Social Influence-Psychology AQA A-Level

Conformity

Yielding to group pressures: (for example bullying, persuasion, teasing, criticism)

Conformity is also known as...

Majority Influence

When does Conformity occur?

When an individuals behaviour/beliefs are influenced by a larger group of people.

Types of Conformity-Kelman (1958)

(In order of strength of the belief)

1) Compliance

2) Identification

3) Internalisation

Compliance

• The weakest form of Conformity.

• Conforming to the majority (publicly), in spite of not really agreeing with them (privately).(e.g. saying you like a genre of music in public)

• Stops when there are no group pressures to conform - a temporary behavior change.

• Usually a form of NSI

Identification

• The middle level of Conformity.

• Changes their public behaviour and their private beliefs, but only while they are in the presence of the group. (e.g. being vegetarian when surrounded by vegetarians.)

• Not a permanent change in belief.

• Short term and usually a form of NSI.

Internalisation

• The deepest level of Conformity-known as true conformity.

• Changes their public behaviour and their private beliefs. (e.g. joining a religion.)

• Long-term change and often the result of ISI

Explanations of Conformity

• Normative Social Influence

• Informational Social Influence

Normative Social Influence

• Yielding to group pressure because they want to fit in with the group (Asch Line Study)

• Scared of rejection from group.

Informational Social Influence

• A person lacks knowledge and subsequently looks to the group for answers.

• Also when in an ambiguous/unfamiliar situation.

Normative Social Influence - Line Study - Asch 1951:

• Procedure

• 50 Male US Students; LAB EXPERIMENT

• Believed they were taking place in vision test - Line Judgement - with a clear answer

• Real naïve pts in a room w/ 7 confederates, who agreed their answers prior.

• Pt was deceived - believed that the confederates were also real participants.

• each person had to say out loud which line (1, 2, 3) was most like the target line in length-this occurred 18 times.

• Confederates gave incorrect answers on 12 trials (critical trials).

Normative Social Influence - Line Study - Asch 1951:

• Findings and Conclusion of Original Study

Findings:

• Participants conformed to incorrect answers 32% of the time during the critical trials.

• 74% of Participants conformed on at least 1 critical trial.

Conclusion:

• Participants knew their answers were wrong when asked but wanted to fit in with the group (NORMATIVE).

Normative Social Influence - Line Study - Asch 1951:

• Findings of Group Size

Asch found that as he increased the size of the majority, conformity levels increased.

• 1 Confederate answering incorrectly on a question has a 3% conformity.

• 2 Confederates answering incorrectly increased to 12.8% conformity.

• 3 Confederates answering incorrectly increased to 32% conformity.

• However, increasing the group size even further made no significant increases to to the rate of conformity.

Normative Social Influence - Line Study - Asch 1951:

• Findings of Unanimity

This is the extent that members of a majority agree with one another.

• When one of the confederates would go against the incorrect answer and agree with the participant conformity levels dropped from 32% to 5%.

In another variation, one of the confederates gave a different incorrect answer to the majority.

• In this variation conformity dropped from 32% to 9%

Normative Social Influence - Line Study - Asch 1951:

• Findings of Task Difficulty

In Asch's original experiment, the correct answer was always obvious. In one of his variations he made the task more difficult, by making the answer far more ambiguous.

• Conformity levels increased as they wanted to be right instead of fitting in.

• This was a shift from NSI to ISI.

Normative Social Influence - Line Study - Asch 1951:

• Strengths

+ Lab experiment so the variables were controlled very well; no extraneous variables to interfere with the study.

+ support from Lucas study

+ can be applied to peer pressure

Normative Social Influence - Line Study - Asch 1951:

• Culturally biased

- Asch's research was conducted in a Western society (individualistic culture) and has been criticised for being culturally biased.

- Smith and Bond conducted meta-analysis on conformity studies looking at 133 studies in 17 different countries.

- they found that levels of conformity were much higher in collectivist cultures such as China than they were in individualist cultures such as America. This may be because they are more group orientated.

- this means that Asch's research cannot be generalised across cultures and has limited applications to western societies.

- furthermore the use scientific methods may be more unfamiliar to collectivist cultures, this may also increase the levels of conformity found in these cultures. In turn making them seem 'different' due to the imposed scientific methods of the West.

Normative Social Influence - Line Study - Asch 1951:

+ Support from Lucas (2006) study

- support for task difficulty affecting conformity has come from Lucas et al (2006) research.

- Lucas gave participants a maths problems or varying difficulty, in the same style as Asch's experiment.

- they found that conformity was higher to the wrong answers when the the maths questions were harder.

- however Lucas also found that conformity is linked to self- efficacy (self evaluation/confidence).

- those with high self-efficacy in their Maths ability were less likely to conform compared to those with low.

- this shows that Asch's situational variables alone maybe a too simplistic explanation, and in fact individual factors can influence our response to situational factors.

Normative Social Influence - Line Study - Asch 1951:

+ Lab experiment so the variables were controlled very well

- a strength of Asch's variations is that they were conducted in a lab, so there was a high level of control.

- this meant he could reduce extraneous variables, and easily replicate the experiment, being able to identify the impact of situational variables.

- however, Asch's study and his variations have been criticised for lacking mundane realism.

matching lines is a unimportant physical task with no moral dilemma or real consequences for conforming.

- this is not realistic to real life experiences where not conforming could lead to rejection or conforming could have consequences (drug taking). Consequently participants may be more willing to conform in Asch's variations research.

- therefore findings lack generalisability, and exaggerate the impact of unanimity, group size and task difficulty in conforming, consequently findings have limited applications to applied to everyday circumstances.

Normative Social Influence - Line Study - Asch 1951:

+ real world application

- one strength of Asch's study is that it has real world application

- for example, the Nudge Unit used principles of NSI to increase income tax payments for HMRC by saying in a letter that 'most people living in the recipient's town or postcode had already paid.’

- the same repayment rates increased, would generate 30 mil on a national scale

- this is a strength because it demonstrates how NSI can be applied in a real world setting, increasing its ecological validity

counter - Asch's research is criticised as the group of confederates was made up of strangers.

- this group is not reflective of everyday group situations, where we are more likely to with friends or colleagues.

- therefore Asch's findings might not representative the actual level of conformity we see in the real world and cannot be generalised to everyday situations.

Normative Social Influence - Line Study - Asch 1951:

- gender bias

- a weakness of Asch's research is that it can be criticised for being gender biased and androcentric

- the sample were solely comprised of white men, so different levels of conformity in females may make them seem different to the 'norm'.

- other research suggests that women may be more conformist because they have a 'tend to befriend' in social situations (Taylor)

- consequently female behaviour, and people from others cultures, becomes inferior or misunderstood

- therefore Asch's findings have got limited application and tell us little about conformity in other populations.

Information Social Influence

+ SUPPORTIVE EVIDENCE FOR ISI FROM ASCH

- Asch’s research provides support for informational social increasing levels of conformity.

- Asch found that levels of conformity increased when the task was made harder by making lines more similar.

- conformity levels increased as they wanted to be right instead of fitting in

- this was a shift from NSI to ISI.

Information Social Influence

+supportive evidence from Lucas et al

- another strength is a that there is research to support ISI from the study by Lucas et al.

- they found that participants conformed more often to incorrect answers they were given when maths questions were more difficult. This is because when the problems were easy the participants’ knew their own minds’ but when the problems were hard the situation became ambiguous.

- the participants didn’t want to be wrong so they relied on the answers they were given.

- this shows that ISI is a valid explanation of conformity because the results are what ISI would predict.

Information Social Influence

-individual differences

- a limitation of ISI as explanation for conformity is that it cannot be applied to everyone equally.

- in Lucas’ study they also found people with high self efficacy were less likely to conform, even on the more difficult maths questions. This was because they had confidence in their own abilities, high self-efficacy.

- Perrin and Spencer also found low conformity rates on their replication of Asch’s research when they used engineering students, which may be due to higher levels of self efficacy. This shows that ISI does not affect everyone, some are more resistant.

- this suggests that the nomothetic approach of ISI struggles to explain variations in conformity, and ISI impacts individuals differently due to dispositional facts.

Normative Social Influence:

+evidence from Asch

- one strength of NSI is that evidence supports it as an explanation of conformity.

- for example, when Asch interviewed his participants, some said they conformed because they felt self conscious giving the correct answer and they were afraid of disapproval.

- when participants wrote their answers down conformity fell to 12.5%. This is because giving answers privately meant that there was no normative group pressure.

- this shows that at least some conformity is due to a desire not to be rejected by the group for disagreeing with them.

Normative Social Influence

+ real world application

- support for NSI is that it has a lot of real world applications.

for example the Nudge Unit used principles of NSI to increase income tax payments for HMRC. They found that by saying in a letter that 'most people living in the recipient's town or postcode had already paid.'

- rates of repayment in the test groups rose by around 15%.

according to estimates from the HMRC, if this was repeated on a national scale, it would generate approximately £30m.

therefore this suggests that understanding NSI has been useful.

Normative Social Influence - Line Study - Asch 1951:

• Weaknesses

- Age and Ethnocentric; 50/M/USA - lacks population validity/has a gender bias/can't be generalised to older generations.

- The experiment used an artificial task to measure conformity; as a result the study has low ecological validity and cannot be generalised to real world conformity - not the same situation as something like

- used strangers as confederates

- gender biased

Social Roles

• The part people play as members of a social group.

• With each social role you adopt, your behaviour changes to fit the expectations both you and others have of that role.

The Stanford Prison Experiment - Zimbardo (1973):

• Aim

• Zimbardo investigated how readily people would conform to social roles of guard/prisoner in a study simulating prison life by turning the basement into a mock prison.

• He also investigated whether the brutality reported among guards in American prisons was due to the sadistic personalities of the guards (dispositional) or was due to the prison environment (situational).

The Stanford Prison Experiment - Zimbardo (1973):

• Procedure

• Volunteer Sampling/21 Males/US/Random Assignment/Paid$15 a day to work

• set up mock prison in the basement of Stanford University

• observational study - controlled, participant, overt

• emotionally stable volunteers were assigned to roles of either prisoner or guard

• prisoners 'arrested', blindfolded, strip searched, etc

• guards given a night stick, dark glasses, uniform etc and told to maintain order

• prisoners' daily routines were heavily regulated by guards working in shifts

• dehumanisation of prisoners, eg wearing nylon stocking caps and numbered

The Stanford Prison Experiment - Zimbardo (1973):

• Findings and Conclusion

Findings:

• Both Ps and Gs quickly identified with their social roles.

• Ps rebelled within days; Gs quickly crushed this by becoming abusive towards the Ps - Gs dehumanised them (woken @ night; scrubbing toilets via hands)

• Prisoners became submissive, identifying to their inferior role.

• 5 Ps were released early due to severe reactions to the toment (crying, anxiety attacks)

• Study only lasted 6 days and was cancelled due to the inhumane conditions.

Conclusion:

• Zimbardo found that ppl quickly conformed to social roles even when they go against their moral principles.

• Situational factors were largely responsible for behaviours as none of the Pts had ever displayed any of these personalities prior (incl. Zimbardo as prison manager).

The Stanford Prison Experiment - Zimbardo (1973):

• Strengths

+ Realistic experience for Gs and Ps; 90% of Ps converstaions were regarding prison life. Ps referred to themselves by prison number.

+ Due to the inhumane conditions and treatment of Ps ethical guidelines were put in place to stop further atrocities in Psychology.

+ Controlled prison environment (High Internal Validity)

The Stanford Prison Experiment - Zimbardo (1973):

• Weaknesses

- Volunteer sampling; applied bc they may have wanted the chance to be sadistic

- Demand characteristics may have occurred due to being paid-need to please the experimenter.

- Ethnocentric/Androcentric; can only be generalised to US prisons; no female participants so shouldn't be generalised

- Various ethical issues:

• No protection from harm

• When withdrawal was asked for Zimbardo tried to change their mind

• No consent to being arrested - Deception

The Stanford Prison Experiment - Zimbardo (1973):

• Unethical

- one weakness of Zimbardo’s study is that it can be heavily criticised for its ethical issues

- Zimbardo’s dual role comprismised the ethics of the study, this was partly the result of him lacking objectivity in his research and taking the role of the superintendent.

- for example, he stopped a prisoner from leaving, removing his right to withdraw and protection from harm.

- he was unable to see the harm until an independent psychologist intervened. However he didn’t predict how devastating the study could be.

COUNTER: However can we justify the research (cost benefit analysis). The value and usefulness of the findings might justify the harm. Furthermore Zimbardo research, along side Milgram's, helped develop the code of conduct and guidelines on how to conduct research.

- furthermore, Zimbardo ensured a full debrief and counselling afterwards and believes there was no long term damage.

- however, Zimbardo admits that the study should’ve been stopped earlier due to the emotional distress.

The Stanford Prison Experiment - Zimbardo (1973):

• high internal validity

- one strength on its highly controlled experimental design, enhancing the methodological rigour of the research.

- for example, the use of personality and stability tests and random allocation to social roles helped to control variables

- these precautions were implemented to rule out personality differences among participants, thereby increasing internal validity.

- additionally, the random allocation of individuals to different roles contributes to the objectivity of the study.

consequently, the observed conformity to roles and exhibited behaviours can be attributed more convincingly to the experimental situation and social roles rather than individual personality traits

- as a result, this strengthens the explanatory power of Zimbardo's prison study

The Stanford Prison Experiment - Zimbardo (1973):

• methodological criticisms

- a further limitation of Zimbardo's research was that his sample wasn't representative. - using a volunteer sample means that a certain type of person might apply, such as extroverts.

- furthermore his use of only males means his findings lack population validity and can't be generalised to females.

- as Zimbardo attempted to generalise his findings from an all male sample to everyone his research can be criticised for being androcentric.

- therefore any varying levels of conformity in females maybe seen as deviating from the 'norm'.

The Stanford Prison Experiment - Zimbardo (1973):

• ignores dispositional factors

• overplays situational factors

- Zimbardo claimed it was due to the environment and role participants were given that caused the brutal behaviours and conformity to roles.

- however Fromm criticises this and states there are dispositional factors that influencing conformity to social roles.

- for example only a minority acted brutally (a third). Another third just played by the rules. And the last third actually tried to help and support the prisoners (for example offering cigarettes and giving back privileges)

- therefore most are able to resist the pressures to conform to a brutal role.

- Zimbardo exaggerated the impacts of environmental factors and an interactionist approach that considers dispositional and environmental may be better explaining the findings of conformity to roles.

The Stanford Prison Experiment - Zimbardo (1973):

• lack of realism

- Zimbardo's study has been criticised for lacking validity.

- it has been argued that most participants were play acting and acting up for the experiment. Some even stated that their performance in the study was actually based on stereotypes and brutal movies they had seen 'Cool hands Luke'.

- play acting and stereotypes can also explain why prisoners rioted early in the study.

- this suggests that Zimbardo's conclusions about conformity to social roles may be less robust and may not entirely reflect intrinsic human behaviour in a simulated environment. Instead, the observed behaviors may be more a product of the participants' desire to conform to perceived expectations or stereotypes associated with their assigned roles.

HOWEVER

- Zimbardo followed up his research using interviews. He found that 90% of participants conversations were about prison life - suggesting they believed it was real

The Stanford Prison Experiment - Zimbardo (1973):

• Applied to explain aggression in the real world

- Zimbardo's research is useful in that it can explain the conformity to social roles and group behaviour. It can also be applied to situations such as in the Abu Ghraib military prison.

- this prison was notorius for the torture of Iraqi prisoners in 2003 and Zimbardo believes this was due to situational factors such as lack of training, unaccountability and boredom.

- these situational factors were also present in Zimbardo's prison experiment along with the opportunity to misuse power associated with the role of the guard.

- therefore Zimbardo's research is useful as it demonstrates that people are not evil themselves it is the situation or role they find themselves in. Also we can use Zimbardo's research to change institutions to ensure these situational factors are removed.

Obedience

Complying with the demands of an authority figure (Teacher, Parent, Law etc.)

Obedience - Milgram's Shock Experiment (1963):

• Aim

• Investigating the extent to which individual will obey, even if it goes against their morals.

• Inspired by WWII criminals who justified their actions as "following orders" - Nazi Officials at the Nuremberg Trials

• Milgram devised the experiment to answer the question:

"Could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders? Could we call them all accomplices?"

Obedience - Milgram's Shock Experiment (1963):

• Procedure

• Volunteer Sampling/40M/20-40yo/unskilled to professional

• Learner(Confed) was questioned, if incorrect answer Teacher (real Pt) would have to shock.

• Each shock would increase in voltage. Goes up by 15v each shock, varied from 15 all the way up to 450 (fatal).

• When the Pt refused to shock the student the researcher would say a prompt to try & persuade them to shock; prompts increased in intensity over time - "Please continue > It is absolutely essential you must continue."

Obedience - Milgram's Shock Experiment (1963):

• Findings and Conclusion of Baseline Study

Findings:

• All of the participants went to at least 300 volts.

• 65% continued until 450 volts.

Conclusion:

• Milgram shows that inhumane, immoral acts can be committed by ordinary moral people. It is the situational factors

Obedience - Milgram's Shock Experiment (1963):

• Findings of Location

Findings:

Milgram changed the location to a derelict building in Conneticut and was disassociated from Yale, obedience was lowered.

This is because the prestige of such a location demands obedience and also may increase the trust that the participant places in the integrity of the researchers and their experiments.

Obedience - Milgram's Shock Experiment (1963):

• Findings of Proximity with experimenter

- Participants obeyed more when the experimenter was in the same room i.e. 62.5%.

• The experimenter left the room and gave all instructions over the phone - this resulted in the Pts more likely to defy experimenter with only 21% of Pts going to 450V.

Obedience - Milgram's Shock Experiment (1963):

• Findings of Proximity with participant

- Obedience was reduced to 40% when the experimenter and participant were in separate rooms, and reduced to a further 30% in the touch proximity condition i.e. where the experimenter forcibly placed the participant's hand on the electric plate.

• Milgram believed that obedience levels dropped as they were able to experience the "Learner's" pain more directly

Obedience - Milgram's Shock Experiment (1963):

• Findings of Uniform

Findings:

Participants obeyed more when the experimenter wore a lab coat. A person is more likely to obey someone wearing a uniform as it gives them a higher status and a greater sense of legitimacy.

- it was found that obedience was much higher when the experimenter wore a lab coat as opposed to normal clothes.

- however, demand characteristics were particularly evident in this condition, with even Milgram admitting that many participants could see through this deception

Obedience - Milgram's Shock Experiment (1963):

• Findings of Agentic State and Shift

• Milgram looked at the experiment as if the Pt were the experimenter with someone else shocking the Learner.

• % of shocking rose drastically from 65% to 92.5% for the 450V.

• Demonstrates the power of shifting responsibility, and they were able to shock more due to feeling even less responsible for their actions. Therefore, their ability enter the agentic state increased their levels of obedience of shocking.

Obedience - Milgram's Shock Experiment (1963):

• Strengths

+ Participants were from a range of social backgrounds showing that class was not an issue.

+ He carried out 18 variations observing how different variables affected the data each time-increases the validity of the study as each study was v controlled and in a lab.

+ Similar study had been replicated in multiple cultures w/ the same conclusions and sometimes greater obedience rates.

Obedience - Milgram's Shock Experiment (1963):

- gender bias

- a criticism of Milgram's research is that it is gender bias. - he only used 40 males and attempted to generalise these findings to the wider population.

- therefore his study can criticised for being androcentric, as female obedience rates may be different and males, and may consequently deemed abnormal in comparison to Milgram's baseline findings. Therefore his findings lack population validity

Obedience - Milgram's Shock Experiment (1963):

- conclusions about blind obedience may not be justified

- another limitation is that Milgram's conclusions about blind obedience may not be justified.

- Alex Haslam et al. (2014) showed that Milgram's participants obeyed when the Experimenter delivered the first three verbal prods (see facing page). However, every participant who was given the fourth prod ('You have no other choice, you must go on) without exception disobeyed. - according to social identity theory (SIT), participants in Milgram's study only obeyed when they identified with the scientific aims of the research ('The experiment requires that you continue').

when they were ordered to blindly obey an authority figure, they refused.

- this shows that SIT may provide a more valid interpretation of Milgram's findings, especially as Milgram himself suggested that 'identifying with the science is a reason for obedience.

Obedience - Milgram's Shock Experiment (1963):

- ethical issues

- a weakness of Milgram's research is that is has numerous ethical issues.

- There was deception and so informed consent could not be obtained. This deception was justified by the aim of avoiding demand characteristics/ the 'Please-U' effect/ participant reactivity (where participants change their behaviour in response to knowing that they are being observed).

- however Milgram did consult other professionals about the level of obedience they should expect, and they only predicted 3%, therefore he didn't realise the full extent of harm the study may cause. Furthermore his research helped developed the BPS guidelines to ensure protection from harm for participants.

- 84% of participants were glad they partook in the experiment

Obedience - Milgram's Shock Experiment (1963):

- lab experiment

- a strength of Milgram's laboratory research is that it was highly controlled and therefore easy to replicate.

- for example he used a tape for voice recordings and procedures were kept the same. This allowed him to also look at variations in factors that influence obedience and understand what can influence different levels of obedience; consequently increasing it's usefulness to society.

- The experiment may have been about trust rather than about obedience because the experiment was held at Stanford University.

- Therefore, the participants may have trusted that nothing serious would happen to the confederate, especially considering the immense prestige of the location.

- Also when the experiment was replicated in a run-down office, obedience decreased to a mere 20.5%. This suggests that the original study did not investigate what it aimed to investigate.

Obedience - Milgram's Shock Experiment (1963):

- reliability

- one limitation is that Milgram's procedure may not have been testing what he intended to test.

- Milgram reported that 75% of his participants said they believed the shocks were genuine.

- however Gina Perry's (2013) listened to tapes of Milgram's participants and reported that only about half of them believed the shocks were real. Two-thirds of these participants were disobedient.

- this suggests that participants may have been responding to demand characteristics, trying to fulfil the aims of the study.

Counterpoint

Hofling wanted to test if the obedience levels Milgram found were different to a real life setting. Hofling conducted a study in hospital (field experiment).

Nurses were phoned by a Dr. Smith who asked them to give a 20mg of a drug called Astroten to a patient. This order broke many hospital regulations: nurses are not meant to take instructions over the phone from an unknown doctor and the dosage was twice as much as advised on the bottle.

They found that 21 out of 22 nurses did as requested (obeyed).

This suggests that obedience does occur in the real world and the relationship in Milgram's experiment between the participant and authority figure is evident in everyday situations.

Obedience - Milgram's Shock variations (1963):

+ supporting research

- one strength of Milgram's situational variations is that it has supporting research

- for example, Bickman's research findings demonstrated a notable contrast in obedience rates, with individuals being twice as likely to comply with the instructions of a security guard as opposed to a man dressed in a jacket and tie.

this evidence underscores the significant impact of attire in conveying authority and influencing obedience. The study aligns with Milgram's conclusions, highlighting the importance of situational factors in shaping human behavior.

- thus, Bickman's findings not only support but also extend Milgram's research, emphasizing the role of uniforms as a situational variable in determining levels of obedience

Obedience - Milgram's Shock variations (1963):

- lacks internal validity

- research into obedience still lacks internal validity.

- participants are more likely to question the study and electric shocks with Milgram's variations of the experiment (even on the original is was said 50% were sceptical)

- for example replacing the experimenter with a'member of the public' meant participants would not believe shocks were real.

- even Milgram agreed some situations were so contrived participants may have seen through them. Therefore the studies did not measure what they aimed to measure, so lower levels of obedience might not be due to the situational factor, rather them not believing the shocks were real

Obedience - Milgram's Shock variations (1963):

+ high levels of control

- A strength of Milgram's laboratory research is that it was highly controlled and therefore easy to replicate.

- For example he repeated his study over 1000 times and was able to look at variations in factors that influence obedience.

- This has allowed us to find patterns and trends in what can influence different levels of obedience. For example knowing about he power of uniform maybe important to institutions such as police or military.

- Consequently increasing it's usefulness to society.

How many times did Milgram repeat his study?

over 1000 times

Obedience - Milgram's Shock variations (1963):

- Mandel criticism

- Mandel criticises Milgram's situational factors that influences obedience and his attempts to use these variations to explain the behaviour of Nazi soldiers.

- when he studied battalion 101, he found that when the proximity to the authority figure was low, soldiers still chose to carry out mass shootings (point blank range, close proximity to victim). This suggests that situational factors cannot explain obedience.

- Mandel also stated that by using situational explanations, you are giving the soldiers victims status and an alibi, suggesting they had no free will and questions whether they should be held accountable.

- therefore Mandel would suggest dispositional explanations where people can be held accountable for their actions.

Obedience - Milgram's Shock Experiment (1963):

• Weaknesses

- Deception took place (they thought it was a study in learning).

- Androcentric study-data cannot be generalised to females.

- Sampling was only from the New Haven area-may be a cultural bias to only that area and the US

- Orne & Holland stated it lacked "experimental realism" and knew that the receiver wasn't being shocked (therefore weren't worried about the consequences of their actions)

- Replications have only been taken in Western cultures so can't conclude that obedience will always occur.

Binding Factors

- facilitate ignoring harm and continuing obedience.

- shift blame and deny impact to minimize moral strain.

- moral strain is reduced, allowing continued compliance (e.g., blaming the victim, denying impact).

- persists despite internal conflict or desire to stop.

Milgram's Experiment: Participants continued despite discomfort.

What is the difference between conformity and obedience?

going along with the crowd/yielding to group pressure (conformity) vs changing our behaviour to follow the direct demands of an authority figure (obedience)

to please peers (conformity) vs for an authority figure (obedience)

to be accepted (conformity) vs to avoid consequence (obedience)

Why do we

To be accepted, liked or just to fit in, to avoid feeling silly or in a situation when we don't know what to do.

To avoid punishment or unpleasant consequences

Authoritarian Personality - Adorno et al. (1950):

• Aim

• Trying to understand the Anti-Semitism of the Holocaust.

• Looking at the causes of the obedient personality in everyday Americans.

Authoritarian Personality - Adorno et al. (1950):

• Procedure

• 2000 Middle Class White Americans

• Tested peoples unconscious attitudes towards other racial groups.

• Developed the F-Scale to test those with Authoritarian Personalities.

Authoritarian Personality - Adorno et al. (1950):

• Findings and Conclusion

Findings

• Found that those who scored high on the F-Scale (authoritarian attitudes) identified more with "strong" people and were contemptuous of the "weak".

• They were very conscious of status showing excessive respect and servility to those of a higher status.

• Very strong positive correlation between authoritarian personality and prejudice.

Authoritarian Personality - Adorno et al. (1950): ethical implications

- a weakness of the dispositional explanation is that there are ethical implications.

for example, we are negatively labelling some individuals as 'evil' and parent blaming. It is dooming some individuals future as a result of early childhood experiences (environmental deterministic) and personality.

- furthermore, because it is deterministic it suggests we are not in control and consequently not accountable for our actions.

therefore it might be better to adopt a situational explanation, which doesn't blame the individual and suggests we can change obedience levels by changing the situation.

Authoritarian Personality - Adorno et al. (1950): behaviour of the majority

- using dispositional factors to explain real life phenomenon is always difficult as it struggles to explain the behaviour of the majority.

- for example in Nazi Germany, millions of people demonstrated obedient and racist personalities behaviour.

- however was it because they all had the same personality?

interactionists approach may be preferred as it can consider situational and dispositional factors.

or perhaps social identity theory would be a better alternative explanation.

- this is where behaviour and obedience maybe the result of identifying with the anti - Semitic state.

- furthermore dispositional factors can't explain mass group behaviour unlike situational factors. For example, Nazi Germany - not all soldiers had the same personality.

Authoritarian Personality - Adorno et al. (1950):

• Strengths

+ Milgram used the F-scale on small group of v obedient Pts and found just like the Adorno test they scored very highly on the scale.

Authoritarian Personality - Adorno et al. (1950):

• Weaknesses

- Correlational between obedience and authoritarian personality so cannot be certain that there aren't other factors affecting the AP.

- Can't explain the majority of of a country's population such as that seen in pre-war Germany.

- Political bias - F-Scale measures the tendency of extreme right wing ideologies, despite there being similarities regarding obedience in both extreme right and left wing ideologies.

Social Support: Resistance to Social Influence

• Support from an ally can help someone build their confidence and resist conformity in a peer pressure situation.

• When there is support there is no longer fear of ridicule and are more likely to disobey orders as they don't feel independent in their actions.

• Helps challenge the Normative Social Influence.

Locus of Control: Resistance to Social Influence

• Internal Locus of Control: belief that what happens in their life is largely due to their own behaviour (they have control over their life).

• External Locus of Control:belief that what happens to them is due to external factors (fate, luck, religion). They do not have complete control over their life.

• Individuals with a high ILoC are more likely to resist pressures to conform and obey.

• Individuals with a high ELoC are more likely to succumb to pressure of conforming and being obedient.

Factors Affecting Resistance to Social Influence

• Systematic Processing: Analysis based on critical thinking. Given time to consider the consequences.

• Morality: Internal belief of what is right and wrong may overpower the idea of an authority

• Personality: Combination of past experiences and characteristics forming the individuals nature.

Minority Influence

When a small group changes the attitudes, beliefs or the behaviours of a majority group. This often leads to internalisation.

Examples of Minority Influence

• Suffragette Movement

• Mandela and Resistance to Apartheid in RSA

• MLK jr. and the Civil Rights Movement in the US

Resistance to social influence: supporting research

- one strength is research evidence to support the link between LOC and resistance to obedience.

- for example, Charles Holland (1967) repeated Milgram's baseline study and measured whether participants were internals or externals. He found that 37% of internals did not continue to the highest shock level (i.e. they showed some resistance), whereas only 23% of externals did not continue. In other words, internals showed greater resistance to authority in a Milgram-type situation.

- this is a strength as it shows that resistance is at least partly related to LOC, which increases the validity of LOC as an explanation of disobedience

- however much of the research into LOC and resistance to obedience is correlational, therefore we can't establish cause and effect. It could be other factors such as education/self efficacy that could be a factor in causing resistance.

- therefore LOC is just one of numerous potential explanations.

Resistance to social influence: real word application

Point: A strength of social support as an explanation for resistance to social influence is its real-world application in situations such as resisting peer pressure.

Evidence: For example, research has shown that the presence of even one ally or supportive peer can significantly reduce conformity and obedience. In the context of peer pressure, individuals are more likely to resist engaging in risky behaviors, such as underage drinking or smoking, if they have a friend or peer who also resists. The supportive peer provides a model for resistance and reduces the pressure to conform to the group's behavior.

Analysis: This demonstrates the practical value of social support in helping individuals resist negative social influences. It highlights how the presence of a dissenting peer not only reduces the fear of social rejection but also provides moral and practical reinforcement for independent behavior. Social support is, therefore, a powerful mechanism for encouraging resistance in both controlled experiments and real-life situations.

Link: This suggests that the concept of social support is not only a valid explanation for resistance to social influence but also a valuable tool for promoting independence and reducing harmful peer pressure in real-world contexts, such as schools and youth programs. Counterpoint: Asch's research is criticised as the group of confederates was made up of strangers.

- this group is not reflective of everyday group situations, where we are more likely to with friends or colleagues.

- therefore Asch's findings might not representative the actual level of conformity we see in the real world and cannot be generalised to everyday situations.

Resistance to social influence: research support

Point – One strength of the role of social support in resisting social influence is that it is supported by Asch’s research on conformity.

Evidence – In Asch’s conformity experiment, when a dissenting confederate (social supporter) was introduced, conformity rates significantly dropped. Even when the dissenter gave an incorrect answer that was different from both the participant and the majority, their presence still reduced the pressure to conform.

Analysis – This suggests that social support plays a crucial role in helping individuals resist conformity. The presence of an ally gives individuals confidence to trust their own judgment and break away from majority influence, demonstrating that people are less likely to conform when they feel they are not alone in their dissent.

Link – Therefore, Asch’s research provides strong empirical support for the idea that social support can help individuals resist social influence, reinforcing the importance of dissenting voices in promoting independent thought and reducing conformity.

Factors Affecting the Success of Minority Influence

• Consistency

• Commitment

• Flexibility

• Style of Thinking

Consistency: Diachronic and Synchronic

• The Minority being constant in their beliefs.

• Diachronic Consistency: Maintaining the same beliefs over a long period of time.

• Synchronic Consistency: When all members of the same Minority are sharing the same belief.

Consistency: Effect on Minority Influence

• Forces the opposition to sit up and take notice of the Minority.

• May force the opposition to rethink their position.

• Consistency implies that they are certain they are correct and unwavering in their opinion.

• Disrupts established norms and creates conflict and doubt within the Majority. Can lead to questioning whether the Majority is correct.

Consistency on Minority - Moscovici's Colour Perception (1969):

• Procedure

• 172 Females/USA

• Pts were placed in sixes.

• Shown 36 slides (all varying shades of blue).

• Pts had to state out loud the colour of each slide.

• 2/6 Pts were Confed.

• Consistent Condition: Confeds stated that all 36 slides were green.

• Inconsistent Condition: Confeds stated that 24 slides were green and 12 slides were blue.

Consistency on Minority - Moscovici's Colour Perception (1969):

• Findings and Conclusion

Findings:

• Consistent Group: Pts agreed with Confeds on 8.2% of trials

• Inconsistent Group: Pts agreed with Confeds on 1.25% of trials

• The Consistent group was 6.95% more influential than the Inconsistent group.

Conclusion:

• Minorities are more likely to influence a majority when they are consistent in their actions.

Consistency on Minority - Moscovici's Colour Perception (1969): Importance of consistency

- Moscovici et al.'s study supports the importance of consistency in minority influence.

- used a set of blue coloured slides and got minority to say they were green

- consistent minority of 2 could change the opinion of a majority 8.4% of the time when compared to inconsistent. This suggests that for a minority to cause change they need to be consistent.

- shows that consistency leads to deeper cognitive processing and reconsideration of views.

counterpoint

- much of the research on minority influence is conducted in artificial settings and therefore cannot be applied to real life cases such as the civil rights movements

- tasks involved in such research also lacks ecological validity.

may limit generalizability

findings might not reflect complex, real-life social influences.

- while the study highlights consistency's role in minority influence, its artificial nature suggests further research is needed to apply these findings to real-world contexts.

Consistency on Minority - Moscovici's Colour Perception (1969):

• Strengths

+ Lab Experiment - reduced the effect of extraneous variables; greater internal validity

+ Due to controlled conditions the data is repeatable and similar testing would result in similar figures.

+ Explicitly states a cause (Consistency) and effect (Influence) relationship

+ Although Moscovici did deceive his Pts about the "Colour Perception" it nullified any demand characteristics that may have occurred

Consistency on Minority - Moscovici's Colour Perception (1969): face validity

- the processes involved in minority influence have face validity, as they are observable in real-life situations, particularly in the actions of pressure groups and protests aiming to bring about change.

- Suffragettes demonstrated consistency through their willingness to engage in extreme activities, such as hunger strikes and public demonstrations

- additionally, they displayed flexibility by adapting their strategies in response to opposition and changing circumstances.

this example illustrates how the principles of minority influence, including consistency, commitment, and flexibility, align with the actions of real-world movements seeking social change.

Consistency on Minority - Moscovici's Colour Perception (1969): can lead to social change

- Moscovici's research supports the idea that minority influence can lead to social change, particularly through consistency, and can also result in internalisation.

- in a variation of his blue-green slides test, participants wrote down their answers instead of stating them aloud.

participants were more likely to agree with the minority in this condition, indicating internalisation of the minority viewpoint even if not expressed publicly.

- this suggests that minority influence extends beyond public conformity to affect individuals' private beliefs.

the findings highlight the importance of internalisation in understanding the impact of minority influence on individuals' attitudes and behaviors.

- this emphasizes the transformative potential of minority influence in shaping societal norms and beliefs.

Consistency on Minority - Moscovici's Colour Perception (1969):

• Weaknesses

- Gynocentric study; data can't be generalised to Males; other research states that women are more likely to conform so men may be completely different

- Not ecologically valid as it was an Articficial Task, with "false minorities"; doesn't replicate the passion and commitment from Minorities such as advocates of Civil Rights and Gay Rights movements

- Ethnocentric within the US

Commitment

• When a minority influence is willing to demonstrate their dedication to their belief.

• This is often shown by making personal sacrifices and it is effective as it shows that the minority aren't acting out of self-interest and are instead risking lots.

• This forces people to pay attention as they think that the minority must really believe in what they are fighting for.

Flexibility

• If the minority are not flexible they can often be seen as very unreasonable and as a result the majority won't take their beliefs into consideration as dogmatic approaches from minorities are extremely ineffective.

• Therefore, the idea of accepting compromise to the majority is more effective at persuading the majority.

Flexibility on Minority - Nemeth Ski Lift (1986):

• Procedure

• Participants, in groups of four, had to agree on the amount of compensation they would give to a victim of a ski-lift accident.

• One of the participants in each group was a confederate.

• Two conditions: 1) Minority argued for a low rate of compensation and refused to compromise (inflexible); 2) Minority argued for a low rate of compensation but compromised by offering a slightly higher rate of compensation (flexible)

Flexibility on Minority - Nemeth Ski Lift (1986):

• Findings

• Nemeth found that in the inflexible condition, the minority had little or no effect on the majority, however in the flexible condition, the majority was much more likely to compromise and change their view.

Social Cryptoamnesia (Snowball Effect)

• When gradually more and more people change views on a social topic until the minority becomes majority.

• People also forget the origin on how the social change has come about.

• This is seen with LGBT+ rights and Women's right to vote.

Social Change

• This occurs when entire societies (as opposed to just individuals) adopt new attitudes and beliefs.

• This includes how people believe that the Earth revolves around the sun and on global warming.

Stages of Minority Influence in Social Change

1) Drawing attention to an issue through social proof.

2) Consistency by those trying to force social change.

3) Deeper processing of the issue by the majority.

4) The augmentation principle - when people take risks and make sacrifices for their cause.

5) The Snowball Effect

6) Cryptoamnesia

Conformity Leads to Social Change: obedience research

- obedience research has provided insights into how social change can be achieved

- Milgram's variations demonstrated that social support and dissenters enable individuals to follow their conscience and resist authority

- for instance, challenging the legitimacy of authority figures makes it easier for others to disobey and contribute to social change.

- shows that breaking the pressure of authority through social support can lead to collective disobedience, fostering an environment conducive to social change.

- additionally, involving authoritative figures to enact laws and policies further solidifies these changes

Consequently, understanding the dynamics of obedience and dissent helps in strategizing effective pathways for implementing social change, emphasizing the importance of social support and authoritative endorsement.

Conformity Leads to Social Change: research support

Point – One strength of Moscovici’s research is that it demonstrates how minorities can bring about genuine social change by leading to internalization of their viewpoints.

Evidence – In his variation of the blue-green slides experiment, Moscovici had participants write down their answers instead of stating them aloud. He found that participants were more likely to agree with the minority when their answers were private, indicating that they had internalized the minority's viewpoint, even if they didn't express it publicly.

Analysis – This suggests that minority groups have the power to influence not only public behavior but also private beliefs. The fact that participants changed their answers privately shows that their shift in viewpoint was not merely a response to social pressure but a deeper, more lasting change in opinion. This highlights that minority influence can lead to genuine attitude changes, not just superficial compliance.

Link – Therefore, Moscovici’s research supports the idea that minority influence can result in real, lasting social change, leading to internalization and better decision-making, as individuals who internalize new perspectives are more likely to adopt them in the future.

Conformity Leads to Social Change: conformity

- conformity can lead to social change, as evidenced by the work of the Nudge Unit.

- the Nudge Unit's intervention in income tax payments involved reminding taxpayers that most of their peers had already paid, which significantly increased repayment rates by around 15%.

- this demonstrates that subtle social cues and the desire to conform to societal norms can effectively alter behavior.

by leveraging normative social influence, people are motivated to align their actions with the perceived majority, facilitating social change.

- therefore, the strategic use of conformity pressures, as shown by the Nudge Unit's success, underscores the potential of normative influence to drive social change in various contexts.

Conformity Leads to Social Change: minority influence

Point - Social change is not always straightforward, as many individuals are deeply settled in their views and resistant to change due to social barriers, particularly stereotypes.

Evidence - Bashir et al. (2013) found that even when there are clear benefits to behaviors like recycling, individuals are often reluctant to engage in them because of fear of being labeled with negative stereotypes, such as being called "weird" or a "tree-hugger." This highlights how deeply ingrained social labels and stereotypes can create resistance to socially beneficial behaviors, even when the change is objectively positive.

Analysis - This suggests that minority influence and social influence, while powerful in many contexts, can be less effective when it comes to challenging deeply entrenched stereotypes and social norms. Even when minority groups present a consistent and rational argument for change, the resistance may stem not from the content of the message but from the social stigma associated with adopting that behavior. For instance, the reluctance to recycle might not be due to ignorance about the environmental benefits but because of a desire to avoid social marginalization. Therefore, the effectiveness of minority influence is limited by these social barriers, which may be more resistant to change than the individuals themselves.

Link - Consequently, while minority influence can lead to social change in some contexts, it is often hindered by the stereotypes and social pressures that people face. This shows that social influence may not always be completely effective in achieving widespread change, as it struggles to tackle deeply rooted societal barriers such as negative stereotypes.

Conformity Leads to Social Change: lacks ecological validity

However a weakness is any controlled or laboratory research into the social influence and its processes can lack external validity. For example there is usually a lack of consequences due to ethical issues as seen in Moscovici's study, where agreeing with the minority had no consequences or risks, whereas in the real world moving to the minority may cause social exclusion from certain groups or conflict with authority figures. It is also hard to recreate the bonds real life minority groups share and authority figures. Therefore the findings from social influence research may lack ecological validity and tell us little about the processes of change in everyday settings.