Social Influence

Conformity

A change in behaviour or belief as a result of a real or imagined group pressure

Compliance

Publicly changing behaviour or views of others but privately maintaining one’s own views. Based on a desire to fit in, a weak and temporary change

Internalisation

True conformity - both a public and private agreement; a total change of beliefs after being exposed to the opinion of the group, a strong and long term change

Asch procedure and findings

Asch (1951) -

• Sample: 123 male American undergraduates, one ppt for every group

• Each group was asked which of three lines matched a ‘standard line’

• Confederates were told to give the same incorrect answer on 12 critical trials out of 18, real ppt was always last or penultimate to answer

Findings -

• On the critical trials, 32% conformed to the wrong answer

• 75% of ppts conformed at least once

• 5% conformed to all 12 wrong answers

Asch variations and findings

1. Group size - added up to 15 confederates. With a majority of 3, conformity starts to rise

2. Unanimity - addition of a lone dissenter. Conformity dropped to 5.5% when they gave a correct answer

3. Task difficulty - conformity increases when the task gets harder

Normative social influence

Based on a desire to fit in and not be ridiculed or rejected. Occurs if you believe you are under surveillance from others

Informational social influence

When we are uncertain so we look to others for the correct answer

Obedience

The result of social influence where somebody acts in response to a direct order from an authority figure

Milgram procedure and findings

Milgram (1963) -

• Sample: volunteer - 40 males recruited through an advert told it was a memory experiment

• Experimenter and learner = confederates, ppt was the teacher

• Learner strapped to a chair and shock machine 15-450v, shocks increased by 15v for every incorrect answer

• Experimenter prompted ppt to continue, ppt heard cries from other room

• Results: 65% of ppts went to the maximum 450v

Milgram variations (3) and results

Proximity - orders were given by telephone = 21%

Legitimacy of authority - ordinary person gives instructions = 20%

Agentic state - someone else administers shock = 92.5%

Bickman procedure and findings

• Confederate dresses as either a security guard, a milkman or a civilian and asks the public to do tasks.

• These include: ‘Pick up this bag for me’, ‘this man is overparked at the meter but has no change, give him a dime’, and ‘This sign says no standing, stand on the other side of the pole’

• 76% obeyed the security guard, 47% the milkman and 30% the civilian

3 situational variables for obedience

Proximity, location, uniform

Legitimacy of authority

Someone who is perceived to be in a position of social control

Agentic state

Opposite of autonomous state - an agent carrying out another persons wishes

Authoritarian personality

Belief in absolute obedience or submission to one’s own authority.

How to measure authoritarian personality

The F-scale (Fascist scale) - measures right wing views looking at 9 key dimensions

Where the AP comes from

Adorno believed it came from strict parents in early childhood which created an unconscious resentment. They later projected this onto others who they deemed inferior, and also are obedient to others who they deemed superior.

Minority influence

When a small group changes the attitudes, beliefs and behaviours of a majority

Social change

The ways in which a society develops over time

3 factors that cause minority influence

• Consistency - over time, it increases the amount of interest from others making them rethink their views

• Flexibility - a willingness to compromise makes the minority be viewed in a more positive light

• Commitment - engaging in extreme activities to draw attention and demonstrate dedication

Diachronic/Synchronic consistency

Dia: Saying the same thing over time

Syn: everyone in the group saying the same thing

Augmentation principle

Further increasing attention of others to the cause through risk to highlight importance of the issue

Nemeth procedure and findings

Nemeth (1986) -

• Based on a mock jury - groups of 3 ppts and 1 confederate

• Groups had to decide on the value of compensation to be given to the victim of a ski lift accident

• When the confederate argued for a low amount and refused to change, there was no effect on the majority

• When the confederate was lenient, the majority also compromised

Moscovici procedure and findings

Moscovici (1969) -

• Sample: 172 female ppts - told they were taking part in a colour perception test

• Ppts placed in groups of 6 (2 confederates) and shown 36 slides that were different shades of blue

• Cdtion 1 (consistent) - confederates said all slides were green, cdtion 2 - said that 24 were green and 12 were blue

Findings:

• Cdtion 1 = ppts agreed on 8.2% of trials

• Cdtion 2 = ppts agreed on 1.25% of trials

Social Support

The perception that a person has assistance available from other people, and part of their supportive network

Conformity explanation for resisting influence

It breaks unanimity of the majority - the dissenter allows the participants to follow their own conscience.

Obedience explanation for resisting influence

Disobedient models - the principle of diffusion of responsibility: the more people who disobey the less severe the consequences are likely to be

Conformity supporting evidence

Asch’s line conformity study

Obedience supporting evidence

Milgram’s shock experiment

Internal locus of control

Life events are a consequence of your own behaviour - you can control your life and succeed in stressful situations. These people are more likely to be independant and resist SI

External locus of control

What happens in life is a result of external factors or agents - luck and fate are very important. These people are more likely to obey and conform