher required to give shock every time a wrong answer given

MILGRAM

Volt scale

15 to 450 volts

At 300 = student pounds on wall and gives no response

MILGRAM

encouragement

If PPT was unsure they were told 1 of 4 things

Please continue, please go on, the experiment requires you continues, you have no choice you must go on

MILGRAM

Findings

QUANTITATIVE

12.5% (5/40) stopped at 300 volts

65% (26/40) went all the way to 450 volts

QUALITATIVE

Signs of extreme tension e.g. sweating, trembling, biting lips, 3 had seizures

MILGRAM

prior assumptions

M asked 14 students to predict behaviour

Estimated 3% would go to full 450 volts

MILGRAM

Post information

All PPTS debriefed

84% said they were glad they participated

EVAL: Low internal validity for Milgram

Orne and Holland: Participants didnt think shocks were real, low internal validity

Perry: Listened to tapes of the participants, found many expressed doubt about shocks

BUT Sheridan and King: 54% of men and 100% of women gave apparently fatal shocks to a puppy

EVAL: High external validity for Milgram

Central feature of experiment is the relationship between participant and ‘experimenter’

Hofling et al: 21/22 nurses obeyed a doctor asking them to give a fatal dosage to patients (mirrors the dynamic that milgram’s study was aimed at)

EVAL: Supporting replication

Le Jeu de la Mort: Replicated Milgram on a fake pilot for a show, 80% participants delivered full 460 volts to an ‘unconscious’ man

Showed similar behaviour to Milgram’s study, nail-biting, nervous laughter

EVAL: Alternative explanation to obedience, social identity theory

Suggested reason for obedience: Participant identified with experimenter and the science of the study

Haslam and Reicher: Analysed behaviour from participants at the prompts from the experimenter, every time the fourth prompt was used (you have no choice, you must go on), the participant quit

MILGRAM

3 situational variables

Proximity

Location

Uniform

MILGRAM

Situ Vari : Proximity

1 ‘Student’ and PPT placed in same room

• 65% full obedience → 40% full obedience

2 PPT has to force ‘student’s hand onto electroshock plates

• 65% FO → 30% FO

3 ‘Experimenter’ gave PPT instructions over the phone

• 65% FO → 20.5% FO

• PPTs also gave lower shocks that supposed to

MILGRAM

Situ Vari : Location

Yale University basement → run down building

• Experimenter has seemingly less authority

• 65% FO → 47.5% FO

MILGRAM

Situ Vari : Uniform

Experimenter taken away by a phone call, role taken over by ‘member of public’

• 65% FO → 20% FO

  • LOWEST OF ALL

EVAL: Research support for variation

Bickman: 3 confederates in 3 outfits: jacket and tie, milkman’s outfit, security guard uniform

Asked passers-by to perform basic tasks e.g. pick up litter, ask for change

People twice as likely to obey security guard than man in jacket and tie

EVAL: Lack of internal validity variations study

More likely for participants to guess procedure was fake e.g. member of public giving orders

Unclear whether results are from obedience or because they guessed it was faked

EVAL: Cross-cultural replications

Miranda et al: 90% obedience from Spanish students, not all male and in a different culture

BUT Smith and Bond: Most replications are in Western, developed countries, which are culturally not to different

EVAL: High control of variations study

Milgram systematically altered the variables for each situation, meaning the conclusions drawn are more internally valid

EVAL: Provides obedience alibi

Provides situational explanation for obedience

Mandel: Criticises obedience alibi provides an out for people who commit acts under the excuse of obedience e.g. the Holocaust

2 socio-psychological factors

Agentic state

Legitimacy of authority

Define agentic state

When a person doesn’t take responsibility as they are acting for someone else

They experience high amounts of anxiety but feel powerless to disobey

Define autonomous state

Person is free to act in accordance to their own principles

Can sense the responsibility of their actions

Define agentic shift

Shift from autonomy to agency

Why does agentic shift occur

Milgram suggested this occurs when someone perceives someone as an authority figure

They have more power due to the social hierarchy

When someone is in charge, others defer to the person and shift

Define binding factors

Aspects of a situation that allow a person to minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour and reduce their moral strain

Example of binding factors

Shifting responsibility

Denying damage

Legitimacy of Authority

Hierarchy of power, that we as a society have agreed they deserve to hold e.g. police officers, teachers

Most accept that they deserve to exercise social power over others, we are willing to give independence and control of power over to people as we trust they will wield it properly

Destructive authority from Legitimacy of authority

Problems arise when legitimate authority is used destructively e.g. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot

EVAL: Cultural difference in legitimacy of authority

Kilham and Mann: Replicated Milgram in Australia, only 16% went to the full voltage

Mantel: Replicated in Germany, found 85% went to the full voltage

Shows that some cultures are view authority in varying ways especially in terms of legitimacy

EVAL: Research support for legitimacy of authority

Blass and Schmitt: Showed film of Milgram’s study to students, asked them who they thought was responsible

Students blamed the experimenter not the student, as they were in the position of authority

EVAL: Agentic state is limited explanation

Doesn’t explain why some people don’t obey (humans naturally obey their social hierarchies)

Doesn’t explain Hofling et al, as it predicts that the nurses would display signs of anxiety

EVAL: Obedience alibi can fail in circumstances

German Reserve Police Battalion 101: Refused to shoot civilians in Poland

Does not fall into the assumptions of agentic shift

EVAL: My Lai massacre and legitimacy of authority

Can explain how real life war crimes can occur, My Lai Massacre and Abu Ghraib

Who did and when was the F-Scale test

Adorno, 1950

ADORNO

Procedure

2000 middle-class white Americans

Had to answer 30 questions on a 6 point scale

ADORNO

Aim

Investigate cause of obedient personality types

Investigate relationship between unconscious prejudice and authoritarianism

ADORNO

Findings

High F-Scale = Authoritarian leanings

Authoritarian leanings = Identify with ‘strong’ people, contemptuous of weak, aware of social status

ADORNO

Findings : Correlation

Positive correlation between authoritarianism and prejudice

Distinct cognitive style

EVAL: Correlation

Only correlational link can be established between obedience and an authoritarian personality type

May be a third factor

EVAL: Limited explanation, especially in regards to Holocaust

Any explanation of obedience is hard to generalise to an entire country, nearly all Germans showed racist, anti-Semitic attitudes pre and during WW2, despite personality differences

Social identity theory is much more likely in this case

EVAL: Political bias in F-Scale

Christie and Jahoda: Politically biased interpretation of authoritarian personality, focuses on right wing. Ignores left-wing authoritarianism e.g. Russian Bolshevism

Extremes on both sides have shared factors, only focuses on right wing authoritarianism

EVAL: Methodological problems

Each item is worded in the same direction, possible to get high score by ticking same box for every question

Characteristics of authoritarian person

• Inflexible thinking, no grey areas

• Need a strong leader to enforce traditional values → country, religion and family

• Contempt to those they view as lesser → conventional attitudes to sex, gender and race

• Especially obedient to authority → extreme respect to authority

Origins of authoritarian personality

Harsh parenting in childhood

Shown conditional love

What characteristics did Adorno identify in parenting that builds authoritarian personality

• Severe discipline

• Expectations of extreme loyalty

• Impossible standards

• Severely criticised for not meeting expectations

How does parenting build authoritarian personality type

Creates inexpressible hostility and resentment towards parents

• Emotions are displaced onto other people as scapegoats

Creates a central tendency of obedient personality types = Dislike of people they view to be socially inferior

Why would social support help someone not conform

Pressure is lower when there are other people

EVAL: Research support for resistance to conformity

Allen and Levine: Conformity decreases in Asch like studies when there is one dissenter

Supports view that resistance is motivated by feeling free of pressure from a social group

Why would social support help someone not obey

Less pressure to obey when there is another going against

EVAL: Research support for resistance to obedience

Gamson et al: Higher levels of resistance when working in groups, ptp had to produce evidence for an oil company to use in a smear campaign, 29/33 participants rebelled against an unjust authority

Define Locus of Control

How much control a person believes they have over what they do and what happens to them

Internal Locus of Control

Believe that things that happen are done by themselves

e.g. doing well on a test was because they revised properly

External Locus of Control

Believe that things that happen occur without their control

e.g. doing poorly on a test was because they had bad luck and the questions were bad

How do locus of control and resistance to social influence link

Having an internal LOC means more likely to resist pressure to obey or conform

Why does having an ILOC mean less likely to conform / obey

• Take responsibility for own actions

• ILOC means more likely to have more self-confidence, be more intelligent and goal oriented

EVAL: Research support for LOC and resistance

Holland: Reproduced Milgram, and measured whether participant was internal or external

37% of internals did not go to highest level, 23% of externals did not go to highest level

Increase of validity as locus of control as an explanation

EVAL: Contradictory research for LOC and resistance

Twenge et al: Analysed data from LOC studies, found people have become more resistant to obedience but LOC have become more external

If the two were linked then the relationship should be the inverse

EVAL: Limited role of the LOC

Role of LOC in resisting social influence is exaggerated

Rotter: LOC many comes into play with novel situations, has little influence in familiar situations

3 main features for minority influence

Consistency

Commitment

Flexibility

2 types of consistency (minority influence)

Diachronic = Everyone has been saying same thing for a period of time

Synchronic = Everyone saying same thing presently

Why is consistency key to minority influence

Consistency leads people to believe their message must have validity

Depth of thought for majority