Psychology, Social Influence

Types if conformity (AO1)

Kelman (1958)

3 Levels:

1. Compliance- Individual agrees externally but keeps personal opinions (wants to fit in and avoid rejection)

2. Identification- Behaviour and private beliefs change only with the group (membership valued- NSI)

3. Internalisation- Personal opinions genuinely change to match the group (due to ISI)

Explanations of conformity (AO1)

Normative Social Influence (NSI)- Driven by the desire to be liked and avoid rejection. Superficial and temporary change in behaviour.

Informational Social Influence (ISI)- Driven by the desire to be correct and is permanent.

Variables affecting conformity (AO1)

Asch (1951):

Groups of 8-10 male college students asked to complete a line judgement test.

Deception- 1 participant and rest were confederates.

Results: Overall conformity rate= 32%, 75% conformed at least once, 5% conformed every time.

Variables affecting conformity:

1. Group size (3% conformity with 1 confederate, 13% with 2 and 33% with 3)

2. Unanimity (one correct response)- conformity dropped to 5.5% due t social support

3. Task difficulty (ambiguity of lines)

Explanations for conformity (AO3)

+Asch’s line study supports NSI as 75% of pps conformed at least once despite correct answer being unambiguous. When answers were written down privately, conformity dropped to 12.5%.

+Asch’s line study supports ISI as task difficulty increased conformity.

-Can be difficult to separate the influence of NSI and ISI as pps are unaware of their motivations when self-reporting. NSI and ISI may be simultaneous.

Variables affecting conformity (AO3)

+Lab experiment- high internal validity. Controlled and standardised procedure.

+Meta-analysis of 133 studies using Asch’s line study across 17 countries and all support Asch’s results. Collectivist countries had higher conformity rates than individualistic countries.

-Perrin and Spencer suggest Asch’s study lacks temporal validity (high conformity rates during Cold War America). Repeated study on British students and only found conformity in 1 of 356 studies.

-Asch’s study lacks mundane realism- simple task in highly controlled environment. (Unlike real-life interactions)

Conformity to Social Roles- Zimbardo (AO1)

Fake prison at Stanford University.

24 male students (rated physically and mentally stable) chosen from volunteers who responded to newspaper advert.

Random allocation of guard and prison roles.

Realistic arrests and uniforms.

Zimbardo had dual role of investigator and Superintendent.

Pps quickly adapted behaviour to social roles and prisoners showed signs of stress after initial resistance.

Experiment ended early at 6 days due to fears of prisoners mental health.

Extreme submissive and abusive behaviours of perviously stable students- suggets prisons have the situational power to change behaviour to conform to social roles.

Zimbardo (A03)

+ Well controlled and roles were randomly allocated (pps selected through psychological screening to ensure their mental stability).

+ Insights into how social roles can influence behaviour.

- Dual role of investigator and Superintendent has experimenter bias.

-Pps experience psychological harm and Zimbardo continued the experiment- lack of ethical controls.

Explanations for obedience (AO1)

Milgram argues that ins the right situation most people will show destructive obedience to an authority figure.

Agentic state- state of mind in which the individual believes they don’t have responsibility for their behaviour as they are acting as an agent of an authority figure (goes against their morals).

Agentic shift- autonomous state to agentic state.

Legitimacy of authority- through socialisation, people learn their position in the social heirachy. Obey above not below them. LOA communicated through uniform and setting.

Milgram’s experiment (AO1)

40 males, ages 20-50 year old volunteers from a newspaper advert for a study on ‘memory’.

Pps= teacher, confederate= student, experimenter= professor.

Pps electrically shock learner when incorrect.

Results: Pps distressed but obeyed. 100% to 300V, 12.5% stopped at 300V, 65% to full 450V.

Situational variables affecting obedience:

1. Proximity- Professor gave instructions over the phone and obedience dropped to 21% (no agentic state).

2. Location- Run-down office block rather than Yale and obedience dropped to 47.6% (lack of LOA).

3. Uniform- Professor replaced lab coat with normal clothes and obedience dropped to 20% (lack of LOA).

Explanations of obedience (AO3)

+Milgram’s research supports agentic state- experimenter accepts responsibility for any harm to learner.

+Milgram’s research supports LOA- higher obedience when professor is in lab coat and when the location is Yale.

-35% of pps disobeyed authority figure, suggesting agentic state and LOA are not a full explanation of obedience. Other dispositional factors like authoritarian personality and locus of control that play a role.

Milgram’s experiment (AO3)

+Standardised procedure- Replicated across 8 countries (obedience rate of 65.9% across non-US countries). -reliable.

+Hofling- 21/22 nurses obeyed ‘Dr Smith’s’ phone call to double the dosage of an unfamiliar drug.

-Milgram’s study and variations are unethical as it causes pps distress (deception).

-Lacks ecological validity and mundane realism. (Can be demand characteristics).

Dispositional factors of obedience- Authoritarian Personality (AO1)

Adorno- Authoritarian personalities are capable of extreme obedience.

Obedient personalities shaped early in life by strict parenting and harsh punishments.

People with AP have high respect for higher social status.

Studies AP with F-scale.

Authoritarian Personality (AO3)

+Milgram’s study- 35% resisted authority and Adorna acknowledges willingness to obey authority figure can vary from person to person.

+Elms and Milgram- Obedient males in previous Milgram studies scored significantly higher on the F-scale than disobedient males (has AP).

-F-scale criticised as a measurement of AP due to acquiescence bias (questions written in a way where people tend to agree to questions).

-AP can lead to stereotyping- historical events (e.g. WW2) are oversimplified into personality flaws.

Explanations of resistance to social influence- Social support (A01)

Social support- Seeing others resist social influence reduces pressure to obey/conform by increasing the individuals confidence.

Resistance to obedience challenges to LOA of the authority figure.

Resistance to conformity- A non-conformist breaks group’s unanimity and creates an alternate group to belong to.

Explanations of resistance to social influence- Social support (AO3)

+Milgram’s variations- adds 2 additional confederate teachers for social support and 1 teacher refused to continue at 150V and second teacher stopped at 210V, obedience dropped to 10%.

+Asch’s variations- One confederate provides social support and obedience dropped from 32% to 5.5%.

-Even with Milgram and Asch’s variations, some pps still obeyed so there are other dispositional factors like LOC or AP.

Explanations of resistance of social influence- Locus of control (AO1)

Locus of control: Rotter (1966)- personal scale from high internal to high external. Refers to the extent that people believe control their own actions.

Internal LOC- See themselves as responsible for their own actions and resist social influence -have self control.

External LOC- Believes that fate and luck controls their lives and less able to resist social pressure -lack of control.

Explanations of resistance of social influence- Locus of control (AO3)

+Holland- Replicated Milgram’s study and 37% with internal LOC refused to continue to highest shock level compared to 23% of those with external LOC.

+Specter- Measured 157 pp’s LOC and their tendency to conform to NSI + ISI with questionnaires. People with internal LOC resisted NSI, but were just as likely to conform to ISI.

-Relationship between LOC and resistance to social influence is correlational and there are other related factors such as social status, social anxiety and sense of personal morality.

Minority Influence (A01)

• Consistency- effective if message is repeated over time (diachronic consistency) or at the same time (synchronic consistency).

• Flexibility- consider valid counter-argument and compromise.

• Commitment

• Snowball effect- minorities changing majorities opinions is a slow process at first, and speeds up as more majority convert to new views and minority improves acceptability.

Minority Influence (AO3)

+Moscovi- When shown blue slides, majority reported slides were green as the confederate (minority) was consistent. (Less reported slides were green in minority was inconsistent)

+Nemeth- When a confederate (minority) was inflexible in arguing for a low level of compensation for a ski accident, the pp (majority) were less likely to change the amount closer to the confederate’s figure than if the confederate was flexible.

-Knowledge on minority influence can be used for unethical manipulation towards negative agendas or spreading fake news.

Social Change (AO1)

• Social change- when a view held by minority is accepted by majority- whole societies adopt new attitudes/beliefs.

• Minorities are more successful when they show consistency, commitment and flexibility and minority turns into majority due to snowball effect.

• Obedience- members of government are a minority group that can enact dramatic social change by creating laws- society changes to avoid punishment.

• Conformity: NSI/Compliance- behaviours and views can become the norm within an influential minority group and spread too broader society. ISI/Internalisation- members of minority group provide information to majority (e.g. climate change) and society behaviour changes as it accepts this evidence.

• Social crypto amnesia- Once minority ideas are mainstream and become the norm, the sacrifices made by the minority group in initiating the social changes are not acknowledged and forgotten over time.

Social change (AO3)

+Civil Rights movement was successful due to consistency in nonviolent protests, sit-ins and marches - showed commitment to their ideals even when they suffered abuse.

+LGTQ+ rights movement used consistency and flexibility and gay communities successfully campaigned for civil partnerships (strategic and flexible compromise that led to legalisation of same-sex marriage).

-Highly controlled lab research isn’t possible so a clear cause and effect can’t be established, so researchers depend on natural experiments and case studies (only correlational).