Social Influence

Types of Conformity - Compliance

Superficial change in behaviour.

Private beliefs unchanged.

Abandoned as soon as group pressure stops.

Types of Conformity - Identification

Temporary change in behaviour - the group is valued.

Public opinion and behaviour changes.

P rivate beliefs unchanged.

Types of Conformity - Internalisation

Accepts a group's norms - change in public/private beliefs, Act the same even in group's absence.

Explanations of Conformity - NSI

Norms regulate group behaviour.

Social approval better than rejection --> emotional change.

Compliance

NSI AO3 - Research Support (STR)

(Asch) - Post-experiment Interview

Found ptcps afraid to give correct answer because of disapproval

Written answers (no normative pressure) = Conformity fell to 12.5%

NSI AO3 - Individual Differences (LIM)

NSI doesnt predict conformity in every case

(McGhee and Teevan) - nAffiliator students have a stronger need for affiliation --> more likely to conform

NSI stronger for some people - NSI can't explain all conformity

Explanations of Conformity - ISI

Follow the majority to make sure we are correct.

New/Ambiguous situation --> cognitive

Internalisation

ISI AO3 - Research Support (STR)

(Lucas et al) - Ptcps more likely to conform when they don't know the answer (ambiguous) --> follows prediction of ISI

NSI / ISI AO3 - Distinction (LIM)

Impossible to know which explanation is at play.

(Asch) - Possibility of rejection = NSI

Unanimity (the group knows more) = ISI

Conformity - Asch AO1 (Baseline Procdure and Findings)

123 American men among group of confederates (tot 6-8)

Asked to match 2 lines of the same size.

Begin giving normal answers, slowly start answering incorrectly.

Ptcps conformed to 36.8% answers. 25% did not conform at all.

Conformity - Asch AO1 (Variables)

1) Group size - Curvilinear relationship (significant at 3 confederates, peak at 7, then levelled off)

2) Unanimity - Dissenting Confederate gives a different answer. Ptcp acts more independently, 1/4 rate of conforming)

3) Task Difficulty - ABC lines all very close to X line. Conformity increased (ISI)

Conformity - Asch AO3 STR (Research Support)

(Lucas et al) - Ptcps more likely to conform when they don't know the answer (ambiguous) --> follows prediction of ISI.

Similar to Asch's conclusion about Task difficulty.

Conformity - Asch AO3 LIM (Artificial Task)

Ptcps know they are being researched and task is trivial - no reason not to conform (demand characteristics).

Findings do not generalise to real - world situations (esp. when consequences of conformity are important).

Conformity - Asch AO3 LIM (Limited Application)

Unrepresentative sample.

Neto - Women more concerned about social relationships and being accepted (more likely)

1950s US more desirable to conform than now.

US individualism makes conformity less likely than collectivist cultures.

Little insight to conformity concerning entire population.

Conformity - Asch AO3 LIM (Ethical Issues)

Experiment involved deception, so ptcps cannot make informed decision to take part.

Potentially subject them to stress, anxiety and humiliation.

Conformity - Zimbardo AO1 (Procdure and Findings)

21 emotionally stable student volunteers radomly assigned to prisoner/guard.

Guard uniform covered eyes, Prisoners referred to by number- deindividuation makes conformity to social roles more likely.

Some guards became violent by the second day. Prisoners had panic attacks while guards became even worse.

Study ended 6 days in (out of 14)

Conformity - Zimbardo AO1 (Conclusion)

Social roles (expectations of character) strongly influenced ptcps behaviour, and occured naturally.

Some guards became very violent, some prisoners became very submissive.

Conformity - Zimbardo AO3 STR (Control)

Selection of most emotionally stable ptcps and random guard/prisoner assignment reduces impact of individual differences on findings.

Increases internal validity.

Conformity - Zimbardo AO3 LIM (Lack of realism)

Environment did not have the realism of a prison.

Banuazizi - Ptcps were play acting, based on stereotypes.

One guard based his brutality on Cool Hand Luke

Prisoners rioted even though riots rarely happen in real prisons.

Lacks external validity (appication).

Conformity - Zimbardo AO3 LIM (Exaggerates power of roles)

Zimbardo (2007) - 1/3 guards acted brutally.

1/3 guards followed the rules.

1/3 guards sympathised with the prisoners (cigarretes)

= 2/3 guards resisted situational pressures to conform to brutality.

Conformity - Zimbardo AO3 LIM (Ethical issues)

Prisoner ptcps subject to physical and psychological harm and violence - panic attacks and early exits from experiment.

So unethical it ended before halfway - no further experiments like this ever.

Obedience

Social influence when an individual follows a direct order from an authority figure.

Obedience - Milgram AO1 (Procdure and Findings)

40 American Men volunteers - Fixed draw ensures ptcps are always Teacher (shocks Learner when answering wrongly). 2 confederates per experiment.

1 = Experimenter (instructs Teacher)

2 = Learner (answers questions).

Every participant shocked up to 300V. 12.5% stopped there.

65% went up to 450V.

Up to 315V the Learner screamed and pounded on the walls, and was silent afterwards.

The Experimenter had 4 prods to make the ptcp continue.

Participants showed signds of extreme tension (nail biting, sweating, stuttering, trembling, uncontrollable seizures).

Obedience - Milgram AO1 (Conclusions)

As long as people were guided by an authority figure, American people may obey even when it harms someone else.

Obedience - Milgram AO3 STR (Research Support)

Beauvois et al - Fake gameshow. Ptcps ordered by presenter to give fake shocks to an unconscious man in front of an audience.

80% delivered the max 460V shock.~

They showed the same signs of extreme tension (nail biting, nervous laughter).

Milgrams findings were not just due to special circumstances.

Obedience - Milgram AO3 LIM (Low internal validity)

Perry - Tapes of Milgram's experiments revealed only half believed the shocks were real. 2/3 ptcps were disobedient, suggesting ptcp response to demand characteristics.

Obedience - Milgram AO3 LIM (Alternative conclusion)

Haslam et al - All ptcps given fourth prod disobeyed. Alternate theory (SIT): ptcps only obey when they identify with research scientific aims, instetad of blindly.

Obedience - Milgram AO3 LIM (Ethical issues)

Ptcps in this study were decieved, and had to deal with stress.

COUNTER: After Milgram's debrief, 84% said they were glad to have participated.

Obedience - Situational Variables (Milgram): Proximity AO1

SV changes the rate of obedience (baseline 65% when T & L seperate rooms).

Proximity (physical closeness / authority figure) -

1) T & L same room - 40%

2) T forces L's hand - 30%

[Increased proximity makes harder to psychologically distance from consequences of their actions]

3) No E (telephone) - 20%

[Lack of physical presence decreases authority (social pressure) and thus obedience]

Obedience - Situational Variables (Milgram): Location AO1

SV changes the rate of obedience (baseline 65% at Yale University).

1) At run-down office block - 47.4%

[Less legitimacy than presitgious Yale decreases authority and thus obedience]

Obedience - Situational Variables (Milgram): Uniform AO1

SV changes the rate of obedience (baseline 65% when E wears labcoat).

1) Confederate wears everyday clothes - 20%

[Suitable uniform legitimises authority]

Situational Variable AO3: Research Support (STR)

Bickman - 3 confederates (1) jacket & tie (2) milkman (3) security guard) ask public to do tasks. Public twice as often listened to (3) than (1).

Situational Variable AO3: Cross-Cultural Replication (STR)

Meeus et al - Dutch realistic version of Milgram's study. 90% ptcps ordered to say stressful things to confederates desperate for a job obeyed. Obedience decreases with decreased proximity to authority figure. Results align with Milgram and shows generalisability.

Situational Variable AO3: Low internal validity (LIM)

Perry - Tapes of Milgram's experiments revealed only half believed the shocks were real. 2/3 ptcps were disobedient, suggesting ptcp response to demand characteristics.

Situational Variable AO3: Dangerous Conclusions (LIM)

Mandel - Situational Variables create alibi for evil behaviour, and ignored dipositional influence. Attributing the holocaust to SV = offensive oversimplification.

Obedience - Situational Explanations (Milgram): Agency, Autonomy & Binding Factors AO1

Agentic State - No personal responsibility for behaviour as we act for an authority figure --> more likely to follow through.

Autonomous State - Personal responsibility for actions done by own free will.

Agentic Shift - Figure of greater authority in a group (social hierarchy) leads people to defer to them (autonomous --> agentic)

Binding Factors - Person remains agentic by ignoring/minimising damaging consequences of behaviour reducing moral strain.

Situational Explanations: Agency, Autonomy & Binding Factors AO3: Research Support (STR)

Milgram - Most ptcps resisted shock min. once. When E said he is responsible for learner, ptcps acted easier as E's agent.

Situational Explanations: Agency, Autonomy & Binding Factors AO3: Limited Explanation (LIM)

Rank & Jacobson - 16/18 hospital nurses refused to give lethal dose of drug ordered by doctor. Nurses remained autonomous despite valid authority figure.

Obedience - Situational Explanations (Milgram): Legitimate and Destructive Authority AO1

Society structured hierarchically, we learn and respect this as allows society to function smoothly. Legitimacy of authority allows one person to punish another. Great legitimacy given to charismatic leaders (Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot) allows destructive use of power. Seen with prods (force ptcps to act against own conscience).

Situational Explanations: Legitimate Authority AO3: Explains cultural differences (STR)

Mann et al - 16% AUS women shocked 450V

Mantell - 85% GER people shocked 450V

Varying acceptance of authority explains inconsistency.

Situational Explanations (Legitimate Authority) AO3 - Cannot Explain all Disobedience (LIM)

Cannot explain disobedience in hierarchy where legitimacy of authority = clear, respected.

Rank & Jacobson: Most nurses disobedient despite rigid structure.

Milgram: Some ptcps disobeyed despite experimenter scientific authority.

Obedience may be innate, can vary.

Dispositional Explanations AO1 - Authoritarian Personality & Obedience

AP show extreme respect/submisiveness to authority. AP view society as weaker than before = need strong, powerful leaders to enforce trad values (nationalism, religion).

AP show contempt for inferior social status. Inflexible view of the world (black/white thinking). People who are other = target, cause of weakened society. Obey orders from auth figures even when destructive.

Dispositional Explanations AO1 - Origins of Authoritarian Personality

Result of harsh parenting, conditional love (extremely strict discipline, expectation of absolute loyalty, impossibly high standards, severe criticism of failings).

Makes child hostile, resentful. Cannot express fear of parents (punishment), so displace onto others percieved as weaker (scapegoating).

Dispositional Explanations AO1 - Adorno Procedure

Adorno et al (1950): 2000+ white middle class Americans, unconscious attitudes to ethnic groups tested on F-scale. Asks questions about raising children.

Dispositional Explanations AO1 - Adorno Findings

High on F-Scale = Identified with ‘strong’ leaders, contemptuous of ‘weak’. Conscious of status, showed extreme reverence to higher status.

Cognitive style of fixed thinking, distinctive stereotypes of others. Strong pos correlation authoritarianism//prejudice.

Dispositional Explanations AO3 - Research Support (STR)

Elms & Milgram (1966): Interviewed 20 fully obedient ptcps from Milgram’s study.

Scored sig. higher on F-Scale than disobedient comparison group.

Supports Adorno’s conclusions.

Dispositional Explanations AO3 - Limited Explanation (LIM)

Cannot explain majority obedience.

Majority (millions) in pre-war Germany displayed obedient, racist behaviour, despite inevitable differences in childhood / personality. Unlikely they all have AP.

Alternative of social identity theory approach, majority of Germans identified with racism, scapegoated Jews.

Alternative explanations sometimes more realistic.

Dispositional Explanations AO3 - Political Bias (LIM)

Only measures tendency towards far right wing ideologies.

Christie & Jahoda (1954): F-Scale does not account for left-wing authoritarianism (Bolshevism, Maoism) despite much in common with right-wing authoritarianism.

Explanation not comprehensive.

Resistance to Social Influence (Social Support) AO1 - Resisting Conformity

Dissenting confederate (e.g. Asch) creates social support for resisting conformity. Acts as model of independent behaviour. Ptcp follows own conscience.

Resistance to Social Influence (Social Support) AO1 - Resisting Obedience

Similar with obedience. Milgram variation with dissenting confederate = obedience dropped from 65% - 10%.

Disobedience challenges legitimacy of authority figure, easier to disobey.

Resistance to Social Influence (Social Support) AO3 - Real World Research Support (STR)

Albreht et al (2006): Evaluated Teen Fresh Start USA (8 week program, help teenage pregnant resist peer pressure to smoke).

Social support provided by older mentor.

Mentored ptcps sig less likely to smoke than controls.

Usefulness of positive social support.

Resistance to Social Influence (Social Support) AO3 - Research Support for Dissenting peers (STR)

Gamson et al (1982): Ptcps told to produce evidence to help oil company run smear campaign. Ptcps could discuss what to do.

29/33 groups (88%) rebelled. Social support can undermine legitimacy of authority figure.

Resistance to Social Influence (LOC) AO1 - Basis & Continuum

Rotter (1966): LOC is scale of internal/external.

Internal: Events controlled by themselves

External: Events outside their control.

High internal LOC = more able to resist pressure to conform/obey. Take personal responsibility for own actions, base decisions on themselves. Traits of leaders, need less social approval than followers.

Resistance to Social Influence (LOC) AO3 - Research Support (STR)

Hollan (1967): Repeat Milgram baseline study, emasured ptcps LOC.

Those who did not continue -
Internals → 37%
Externals → 22%

Increases validity.

Resistance to Social Influence (LOC) AO3 - Contradictory Evidence (LIM)

Twenge et al (2004): Analysis of American LOC studies over 40 years. Data showed people became more resistant & external (would expect more internal).

Internal LOC =/= Disobedient

Minority Influence AO1 - Basis

Minority influences behaviour instead of majority. Most likely to lead to internalisation

Moscovici et al (1969): Group of 6, 2 confederates. Showed set of 36 blue slides (variety), asked whether blue/green.

G1 - Confederates only said green. Ptcps green 8.4%.

G2 - Confederates said greenX24, blueX12. Ptcps green 1.25%.

G3 - No Confederates. Ptcps green 0.25%.

Minority Influence AO1 - Consistency

Minority group consistent in views.

Synchronic: All saying same thing
Diachronic: Saying same thing for extended period.

Leads to others rethinking their views.

Minority Influence AO1 - Commitment

Minority group demonstrates commitment to their views.

E.g. extreme activities (protest, direct action). Risk demonstrates commitment makes others pay more attention (AUGMENTATION PRINCIPLE).

Minority Influence AO1 - Flexibility

Nemeth (1986): Consistency can appear rigid, dogmatic, so unlikely to convert others.

Members need to adapt POV, accept reasonable, valid counterarguments. Balance consistency & flexibility.

Minority Influence AO1 - Process of Social Change

3 factors culminate in inc chance for change. Growth of people converting from maj to min is exponential (SNOWBALL EFFECT).

Minority Influence AO3 - Research Support for Consistency (STR)

Wood et al (1994): Meta-analysis of almost 100 Moscovici-esque studies. Minorities seen as consistent = most influential.

Minority Influence AO3 - Research Support for Deeper Processing (STR)

Evidence for majority change involving deeper processing of minority ideas.

Martin et al (2003): Presented message supporting viewpoint, measured ptcpts agreement.

G1 - Heard minority group agree.

G2 - Heard majority group agree.

When exposed to conflicting views, G1 more likely to stay with minority than G2 with majority.

Minority Influence AO3 - Artificial Tasks (LIM)

Tasks used for studies are artificial, e.g. Moscovici slides. Research far removed from real world situations.

Findings have low external validity.

Social Change (minority influence) AO1 - Drawing Attention through social proof

Social Change (minority influence) AO1 - Consistency

Social Change (minority influence) AO1 - Deeper Processing of issue

Social Change (minority influence) AO1 - Augmentation Principle

Social Change (minority influence) AO1 - Snowball Effect

Social Change (minority influence) AO1 - Social Cryptomnesia

Social Change AO1 - Lessons from Conformity Research

Social Change AO1 - Lessons from Obedience Research

Social Change AO3 - Research Support for Normative influences (STR)

Social Change AO3 - Minority Influence explains change (STR)

Social Change AO3 - Inconsistent Effects (LIM)

Social Change AO3 - Role of Deeper Processing (LIM)