P-Social Influence

Conformity

changes in behaviour/attitudes in response to group pressure

Compliance

Only public

Conforms to majority view to be liked/avoid social exclusion

Internalisation

Public and Private

Genuine acceptance of group norms

Deepest level of conformity

Identification

Conforming to demands of given role

Majority Influence

When people adopt the behaviour/attitudes/values of a majority after being exposed

minority influence

Majority influenced by beliefs/behaviours of a minority

Asch - Aim and Procedure

Aim: Investigate degree to which individuals would conform to majority who were wrong

Procedure:

• 123 US students told it was a visual perception tasks

• 1 participants : 7-9 confederates

• 18 trials, asked to say which comparison line was same as stimulus

• 12 were critical, confederates unanimous

• Control group of 36 participants tested individually

Asch - Findings and Conclusion

Findings:

• Control error rate 0.04%

• 12 critical trials showed 32% conformity rate

• 5% conformed to all twelve wrong answers

• Post experiment interviews: distortion of action, perception and judgements

Conclusions:

• Judgement affected by majority even when obviously wrong

• Most conformed publicly but not privately (motivated by NSI)

Asch - Evaluation

• Androcentric and ethnocentric = low population and ecological validity

• Question temporal validity - 1955

• Lack of informed consent

• Participant variables: visual impairments, view of confederates

• Replicable

• Williams and Sogan found conformity greater among friends

• Abrams et al. found more likely to conform if perceived other participants to be part of ingroup

Jenness Jellybeans in a jar study

• participants made individual estimates, discussed in small group and created group estimate, made second individual estimate

• typicality of opinion increased, second private tended to converge with group

• individual judgements affected by majority, especially when task is ambiguous, discussion ineffective unless they are aware that others differ

• more ethically sound than Asch, lab based

Factors of conformity: Difficulty of task

• When answer is less obvious, participant looks for guidance

• ISI dominant factor, Asch 1956 made lines more similar and found they are more likely to conform

Factors of conformity: Unanimity

• Asch 1956 found that if one confederate went against others, conformity dropped from 32% to 5%

• If the unanimity was broken but answer was still long, conformity dropped to 9%

Factors of conformity

Asch 1956

• 1 participant:1 confederate = low

• 1 participant:2 confederates = 13%

• 1 participant:3 confederates = 32%

• Any more = no effect

• Bond, meta-analysis found peak at 4/5

Factors of conformity: Temporal

• Perrin and Spencer repeated study in England, little majority influence, however they tested engineering students who are trained in visual accuracy

• Smith and Bond 50s versus 90s found conformity declined

Factors of conformity: Cultural

• Bond and Smith analysed Asch studies in different countries, majority influence 50% greater in collectivist cultures

Factors of conformity: Personality

• Eagly and Carli found women more affected than men

• Kurosawa found no gender effect but low versus high self-esteem

Factors of conformity: Other

• Personality

• Strangers

• Support

• Rewards

• Place/Culture/Time

Explanations of conformity: Informational Social Influence

When someone conforms based on need to be right, accepts others as guide, tends to involve internalisation

Greater when:

• Accuracy is crucial

• Support likely to have valid information

• Situation is ambiguous

• Participants have doubts about their own knowledge

Explanations of conformity: Normative Social Influence

When someone conforms based on the need for acceptance and approval, to fit expectations hence mostly compliance

From Deutsch and Gerard’s Asch task extensions

Reduced when:

• Participants have support of at least one participant

• Judgements are anonymous/private

Asch task extensions: Deutsch and Gerard (1955)

Three conditions:

• Face to Face

• Anonymous situation (Lowest NSI)

• Group situation (Reward=highest NSI)

Conclusions and evaluation:

• real life applications

• ISI more permanent; NSI more transient

• Usually a combination

• Extent of conformity depends on IQ, highly intelligent=less effected by ISI; need to be positively regarded=higher NSI

Zimbardo: Aims and Procedures

• Investigate extent people would conform to the roles of guard and prisoners in a simulation of prison life, testing dispositional versus situational hypothesis

• 75M-ppts respond to article paying $15/day

• 21 rated most physically and emotionally stable, free from antisocial and criminal tendencies

• 10x guards and 11x prisoners randomly allocated, Zimbardo as superintendent

• Basement of Stanford University converted into mock prison, prisoners arrested by real local police and processed

• Uniform - prisoners in numbered smocks, nylon stocking caps and chain around one ankle; guards in khaki unforms, reflective sunglasses and issued with handcuffs, keys, and truncheons(no violence permitted)

• x3 prisoners / cell, regular routine shifts, meals, etc. were established

Zimbardo: Findings and conclusions

• After initial prisoner rebellion was crushed: dehumanisation and sadism from guards increased, prisoners became submissive and deindividualised

• After 36hrs prisoner released due to hysteria and rage, stopped after 6 days when Zimbardo made aware of the harm that was occurring and the increasingly aggressive nature of the guard’s behaviour

• Interviews, stated they were surprised at uncharacteristic behaviour

• C: Situational over dispositional, individuals conform to social roles even when morally conflicting

Zimbardo: Evaluation

Strengths:

• Random allocation=high control(C&E)

• Wider application, changed way prisons run

• Informal recognition of ethical guidelines and conditions approved by ethics committee

• Background checks=only situational(but not reflective)

• stopped when harm realised and followed up aft3er

• mundane realism of prison

Weaknesses:

• Lack of informed consent to be arrested, extent of the conditions unknown

• Population validity (androcentric, ethnocentric)

• Right to withdraw ambiguous

• Demand characteristics

• Did not protect from harm

• Zimbardo’s personal involvement

• Cut short - could not get full extent

Obedience

• behaving as instructed in response to an individual rather than group pressure, often in hierarchy where the instructor is of higher status so individual feels unable to resist though private unlikely to change

• people embrace obedience to explain their behaviour but deny conformity

Milgram: Aim

See if individuals would obey orders of authority that incurred negative consequences and went against ones moral code. Investigating if ‘Germans are different’ - ethical implications.

Milgram: Procedure

• 40M-US-ppts-20to50yrs responded to article for study of memory and learning at Yale

• Offered $450 for their time

• Met by confed. experimenter wearing lab coat

• Mr ‘learner’ Wallace, a gentle harmless man late 50s

• Told random assign to teacher and learner(rigged)

• Teacher told to shock thro generator in next room

• Switches labelled - ‘15V, slight shock’ to ‘450V XXX’

• Real participant given 45V shock to convince its real

• Participant read series of paired-associate word tasks and received pre-recorded answer(standardisation)

• Told to give increasing shock for every incorrect answer

• 150V - learner protests and demands to be released

• 300V - refused to answer and claimed heart issues

• 315V screamed loudly, from 350V heard no more

• When teacher turn for guidance: ‘absence of response should be treated as a wrong answer’

• When teacher reluctant: ‘requires you to continue and ‘ you have no choice, you must go on’

• if ppt questioned: ‘not cause any lasting tissue damage’

Milgram: Findings

• Quantitative - 100% to 300V, 65% to 450V

• Qualitative - many ppts showed distress(twitching, sweating, giggling, digging nails, verbal attacks)

• x3 seized, some full concentration on task(dissociation)

• All participants debriefed and told behaviour was normal, 74% glad they participated(majority)

Milgram: Conclusions

• Obedience to authority is due to situation rather than ‘deviant’ personality

• Normal behaviour in a hierarchically organised society, we will obey orders that distress us

• Implications include relevance of this research to the real life atrocities of WW2 - was meant to be pilot study, wasn’t expecting these results, found humans are obedient not just Germans

Milgram: Evaluation

• Yale - prestigiousness increases authority but ppt also more likely to not believe authenticity of torture

• Recording - standardised but difficult to replicate genuine despair but stress participants showed

• Right to withdraw - Burger replicated w RtW and lower shocks, obedience still 70%

• Population validity, ppts middle ages males in 1963

• Paid participation = incentive to please; authority or reward?

• Generalisation of authority figures, only shown for authority of experimental research

• No groups - lacks mundane realism

• Socially sensitive - ‘Germans are different’; could misinform and be misused

• Learner behind a screen, could not visibly see suffering

Milgram: Variations

• With females: same

• Learner unseen and unheard: higher (66%)

• Experimenter ordinary member of public: lower (20%)

• Learner placed in same room: higher (40%)

• Orders given via phone: lower (20.5%)

• Participants hold victims hand down onto electrode to give shocks: higher

• Experiment moved away from Yale Uni, in run down office block in the centre of town: higher (48%)

• Participants paired w two confederates who refused to go on giving shocks: lowest (10%)

• Confederate pushed the shock button, participant only read out the questions: highest (95%)

Situational definition

Actions caused by the situation in which they find themselves rather than their personality

Dispositional definition

Actions caused by their internal characteristics

Situational explanations of obedience

Milgram identified two features:

• Legitimacy of authority

• Agentic state

Agency theory

• Autonomous state: individual acts according to their own wishes, see themselves as responsible

• Agentic state: individual obeys, giving up some free will and hence see themselves an agent of the authority figure, person deindividuated

• Migram 1974: ‘ remote authority’ variation obedience decrease to 20.5%, 1963 og experiment moral strain

Legitimacy of authority

• obedient individual accepts power and status of authority figure to give orders, learn that we should obey those higher in social hierarchy

• emphasis on ‘ doing ones perceived duty’

• Milgram 1963, some ppts ignored learner’s distress, showing little distress themselves and focussing on duty through recognition of authority

Authoritarian personality

• Dispositional explanation

• Proposed by Fromm 1941 - personality type characterised by a belief in absolute obedience, submission to authorities and domination of minorities

• Saw personality as being shaped in early childhood by hierarchical, authoritarian parenting

• Adorno - need for power and toughness increases obedience, constructed an F-scale questionnaire with 30 questions assessing 9 personality dimensions

Authoritarian personality: Features

• Rigid beliefs in conventional values

• General hostility towards other groups

• Intolerance of ambiguity

• Submissive attitude to authority figures

Authoritarian personality: Evaluation

• Zillmer et al 1995 16 Nazi war criminals scored highly on three of the F-scale dimensions but not all nine - limited support

• Elms and Milgram 1966 - ppts in milgram’s study who were highly obedient were significantly more authoritarian on the F-scale than disobedient

• F-scale suffers from response bias as it is worded in a confirming direction; Altemeyer 1988 produced less bias right wing authoritarianism scale w an equal number of pro and anti-statements

• Theory is politically biased, seen as only existing on the conservative, right wing of political view points

Independent behaviour

Resisting the pressure to conform or obey to authority

Situational factors of obedience

• Uniform

• Proximity

• Location

How to reduce conformity/obedience?

• Social support - 32% to 5.5%, breaking unanimity

• Anonymity - Deutsch and Gerard

• Personality

• Cultural factors - Smith and Bond

• In group and out group pressure - Abrams et al. 1990 found participants resisted pressures to conform on 92% of trials when members were in the outgroup

Explanations of resistance

• Independence - lack of consistent movement towards or away from social expectancy

• Anti-conformity - consistent movement away from social conformity e.g. adopting behaviour and norms of a minority group

• Social Support

• Locus of control

Explanations of resistance: social support

• With conformity, the presence of others who dissent has demonstrated to be a strong source of defiance - variation of Asch’s study, dissenter reduced conformity to 5.5%, 8.5% if late

• Allen and Levine 1971 - one dissenter in task involving visual judgements, even if they admitted to sight problems and thick lenses (???)

• Resistant models reduce unanimity, Milgram variation: confederate teacher refused, participants ‘didn’t realise [they] could refuse’ x2 confed.=10%

Locus of control

• Rotter 1966 identified personality dimensions

• extent individuals perceive themselves as being in control of their own lives

• Internal LOC - they affect outcomes, things happen due to individual choices and decisions (less likely to conform)

• External LOC - things turn out regardless of their actions, down to luck/fate, or other uncontrollable external factors (more likely to conform)

  • Rotter 1966 Questionnaire to measure LOC, involves choosing between paired statements e.g. misfortune due to own actions versus misfortune due to bad luck (issue: unsurity, not true to measure)

• People with ILOC feel stronger sense of control over their lives than ELOC therefore more likely to exhibit independent behaviour

• ELOC more likely to conform/obey

Locus of control: research

• Shute 1975 peer pressure on attitudes to drugs, participants with ILOC less likely to conform

• Williams and Warchal 1981 failed to find relation between LOC and conformity, higher and lower scores for majority influence on Asch-type tasks didn’t differ in LOC

• Holland 1967 no link, Blass 1991 reanalysed Hollands data with statistical analysis, found participants with ILOC more resistant to obedience, especially if they suspect manipulation

Minority Influence: Moscovici et al 1969

Aim:

• Investigate role of consistent minority upon the opinions of majority in an unambiguous task

Procedure:

• F-ppts, 32 groups of 6, x4 naïve x2 confederates; ppts told it was a perception task naming colours on the slides (36 slides w filter varying intensity

• Three conditions, answers given verbally:

  • Consistent (all green)

  • Inconsistent (24 green, 12 blue)

  • control (6 naïve)

Findings:

• Consistent 8.2%, Inconsistent 1.25%; statistically significant

Evaluation:

• Males are more likely to be colourblind, repeatable and statistically proven

• Deception, small groups, gynocentric, lacks mundane and experimental realism, no real life consequences for conforming (protests often criminalised)

Minority influence: social change

• process of shifts in peoples beliefs, attitudes, and behaviour; minority viewpoints are the driving force and slowly win majority over to what will become new social norms (in society)

• minority influence motivates individuals to reject established majority group norms; achieved through conversion, which involves the new beliefs being accepted privately and publicly

  • internalisation, usually through ISI as a minority provides new info and ideas

  • takes longer than majority influence/compliance as individuals need to re-examine their beliefs

Minority influence: How?

• protests

• marches

• speeches

• social media

Minority influence: Conversion theory

Moscovici 1985

• involves internal and private changes in attitudes in majority due to a minority

• individuals may still appear to go along with majority

• occurs after detailed and thorough processing of minority views (systematic processing)

Characteristics of minority influence

• committed - take actions that lead people to rethink, some degree of risk/sacrifice; confident and unbiased

• consistency - in their opinions/’thinking’

  • actions need to align with message'; Diachronically(over time) and Synchronically(between minority)

• Relevant - in line with social change

• Flexible - don’t appear too rigid, concedes that change is slow; progressive thinking; cooperation=persuasive or non-dogmatic

  • Nameth 1986, groups of 3ppts and 1confed. to decide compensation to pay victim of ski lift accident, when confed. argued low and refused to budge no effect on majority, when he compromised majority changed to lower

Minority influence: Augmentation principle

‘whichever is stronger - the will to act with consequences or the will to not act because of the consequences e.g. the suffragettes’

Minority influence: Snowball effect

as more change attitudes, pace picks up, minority gains status, power, and acceptability

Minority influence: social crypto-amnesia

in time, source of message is forgotten and that remains the new social norm

Is social change only positive?

Can be positive or negative, minority influence happens over time, incurring strong, long-lasting form of conformity; innovation occurs and new ideas and behaviours become adopted as mainstream practices

• majority may conform through identification or compliance using ISI or NSI, norm becomes law so people obey