Social Psychology Week 7

Social influence

What happened at Jonestown?

Jones gathered members and told of ‘revolutionary suicide’. With little resistance, people drank cyanide laced punch. 914 people died, including 276 children.

Social influence

the many ways that people impact one another

Major kinds of social influence:

Conformity and Obedience

Conformity

Tendency to change one’s perceptions, beliefs, or behaviour in response to real or imagined pressure from others. Pressure to conform to group norms is either explicit/implicit

Sherif (1936) on how groups influence behaviour by shaping how reality is perceived

used autokinetic illusion. Ps completed task individually then with group.

Individual judgments became group norm and influenced perception.

A year later, similar estimates were revealed when tested individually

Asch (1951; 1956) examined conformity when people know majority is incorrect

used line judgment task. Ps called out judgments one at a time

1st all called correct answers, but then all others (confederates) made incorrect answers on total of 12 trials

76% of participants conformed on at least 1 of 12 incorrect trials. Ps conformed to incorrect responses 37% of the time

To avoid disapproval of the group, many conformed even when they knew the answer was incorrect.

Informational influence

Influence producing conformity when a person believes others are correct in their judgment.

Normative influence

Influence that produces conformity when a person fears the negative consequences of appearing deviant

Private conformity

Change in beliefs when a person truly accepts the position taken by others

Public conformity

Superficial change in behaviour produced by real or imagined group pressure without change in opinion.

Public vs Private conformity in Sherif & Asch

Ps in Sherif studies show similar responses a year later, while Ps in Asch studies don’t conform even privately

How does group size affect conformity?

Size of the group matters with larger groups exerting more influence. However, levels off quickly. Important to see the group’s opinion as independent

How does group unanimity affect conformity?

Even one other dissenter reduces conformity by almost 80%. Reveals power of dissent.

Conformity decreases even when other dissenter does not share same opinion/does not appear too competent.

How does culture affect conformity?

People in collectivistic societies tend to conform more than those in individualistic societies.

Review of 133 studies worldwide shows conformity rates vary considerably (from 18% to 60%) across culture.

Only slight decline in conformity over time.

How does gender affect conformity?

Weak gender differences in conformity, but even this tendency only in public conformity.

Effects moderated by content of the judgment issue such that women and men conform more in non-stereotypical domains.

How do individual differences affect conformity?

People with strong sense of self, motivation to achieve, leadership ability, and minimal concern about others’ judgments conform less.

How do age differences affect conformity?

Conformity especially high among teenagers (ages 14-15). •

Among adults 18-85 years of age, conformity tends to slightly decrease with age

Minority influence

The process by which dissenters produce change within a group

Normative/Majority → Influence Conformity

Minority Influence → Innovation

Historical e.g.s of minority influence

Suffragettes, Civil Rights movement, Salvery

Moscovici classic work on minority influence

When an individual or subgroup influences a group, main factor determining their success is their behavioural style.

Minority may influence majority because it draws attention to differing viewpoint and gets people to carefully reconsider their position

Classic study on minority influence

Groups of 6 brought together (4 real participants 2 confederates) Shown series of 36 slides of different shades of blue and asked to name colour aloud.

Inconsistent minority: Confederates called 24/36 slides green. Consistent minority: Confederates called all 36 slides green - greater agreement

Firm and consistent behavioural style among minorities:

Creates doubt among majorities

Attracts attention to the dissent

Signals existence of an alternative norm

Communicates that the dissenting position may be worth taking seriously

Factors determining whether minority influence is successful

Consistency

Confidence

Appearance of being unbiased

Resisting social pressure

Style of thinking; discussion or debate

Flexible negotiation style; compromise

Credentials

Identification

Conversion theory

Minority influence is a long process that appears progressively

Stages of minority influence

Revelation: Appearance of an alternate norm; consistency of minority; denial by the majority.

Cognitive conflict: Consistent message creates conflict within majority forcing reflection.

Incubation: Outward rejection, but changes among individuals (implicit; private).

Innovation: Social change (manifest; public).

Social cryptomnesia: People forget idea was in the past a minority view

Minority and majority influence

Minority may influence majority because it draws attention to differing viewpoint and gets people to carefully reconsider their position Majority may have stronger influence on answers to factual questions, but less on opinion questions.

Majority have stronger impact on public measures of conformity, but minority may exert influence on private measures.

Obedience

Behaviour change produced by commands of authority

In many ways, social order depends on respect to authority

However, also creates vulnerability to destructive social influence. Original interest in topic stemmed from events of WWII.

Continually relevant to everyday life

Milgram conducted a number of variations of his original work and found some telling results:

By varying the proximity of the learner: mean level of shock & % delivery of maximum shock decreased as learner became closer

By varying the proximity of the experimenter: contradictory experimenters = lowest mean level of shock/% delivery of maximum shock

Cross-Cultural Differences in Obedience

Replications conducted in 1980s/90s in Spain, Austria, Germany, South Africa, Jordan, Scotland, Australia, India, Netherlands, Canada, and Puerto Rico.

Evidence of even higher rates of obedience in most countries compared to the US.

No gender differences observed across studies.

Recent replications in the US/Poland have found high obedience rates similar to original work

Although tempting to dismiss findings as not applicable to ourselves, several reasons to consider otherwise

Participants did not wish to harm either.

Evidence that participants avoided harm as best as they thought possible

Milgram’s study: Ps did not mindlessly obey

Almost all called experimenter’s attention to suffering or implicitly pleaded to stop.

Many got out of chair or asked to stop before continuing. Illustration of indecisive disobedience more than blind obedience

Person felt released when experimenter took responsibility

In stressful and novel situation, perceived authority of experimenter allows people to continue.

Participants used dissent among experimenters to stop

Step-by-step nature of obedience

People more likely to obey when incrementally asked to harm

Milgram’s explanation

highlighted the importance of becoming immersed in task with authority figure and do not question morality of actions.

However, does not fully explain variability within population and between studies.

Alternative explanation: people felt a sense of identification with the experimenter and scientific enterprise

Milgram’s findings may help understand various events

But some actively justify torture and killing of thousands and dehumanise entire groups of people.

Understanding social influence in atrocious behaviour does not excuse the behaviour.

Understanding causes helps prevent harmful actions in the future.