Social Influence

Minority Influence AO1

when a person/small group influence behaviour and beliefs of majority.

unlike majority influence, this type of SI leads to internalisation.

1. consistency - synchronic (all saying same thing), diachronic (over long time). seen as more important

2. commitment - show dedication via personal sacrifice (giving something up - money, safety, one’s lief). greater the loss shows greater commit, called augmentation principle

3. flexibility - accepts counter arguments and are reasonable. if too inflexible, seen as rigid/dogmatic, which costs support

when minority successful, more people converted to minority view, rate of conversion increases - snowball effect

minority influence AO3

1. moscovici. 6 ppts with 2 confederates were asked to decide if slides green/blue. consistent confed led to 8.42% incorrect answers from ppts, inconsistent (24 green 12 blue) led to only 1.25% incorrect answers from ppt. control saw 0.25% - Synchronic Consistency

2. Nemeth, 3 ppts 1 confed, discussing hypothetical ski lift accident compensation, confed argued for lower compensation. when flexible, they were more likely to influence the group

3. both studies labs with low mundane, low stakes hold little salience, unrealistic of minority influence irl where majorities may be hostile to minority, or hold great power. makes minorities more passionate. also takes years to complete, so 1 experimental session unrepresentative.

Conformity to Social Roles Ao1

the parts individuals play as members of various social groups. zimbardo studied using stanford prison experiment. used volunteer sample: 21 male students from standford uni. assigned eiterh guard/prisoner, and given uniforms to match roles. prisoners in smocks and stocking, guards had cuffs, mirrored shades.

uniforms → lose personal identity (Deindividuation)

guards treated prisoners harshly → prisoners retaliated D2, tearing smocks and yelling at guards, but were diffused via fire extinguishers.

guards were increasingly harsh, like frequent headcounts, even at night, and punishing them by putting them in ‘hole’ (dark cupboard)

3 prisoners showed psychological distress and released, 1 went on hunger strike

zimbardo ended study on day 6 as opposed to 14 as behaviour grew more aggressive, prisoners more anxious/depressed

conformity to social roles AO3

1. good internal valid: McDermott found 90% of convos were about prison life, about how it was impossible to leave until finished ‘sentences’, believing it a real prison just ran by psychologists.

2. methodological issues: claimed nomothetic effect, but sample only male, so beta bias. volunteer sample, all from same uni, may have even known each other. so many confounding variables.

3. only 1/3 were cruel, with many being kind/fair, sneaking them cigarettes/reinstating privileges. not al guards readily took to social roles, instead social identity theory: guards needed to categorise and identify with the social role, which is more active process than zimbardo suggested. those aggressive actively chose to identify with role.

Situational Explanations for Obedience AO1

society is a hierarchy: police officers have power over general public. we grow up with parents/teachers having power over us. we perceive some ppl have legitimate authority (greater power due to high position in hierarchy) and are more likely to obey. destructive consequences when e.g. Hitler controlling masses

agentic state: usually individual autonomous state, and behave according to own principles and feel PERSONALLY responsible for actions, but agentic is opposite, so MORE LIKELY TO OBEY. they may feel moral strain, where they feel guilty but feel powerless to disobey, binding factors reduce the moral strain: allows them to ignore consequences of behaviour SO MORE LIKELY TO OBEY. includes victim blaming/denying damage to victims

Situational Explanations for Obedience AO3

1. research: Milgram’s baseline: ppts asked q’s to experimenter a lot. one q was “who is responsible if learner is harmed?”, when experimenter explained they were responsible, ppt would continue shocking learner without further resistance. supports idea of shifted responsibility and agentic state.

2. explanatory power: My Lai Massacre, american soldiers killed, raped, burnt buildings. only one man charged, when asked why, he said he was only following orders. same response nazis gave. suggests in strict hierarchy e.g. army, more likely to obey as legit authority/punishment clearer.

3. Rank and Jacobson: 16/18 nurses did not follow legit authority of doctors and did not give excessive drug dose to patient. instead, suggested individual differences: Rotter locus of control: those with internal feel more responsible, less likely go to agentic state. more idiographic needed

4. does consider individual differences: different cultures perceive authority differently: in Milgram style study, only 16% australian women went to 450 (highest) voltage, whereas in germany saw 85%. so explanation explains cultural differences as certain cultures view authority more legitimately

Conformity (Asch) AO1

investigated factors effecting conformity. 123 american men, two cards, one with single line, other with multiple, one obviously correct ppt sit in line, each individual would say in order of line their answer. ppt always last/penultimate. confed always gave wrong answer. incorrect answers 36.8% of time, 25% ppt never conformed. so some conform even when unambiguous

1. no. confed: increases with group size up to 3 confed, after which increase leels off. ppt sensitive to no. of individuals giving an answer.

2. task difficulty (harder to tell which line the same): ppt conformed more (avoid being wrong - ISI)

3. unanimity decrease (e.g. 1 confed disagrees), conformity dropped to less than a quarter of initial %, true even if dissenter did not agree with ppt. suggests one dissenter gives social support

Conformity (Asch) AO3

1. Lucas: maths problems of ranging difficulty, harder = more conformity. individuals conform when more unfamiliar/difficult, but also noteably when more confidence in maths skills, less likely to be affected by difficulty increase, would conform less. so asch oversimplified

2. lacks mundane realism - Asch line is not reflective of real life situations, ppt may have guessed aims, leading to demand characteristics (please/screw you effect). lower validity. tasks of little salience to ppt, so not responding the same way as irl

3. gender bias: androcentric sample, only males. only generalisable to men. beta bias: Neto claimed women more likely to conform than men due to more concern regarding social relationships and acceptance.

4. cultural bias: only studied americans, individualist culture. value independence/free thinking. conformity rates higher in collectivist cultures since value group interdependence more (Bond/Smith). low generalisability