Social Influence

Types of Conformity

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

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

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

ASCH

EVAL

POS

NEG

• Child of time

  • Perrin and Spencer recreated in 1980, 1/396 conformed

    • Difference between 50’s US and 80s UK

• Artificial = Lacks external validity, no mundane realism

• Limited applications = Only studied men in USA

  • Neto (1955) suggested women are more concerned with social relationships → would they conform more

  • Individualist vs. Collectivist culture

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

ZIMBARDO

Evaluation POS

• Real-life application : Abu Ghraib (2003/2004 US military in Iraq)

• Control : Zimbardo did psych testing to remove extreme personality types

  • Meant conclusions would come from environment not just specific individuals

  • INCREASES VALIDITY

ZIMBARDO

Eval NEG

• Realism : Questions about whether they were playing roles

  • One guard claimed his actions were only based off a movie

  • Zimbardo claimed 90% of conversations were about ‘prison life’

• Ethics : Lack of informed consent

  • Zimbardo played two roles, superintendent and lead researcher, ignored certain roles due to conflict of duty

  • DOESNT ALTER VALIDITY

• Dispositional factors : Ad brings in naturally aggressive people

• Findings : Zimbardo accused of over-exaggerating the amount of conformity

  • 1/3 harsh , 1/3 no change, 1/3 were kind

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

MILGRAM

EVAL

POS

• EXTERNAL VALIDITY- Lab experiment accurately reflects dynamic trying to be replicated

  • Hofling et al. (1966) = 21/22 nurses obeyed unjust doctors orders

• Replication

  • French TV show got PPTs to give fake shocks to actors

    • 80% gave full amount of shocks

  • Sheridan and King- Same study but with puppy

    • 54% male and 100% female gave full shocks

MILGRAM

EVAL

NEG

• INTERNAL VALIDITY - PPTs didn’t believe shocks were real

  • Milgram wasn’t testing what he thought he was

• ETHICS - Deceived ppts

  • Ethical issues weren’t a main consideration until after study was done

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

MILGRAM

Eval : Variations POS

POS

• Research Support = Bickman (1974)

  • 3 confederates in 3 outfits, jacket and tie, milkman, security guard'

  • People 2x more likely to obey security guard than others

• Cross-Cultural = Miranda et al. (1981) found 90% obedience in Spanish students

• Systematic altering of variables = isolates cause

MILGRAM

Eval of variations NEG

NEG

• INTERNAL VALIDITY = More likely PPTs think that study is fake due to extra manipulation of variables

  • Esp ‘member of public’ study

• Cross- cultural = Studies where there is high obedience are western

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

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

ADORNO

Eval : Pos

Milgram and Elms = Interviewed fully obedient people from study and found they scored higher on the F-scale

• Correlational relationship = Ignores the idea of a third factor

  • Hyman and Sheatsley : Found that obedience and an authoritarian personality are also linked to a lack of education

ADORNO

Eval : Neg

• Using individual differences to explain majority behaviour will never work

  • Goldhagen : Social identity theory explains it better, majority scapegoating a specific social group

• Politically biased to the right wing

  • Extreme left and right often have similar actions / theories

  • Adorno’s explanations isn’t comprehensive

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

Evidence for social support and conformity

Asch’s variations (unanimity) showed lower conformity with a dissenter

Allen and Levine - In ‘Asch like’ situations, adding dissenter decreases conformity

Why would social support help someone not obey

Less pressure to obey when there is another going against

Evidence for social support and obedience

Milgram = Obedience rate went from 65% -10% when there was a disobedient confederate

Gamson et al = Recreated Milgram’s study but with PPTs in groups, saw higher rates of resistance

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

Evidence for LOC

Holland

Repeated Milgram’s study but included LOC measurement

37% of internals didn’t go to full voltage, opposed to 23% of externals

VALIDITY for LOC argument

Evidence against LOC

Twenge et al

Analysed LOC study data from 1960-2002

Data showed that people have become more resistant but also more external in their LOC

→ Challenges the link, it would be the other way

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

Evidence for consistency in minority influence

• Moscovici’s study

• Wood et al. = Meta-analysis of 100 studies similar to Moscovici, found similar conclusions

• Martin et al. = Did a study, 2 groups, one heard opinion from minority and other from the majority, then posed with conflicting arguments

  • Less people willing to change their opinion if initially shown minority

  • DEPTH OF PROCESSING

What is commitment (minority influence)

Extreme shows of behaviour e.g. suffragettes bombing post boxes

Majority members pay more attention to extreme behaviours, which could lead them to change their mind

What is the augmentation principle

Majority members pay more attention to extreme behaviours, which could lead them to change their mind

Why is flexibility important (MI)

Consistency without flexibility could be seen in negative light, seems unchanging

Less likely to result in difference

How can minority groups be flexible

Be able to concede points, hear out opposing arguments or suggestions

Snowball Effect

Process of majority changing

Over time, as more people change opinion, the rate of change becomes quicker

MOSCOVICI

Procedure

• Groups of 6 asked to view 36 blue slides that range in shade, asked if blue or green

• 3 groups : Consistent minority, inconsistent minority and control

• Each group (bar control) had 2 confederates saying green

MOSCOVICI

Findings : Consistent

2/3 of the time confederates said green

Naive PPTs agreement with minority = 8.42% trials

MOSCOVICI

Findings : Inconsistent

Naive PPTs agreement with minority = 1.25% trials

MOSCOVICI

Conclusions

Minorities can influence the majority but the key is consistency

7.17% difference when consistent

MOSCOVICI

Eval : Neg

• Mundane realism of task means it lacks EXTERNAL VALIDITY

  • Takes away from the seriousness that often comes with minority influence

• Lab study = lack of ECOLOGICAL VALIDITY

• Bias sample = Only women

  • Lack of generalisability

  • Neto suggested women are more likely to conform, means inherent issues in study

MOSCOVICI

Eval : Pos

• When PPTs allowed to write answer down, there was more agreement

  • Shows support for consistency and change

• Lab study = Important variables can be narrowed down

  • INTERNAL VALIDITY

Process of social change due to minority influence

1. Drawing attention to cause

2. Consistency of attention

3. Deeper processing

4. Augmentation principle

5. Snowball effect

6. Social crypto-amnesia

Social change

Evaluation : NEG

• Not just minority influence that involves deeper processing

  • Views that people don’t know / initially disagree with

  • Lowers validity of theory

• Effects of minority influence take long time to be noticed

  • Fragile

Social change : Conformity influences

• Asch’s variations (unanimity) : A dissenter encourages PPT to answer more freely

• Minorities can use NSI and ISI to appeal

Social change : Conformity influences SUPPORT

Nolan et al.

• 2 groups

• 1 group got messages asking them to lower their energy usage, other group got messages asking them to lower energy usage as majority other residents were already doing so

  • More decrease in first group

Barriers to social change through minority influence

Bashir et al.

• Found people resist to social change so not to be associated with stereotypes

  • Feminists are man haters

Social change : Obedience influence

Milgram showed importance of having disobedient role model in variations study

• Gamson et al. = Milgram study but with groups → more resistance

Zimbardo showed change can occur through gradual influence of minority