social influence

conformity

a change in belief or behaviour in order to fit in with a group.

types of conformity

compliance, identification and internalization

compliance

individuals publicly go along with the majority view but privately disagree with it. For example; laughing at a joke you dont find funny.

identification

individuals adopt the behaviour of the group because they value the group and group membership. for example; football team

internalisation

individuals take on the expressed view publicly and privately as they accept it as correct. for example; political views

aim of Asch's study

to investigate the extent to which social pressure from a majority group could affect a person to conform.

procedure of Asch's study

• Participants and confederates were presented with 4 lines; 3 comparison lines and 1 standard line

• They asked to state which of three lines was the same length as a stimulus line

• The real participant was seated to last out of five, with the other 4 being confederates.

• Confederates would give the same incorrect answer for 12 out of 18 trials

• Asch observed how often the participant would give the same incorrect answer as the confederates versus the correct answer

*It was done with 50 male students out of 123 volunteers and it was said to be a task "visual perception"

findings of Asch's study

overall conformity rate was 37% (1/3 of participants). 5% of participants conformed on every critical trial (the most conformist people). 25% remained completely independent

conclusion of Asch's study

the majority of participants conformed to the wrong answer given by the confederates even when they knew it was wrong because they didn't was to stand out. supports the theory of NSI as participants didn't want to be rejected from the group.

variables affecting conformity

1. difficult of the task

2. size of the majority

2. Unanimity

difficulty of the task

by Asch making the comparison between the 2 lines harder to distinguish there was an increase in conformity as the participants struggled to find the difference so they just went along with what everyone else was saying. however, the easier the task, the decrease in conformity as participants can clearly identify the correct answer, making them more confident in their ability to answer.

size of the majority

Asch increased number of confederates from 1-15 to see if it would make a difference to conformity. In very small group, conformity rose to about 32%, whereas in large scale group, it made very little difference to conformity

unanimity

unanimity refers to the agreement of the group. when there was a dissenter, conformity rates dropped significantly compared to when all the confederates gave the same answer; unanimous majority. this shows that the presence of even one dissenter reduces the pressure to conform.

general PEEL for Aschs study

Limitation; low ecological and temporal validity

Strength; high reliability due to standardised procedures

Application; helps us understand real life group dynamics

explanation for conformity

Deutsch and Gerard (1955); Informational Social Influence and Normative Social Influence

informational social influence

based on cognitive factors; the need to know what is right and this leads to internalisation

normative social influence

based on emotional factors; the need to be liked and this leads to compliance

strength for the explanations for conformity

1. strength of ISI is that there is research; Lucas, et al (2006) gave participants math problems to solve, the harder it was, the more participants conformed and vice versa

2. strength is that there is practical application; schultz placed messages in hotel bathrooms asking customers to think if they needed a clean towel every day. Other people conformed and said they didn't need a new towel as other guests were using fewer bath towels and they were more than successful

weakness of the explanations for conformity

1. a lot of the research is artificial and therefore cannot be generalised to real life settings

2. ISI and NSI fail to take into account individual differences

aim of zimbardo prison experiment (1973)

to investigate the extent of which people would conform to the roles of guard and prisoner in a role playing simulation of prison life

procedure of zimbardo prison experiment

24 male college students (out of 75 volunteers), deemed emotionally stable.

Randomly assigned as prisoners (12) or guards (12).

A mock prison at Stanford University basement.

Planned for 2 weeks, stopped after 6 days due to extreme behavior.

Arrested at home, stripped, given a uniform & number.

Given uniforms, sunglasses, batons, and complete control over prisoners.

findings of zimbardo prison experiment

both group settled quickly into their roles. one prisoner had to be withdrawn after 36 hours due to uncontrollable fits of rage and crying and 3 more had similar reactions and were released. only 10% of the time were prisoners conversations about life outside the prison. both roles later expressed surprise at how they acted in the situation

conclusion of zimbardo prison experiment

the group was considered mentally stable beforehand, therefore suggesting that the situation had been the main driver of their behaviour. People readily conform to social roles, regardless of the morality of the situation

strength of zimbardos study

1. high reliability as it involved standardised procedures, but methodology of the study could have altered the findings.

2. practical applications of zimbardos study as it adds to the understanding of behaviour in a prison experiment.

weakness of zimbardos study

1. low generalisability as it lacks temporal validity (in 1973 there were high levels of conformity to social roles). Audrocentric as well as the participants were 24 males

2. low ecological validity as environment was not real

3. breaks ethical guidelines as participants suffered from psychological harm

obedience

this is the following of orders from someone of higher authority. Milgram is the only study for obedience

destructive obedience

when we are ordered to do something immoral, we tend to obey, even if this causes us distress and we regret it later

aim of milgram; obedience to authority (1965)

participants thought that the study was about the effects of punishment on memory. the real aim was to see if people would obey the orders of an authority figure, even when there was fatal consequences

Procedure of Milgram's study

40 American men from the New haven area, between the ages of 20-50, volunteered to take part and were paid $4 (plus 5 cents for travel)

Volunteers were then introduced to another participant (actually a confederate) - Mr. Neil Wallace, man in his 40s, been out of work because he had had a heart attack.

After a fake coin toss, he was the learner and the participant was the teacher and another confederate played the experimentor.

Teacher was in a room with the experimentor but the learner was in an adjoining room, the teacher could not see the learner but they thought they could hear them but it was actually a recording.

Teachers had to give learner electric shock every time they made a mistake on a memory task. The shocks increased by 15V with each mistake, up to 450 V. Shocks were fake but labelled to be incredibly dangerous.

what were the 4 prods

when the teacher expressed concern to the experimentor about the task and the welfare of the learners, the experimentor had 4 responses (prods);

Prod 1: Please continue

Prod 2: The experiment requires you to continue

Prod 3: It is absolutely essential that you continue

Prod 4: You have absolutely no other choice but to continue

findings of milgram study

12.5% of participants gave 300 volts and stopped there. Every participant delivered the shocks up to 300V

65% gave the maximum 450 volts which was said to be fatal

conclusion of milgram study

participants would obey the orders of an authority figure as participants gave electric shocks to an learner when told to do so by an authority figure; germans are not that different and even though it doesnt excuse their behaviour as Nazis, it does offer some explanation

strength for milgram study into obedience

1. high reliability as it involved standardised procedures

2. practical applications of milgram study, for example people tend to obey orders from people if they have higher authority

weakness of milgram study into obedience

1. results cannot be generalised to target population as it was done with men only

2. low ecological validity as this is a lab test

3. breaks ethical guidelines as participants were lied to

situational variables affecting obedience

uniform, location, proximity and remote authority; absent experimenter.

loss of uniform

uniforms encourage obedience as they are largely recognised symbols of authority. obedience went down to 20% when the experimentor dressed in just normal everyday outfit, therefore uniform does play a role in obedience and there is research to support this. Bickman (1974); actor asked people to pick up litter, dressed as either - security guard (76%) or pedestrian (30%)

location

Yale uni was where Milgrams study took place and since it was a prestigious uni, participants saw the research as legitimate, however when the location was a rundown office block, obedience went down to 47.5%

proximity

decreased proximity allows people to psychologically distance themselves form the consequences of their actions. when the learners and teachers were placed in the same room, conformity went down to 40% as the teacher could clearly see the effect of his actions.

remote authority

in this variation instead of the experimentor being in the same room as the teacher, they weren't and instead gave instructions by phone and conformity was seen to drop to 20.5%. this was because, the individual has more flexibility to get out of the agentic state and be in a more autonomous state.

explanation for obedience

agentic state, legitimacy of authority, authoritarian personality

agentic state

individual gives up their free will and no longer sees themselves as acting independently, but merely as an "agent" implementing an authority figure decisions. this is a situational explanation

autonoumous state

an individual decide on, direct and take responsibility for their actions

diffused responsibility

this is when an individual may feel a diminished sense of personal responsibility because they assume others will take action.

moral strain

feeling uncomfortable/distressed as a consequence of going against your own conscience and doing something you know to be wrong.

how does an individual cope with moral strain

1. repression

2. denial

repression

a type of psychological defense mechanism that involves keeping certain thoughts, feelings out of conscious awareness

denial

as seen by many former Nazi soldiers, where they simply denied the holocaust ever happened.

legitimacy of authority

the idea that an authority figure has the right to make decisions and control others, and that people should accept and follow those decisions. situational explanation

socialisation

The way we are raised to behave and the things we are taught to accept as normal; recognising and obeying people with legitimate authority because we trust them, or because they have power to punish us

social hierarchy

the division of society by rank of class

strength for explanations for obedience

1. strength in agentic state is there is research to support it; milgram - many of his participants said they wanted to stop but they felt powerless to do so.

2. strength in legitimacy of authority is that there is research to support it; Bickman found people were more than twice likely to obey someone in uniform - more legitimate, more people obey

3. strength is practical applications; just being aware that we are capable of obeying in his way could help explain and prevent horrific actions like the holocaust.

weakness for explanations for obedience

1. limitation of agentic state and legitimate authority is they do not offer a full explanation as to why people obey authority as it does not account for dispositional factors. for example, in Bickman"s study, 30% of the people obeyed even when the person was dressed as a pedestrian.

2. theoretical problem for both is that, it leans to "obedience alibi"; arguments that by explaining the reasons for Nazi behaviour, we are giving them an excuse for the atrocities they caused.

authoritarian personality

a personality type characterized by a disposition to treat authority figures with unquestioning obedience and respect. it is a dispositional factor

authoritarianism

a personality type that is characterized by a tendency to unquestioningly obey and respect authority figures

what contributes to an authoritarian personality

might is right, upbringing, personality traits, the F scale

might is right

Adorno (1950) saw these individuals as having insecurities that led them to be hostile to non-conventional people and having a belief in a need for power and toughness which leads them to be highly obedient to authority figures.

upbringing

an individual will learn to obey people who have more power and privileges than them if they had this kind of childhood; raised by strict and distant parents who constantly punished them for minor crimes and have rigid and absolute ideologies and values about society

personality traits

people with authoritarian personality have the following characteristics;

1. respect of authority figures and a submissive attitude towards authority figures.

2. Rigid beliefs in conventional values

3. general hostility towards other groups; generally towards minority groups and racial-in group favouritism.

the F scale

Adorno developed that F scale questionnaire that measure fascism.

weakness for authoritarian personality

1. limitation as there are alternative explanations of obedience; for example the agentic state could be considered a better explanation as it takes into account situational variables.

2. theoretical problem is that there may be a problem with establishing cause and effect between authoritarianism and obedience; Middendrop and Meloen found that less-educated people are consistently mote authoritarian and more obedient.

strength for authoritarian personality

1. a strength is that there is research to support it; Elms and Milgram found out that, from a small sample the people who had participated in the original obedience study and had been full obedience scored significantly higher on the overall F scale, compared to disobedient participants