Social influence

Social influence

Process where an individuals attitudes, beliefs or behaviours = changed or controlled by real or imagined presence + actions of other people (encompassing conformity + obedience + minority influence)

Conformity

Change in person’s behaviour or opinions = due to real or imagined pressure from a person or group of people

Explanations of conformity: informational influence

Occurs when we look to majority group for info → as we are unsure about way to behave

A person will conform as genuinely believe majority to be right as we look to them for right answer

Informational influence leads to…

Internalisation

Types of conformity: internalisation

Lasts a long time

Publicly + privately change behaviour → have internalised + accepted views of group

Deepest form of conformity

~ Live with vegetarian → become vegetarian = as share same viewpoint

Explanations for conformity: normative influence

Occurs when we wish to be liked by majority group = go along with them even though we may not agree with them

Following crowd in order to fit in with norm + be liked by group = social desirability

Normative influence leads to…

Compliance

Types of conformity: compliance

Temporary

Conform publicly but continue to privately disagree

Shallowest form of conformity

~ Laugh at joke others find funny while privately not finding it funny

Conformity: AO3

Asch’s line study = research support of NSI

Ppts reported conforming due to feeling self conscious giving correct answer → against rest of group + afraid of disapproval

Ppts writing answers = conformity dropped to 12.5% → no normative group pressure

Shows some conformity = desire not to be rejected by group for disagreement

Lucas’ study = research support for ISI

Ppts conformed more often to incorrect answers given when maths problems were difficult → situation became ambiguous = ppts did not want to be wrong → so relied on answers given

Easy problems = ppts ‘knew their own minds’

Supports ISI = as valid explanation of conformity → results = what ISI predicts

Asch’s line study: aim

Test conformity to others

In ambiguous situation

Very clear answer

Will people conform to obviously wrong answer?

Asch’s line study: procedure

Ppts had perceptual task of matching standard line to comparison line

Had to say which line A, B or C = same length as standard line

36 ppts tested individually 20 times each + only 3 mistakes made = simple task + answer = obvious not ambiguous

Ppts in group of 7-9 → only one real ppt = rest were confederates + instructed to give same wrong answer on certain trials

Seated in straight line or round table → real ppt was always penultimate or last

Mixture of correct answer trial round + group wrong decision trial rounds → more critical trials than neutral

Asch’s line study: findings

Basic conformity rate = 32% → high figure for an unambiguous task

Ppts gave wrong answers on 1/3

Asch’s line study: conclusion

Subjects interviewed at length → reasons for conforming:

• Didn’t want to appear different

• Didn’t want to upset the experiment

• Convey favourable characteristics

• A few genuinely doubted their judgement

Asch’s line study: explanation

Normative social influence

Asch’s line study variations: group size

Conformity increased with group size → up to a point

Two confederates = enough to sway opinion

Asch’s line study variations: unanimity

= Prescence of non-conforming person

Influence of majority depends on a large extent on it being unanimous

Asch’s line study variations: task difficulty

Task difficulty increased = conformity increased

Ambiguous situation = more likely to conform due to ISI

Asch’s line study variations: criticisms AO3

Lacks ecological validity → very artificial task + lab experiment = may lead to demand characteristics

All American men → cannot generalise to all + gender + cultural bias → other studies have shown different conformity rates ~ China has higher

Lucas’ experiment → ppts solved easy vs hard problems, ppts were given other ppts answers (not real), ppts conformed with harder problems → Asch addressed task difficulty through his further studies

Obedience

Form of social influence → individual follows direct order + usually from figure of authority who as power to punish when behaviour is not forthcoming

Milgram’s study: aim

Assess obedience in presence of an authority figure

Try to understand how Nazi soldiers could commit such crimes

Milgram’s study: research method

Lab experiment

Milgram’s study: procedure

• Male American ppts volunteered → drew lots to see who would be teacher vs learner

• Fixed draw → ppt was always teacher + confederate of Milgram’s was always learner

• Experimenter present also a confederate → in grey lab coat

• Learner had to remember pairs of words → error made = teacher delivers shock

• Shocks increase with voltage + description of shock amount

• Same recorded answers of learner

• Experimenter had a script + instruct teacher to continue + stated any problems is experimenter’s responsibility

Milgram’s study: ppts

Forty white American men volunteered

Milgram’s study: results

Every ppt delivered up to 300 volts

65% continued to highest level of shock = fully obedient

Milgram’s study: conclusions

German people aren’t different

American ppts = willing to obey orders even when they might harm other person

Milgram’s study: variation situational variables

Proximity

Location

Uniform

Milgram’s study: variations → proximity

Teacher + learner were in same room

Obedience dropped = 40%

Harder to be obedient when seeing infliction of pain

Milgram’s study: variations → location

Run down office setting → not prestigious uni

Obedience dropped = 47.5%

Lacks perceived legitimacy = obedience decreases

Milgram’s study: variations → uniform

Experimenter was a regular member of public

Obedience dropped = 20%

Uniform enhances perceived legitimate authority

Explanations for obedience: agentic state

Individual believes they are agent = acting on behalf of someone else

Complete orders under mental state of no sense of responsibility or guilt for their behaviours

Individual may feel some moral strain → when realisation of wrongful behaviour occurs → powerless to disobey higher social hierarchical authority figure

Agentic vs autonomous state

Autonomous = state of independence → free will to choose how to behave + take full responsibility for their actions

Agentic shift

Change from autonomous to agentic state → due to presence of perceived authority figure

Binding factors

Aspects of situation → bind individuals to task = allow to block out moral strain

~ denying responsibility + making out its the victims fault

Explanations for obedience: legitimacy of authority

In order to act in agentic state → person individual obeys = must have perceived legitimate authority

---

—