Social Psychology (5): Social Influence

What did Milgram’s study find?

People follow authority even when asked to hurt others. In an experiment, a "teacher" gave electric shocks to a hidden "learner" for wrong answers. As the shocks increased, the learner reacted more strongly. If the teacher hesitated, they were encouraged to continue through prods.

What percentage of participants administered the maximum shock (450v)?

65%

Agentic State

Where people see themselves as executing orders on behalf of an authority figure rather than acting independently.

How did Burger (2009) adjust Milgram’s experiment?

Made ethical adjustments and introduced additional conditions.

What did Burger (2009) find?

People still obeyed despite ethical modifications.

What did personality predict? (Burger, 2009)

When people required prods, but not overall obedience.

What did Haslam et al (2014)’s meta-analysis on Milgram’s conditions find?

Vast variation in obedience (10% → 90%). This was down to other elements in the procedure being varied (e.g. Directiveness of experimenter, relationships, indirect influence of teacher).

What did Reicher & Haslam (2012) criticise about Milgram’s “Agentic State” explanation?

Authority alone doesn’t determine obedience - social relationships and indirect influence matter.

What did Sherif (1936) find about conformity?

In ambiguous situations - distance a (stationary) point of light “moves” - individuals change their initial estimates to conform to group norms, even when the correct answer is unclear.

What did Asch find about conformity?

When individuals had to match line heights and confederates purposely gave wrong answers:

• 36.8% of trials showed conformity

• 76% conformed at least once

Larger groups → higher conformity rates.

What reasons did participants give for conforming in the Asch experiment?

• Not wanting to spoil the results

• Avoiding standing out

• Doubting their own perception.

Why did people conform/not conform?

• “Deviants”: Some were confident in their judgement or couldn’t help saying what they saw

• People attempted to make sense of a confusing situation, they had nothing to lose by conforming (not just blind following)

Social Comparison Theory (Festinger, 1954)

The idea that people evaluate their abilities and opinions by comparing themselves to others.

What are the two types of social influence? (Deutsch & Gerard)

• Normative Influence – Conforming to fit in and be liked.

• Informational Influence – Conforming because you believe others are correct.

How does conformity differ by culture? (Bond & Smith, 1996)

• Higher conformity in collectivist cultures than individualist ones.

• Conformity increases with % of female participants

• Conformity decreases when the majority is made up of outgroup members

• Less conformity over time in USA

How did Hodges & Geyer (2006) challenge traditional views on conformity?

They argued that conformity isn’t simply blind obedience - people balance competing demands and use strategies to navigate social situations.

How does minority influence differ from majority influence?

• Majority influence → Public change

• Minority influence → Private change

What helps minority influence succeed?

Consistency while remaining flexible

What were the results of Moscovici’s Minority Influence study?

When minority confederates consistently called blue slides “green”, 32% of participants conformed at least once.

What are some indirect/latent effects of minority influence?

• Pro-abortion message either minority or majority portrayed had no direct effect but there was increase in support for birth control (Perez and Mugny, 1987)

• Message advocating gay people serving in the military; minority influence increases opposition to gun control (Alvaro & Crano, 1997)

What are limitations of Moscovici’s research?

• Replications of Moscovici are inconsistent

• Martin (1998), Moscovici & Personnaz (1980): Afterimages get more green anyway, could be a perceptual phenomenon

• Does it really show Reciprocal Influence?

• Experimental limitations (ecological validity, unrealistic)

• Number of minority/majority may be reductive, ignoring power dynamics