Social Influence-Psychology AQA A-Level

Conformity

Yielding to group pressures: (for example bullying, persuasion, teasing, criticism)

Conformity is also known as...

Majority Influence

When does Conformity occur?

When an individuals behaviour/beliefs are influenced by a larger group of people.

Types of Conformity-Kelman (1958)

(In order of strength of the belief)

1) Compliance

2) Identification

3) Internalisation

• The weakest form of Conformity.

• .Conforming to the majority (publicly), in spite of not really agreeing with them (privately).(e.g. saying you like a genre of music in public)

• Stops when there are no group pressures to conform - a temporary behavior change.

• Usually a form of NSI

Compliance

Identification

• The middle level of Conformity.

• Changes their public behaviour and their private beliefs, but only while they are in the presence of the group. (e.g. being vegetarian when surrounded by vegetarians.)

• Not a permanent change in belief.

• Short term and usually a form of NSI.

Internalisation

• The deepest level of Conformity-known as true conformity.

• Changes their public behaviour and their private beliefs. (e.g. joining a religion.)

• Long-term change and often the result of ISI

Explanations of Conformity

• Normative Social Influence

• Informational Social Influence

Normative Social Influence

• Yielding to group pressure because they want to fit in with the group (Asch Line Study)

• Scared of rejection from group.

Informational Social Influence

• A person lacks knowledge and subsequently looks to the group for answers.

• Also when in an ambiguous/unfamiliar situation.

Normative Social Influence - Line Study - Asch 1951:

• Procedure

• 50 Male US Students; Lab Experiment

• Believed they were taking place in vision test - Line Judgement - with a clear answer

• Real naïve pts in a room w/ 7 confederates, who agreed their answers prior.

• Pt was deceived - believed that the confederates were also real participants.

• each person had to say out loud which line (1, 2, 3) was most like the target line in length-this occurred 18 times.

• Confederates gave incorrect answers on 12 trials (critical trials).

Normative Social Influence - Line Study - Asch 1951:

• Findings and Conclusion of Original Study

Findings:

• Participants conformed to incorrect answers 32% of the time during the critical trials.

• 74% of Participants conformed on at least 1 critical trial.

Conclusion:

• Participants knew their answers were wrong when asked but wanted to fit in with the group (NORMATIVE).

Normative Social Influence - Line Study - Asch 1951:

• Findings of Group Size

Asch found that as he increased the size of the majority, conformity levels increased.

• 1 Confederate answering incorrectly on a question has a 3% conformity.

• 2 Confederates answering incorrectly increased to 12.8% conformity.

• 3 Confederates answering incorrectly increased to 32% conformity.

• However, increasing the group size even further made no significant increases to to the rate of conformity.

Normative Social Influence - Line Study - Asch 1951:

• Findings of Unanimity

This is the extent that members of a majority agree with one another.

• When one of the confederates would go against the incorrect answer and agree with the participant conformity levels dropped from 32% to 5%.

In another variation, one of the confederates gave a different incorrect answer to the majority.

• In this variation conformity dropped from 32% to 9%

Normative Social Influence - Line Study - Asch 1951:

• Findings of Task Difficulty

In Asch's original experiment, the correct answer was always obvious. In one of his variations he made the task more difficult, by making the answer far more ambiguous.

• Conformity levels increased as they wanted to be right instead of fitting in.

• This was a shift from NSI to ISI.

Normative Social Influence - Line Study - Asch 1951:

• Strengths

+ Lab experiment so the variables were controlled very well; no extraneous variables to interfere with the study.

+ The results were greater than he expected showing how much these factors can change the rate of conformity.

+ There was an objectively true answer to the questions which were also easy to find, with only 0.7% errors being made in the control case. That means that any mistakes in the group setting will be a measure of raw conformity; the results won't be affected by intelligence etc.

Normative Social Influence - Line Study - Asch 1951:

• Weaknesses

- Age and Ethnocentric; 50/M/USA - lacks population validity/has a gender bias/can't be generalised to older generations.

- The experiment used an artificial task to measure conformity; as a result the study has low ecological validity and cannot be generalised to real world conformity - not the same situation as something like Politics/Religion.

- Some critics thought the high levels of conformity found by Asch were a reflection of American, 1950's culture and told us more about the historical and cultural climate of the USA in the 1950's than then they do about the phenomena of conformity.

Informative Social Influence - Autokinetic Effect - Sherif 1935:

• Procedure

• The autokinetic effect - this is where a small spot of light (projected onto a screen) in a dark room will appear to move, even though it is still.

• When participants were individually tested their estimates on how far the light moved varied considerably (20-80cm).

• The participants were then tested in groups of three. Sherif manipulated the group so 2 members would estimate a similar distance and one that is greatly different.

• Each member in the group had to state out loud the distance they believed that the spot moved.

Informative Social Influence - Autokinetic Effect - Sherif 1935:

• Findings and Conclusion

Findings:

•Sherif found that over numerous estimates (trials) of the movement of light, the group converged to a common estimate.

• The person whose estimate of movement was greatly different to the other two in the group conformed to the view of the other two.

• This shows both NSI and ISI.

•Rather than make individual judgments they tend to come to a group agreement.

Conclusion:

• The results show that when in an ambiguous situation (e.g. autokinetic effect), a person will look to others (who know more / better) for guidance.

• They want to do the right thing, but may lack the appropriate information and as a result observe others for info.

Informative Social Influence - Autokinetic Effect - Sherif 1935:

• Strengths

+ Lab experiment; all external varibales are controlled; high internal validity

+ Use of ambiguous topic replicates other topics that would be confusing.

Informative Social Influence - Autokinetic Effect - Sherif 1935:

• Weaknesses

- May lack cultural validity as it took place in the USA, an individualistic culture, therefore the data cannot be generalised to all other cultures such as collectivist cultures (China/Japan/Korea). This results in less external validity.

- How the light "moved" when tested independently may have actually looked different in the group study. Due to it being an illusion it depends on the participants perception of the event.

Social Roles

• The part people play as members of a social group.

• With each social role you adopt, your behaviour changes to fit the expectations both you and others have of that role.

The Stanford Prison Experiment - Zimbardo (1973):

• Aim

• Zimbardo investigated how readily people would conform to social roles of guard/prisoner in a study simulating prison life by turning the basement into a mock prison.

• He also investigated whether the brutality reported among guards in American prisons was due to the sadistic personalities of the guards (dispositional) or was due to the prison environment (situational).

The Stanford Prison Experiment - Zimbardo (1973):

• Procedure

• Volunteer Sampling/21 Males/US/Random Assignment/Paid$15 a day to work

• "Prisoners" were arrested by local PD, stripped and thrown in prison.

• "Guards" were given uniform, reflective shades, truncheons and handcuffs.

• "Guards" were instructed to run the prison without physical violence.

• The experiment was set to run for two weeks.

The Stanford Prison Experiment - Zimbardo (1973):

• Findings and Conclusion

Findings:

• Both Ps and Gs quickly identified with their social roles.

• Ps rebelled within days; Gs quickly crushed this by becoming abusive towards the Ps - Gs dehumanised them (woken @ night; scrubbing toilets via hands)

• Prisoners became submissive, identifying to their inferior role.

• 5 Ps were released early due to severe reactions to the toment (crying, anxiety attacks)

• Study only lasted 6 days and was cancelled due to the inhumane conditions.

Conclusion:

• Zimbardo found that ppl quickly conformed to social roles even when they go against their moral principles.

• Situational factors were largely responsible for behaviours as none of the Pts had ever displayed any of these personalities prior (incl. Zimbardo as prison manager).

The Stanford Prison Experiment - Zimbardo (1973):

• Strengths

+ Realistic experience for Gs and Ps; 90% of Ps converstaions were regarding prison life. Ps referred to themselves by prison number.

+ Due to the inhumane conditions and treatment of Ps ethical guidelines were put in place to stop further atrocities in Psychology.

+ Controlled prison environment (High Internal Validity)

The Stanford Prison Experiment - Zimbardo (1973):

• Weaknesses

- Volunteer sampling; applied bc they may have wanted the chance to be sadistic

- Demand characteristics may have occurred due to being paid-need to please the experimenter.

- Ethnocentric/Androcentric; can only be generalised to US prisons; no female participants so shouldn't be generalised

- Various ethical issues:

• No protection from harm

• When withdrawal was asked for Zimbardo tried to change their mind

• No consent to being arrested - Deception

Obedience

Complying with the demands of an authority figure (Teacher, Parent, Law etc.)

Obedience - Milgram's Shock Experiment (1963):

• Aim

• Investigating the extent to which individual will obey, even if it goes against their morals.

• Inspired by WWII criminals who justified their actions as "following orders" - Nazi Officials at the Nuremberg Trials

• Milgram devised the experiment to answer the question:

"Could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders? Could we call them all accomplices?"

Obedience - Milgram's Shock Experiment (1963):

• Procedure

• Volunteer Sampling/40M/20-40yo/unskilled to professional

• Learner(Confed) was questioned, if incorrect answer Teacher (real Pt) would have to shock.

• Each shock would increase in voltage. Goes up by 15v each shock, varied from 15 all the way up to 450 (fatal).

• When the Pt refused to shock the student the researcher would say a prompt to try & persuade them to shock; prompts increased in intensity over time - "Please continue > It is absolutely essential you must continue."

Obedience - Milgram's Shock Experiment (1963):

• Findings and Conclusion of Baseline Study

Findings:

• All of the participants went to at least 300 volts.

• 65% continued until 450 volts.

Conclusion:

• Milgram shows that inhumane, immoral acts can be committed by ordinary moral people. It is the situational factors

Obedience - Milgram's Shock Experiment (1963):

• Findings of Proximity

Findings:

• A variation where the teacher and learner were seated in the same room.

• % of Pts who administered the full 450 volts dropped from 65% to 40%.

• Milgram believed that obedience levels dropped as they were able to experience the "Learner's" pain more directly

• Proximity of the Authority Figure also affected levels of obedience as well.

• The experimenter left the room and gave all instructions over the phone - this resulted in the Pts more likely to defy experimenter with only 21% of Pts going to 450V.

Obedience - Milgram's Shock Experiment (1963):

• Findings of Location

Findings:

• Baseline study took place in Yale University (Critically Acclaimed) so Milgram changed the location to a derelict building in Conneticut and was disassociated from Yale.

• % of Pts who administered the full 450 volts dropped from 65% to 47.5%.

• highlights the impact of location on obedience (less credible location = reduced level of obedience).

Obedience - Milgram's Shock Experiment (1963):

• Findings of Uniform

Findings:

• Milgram examined the power of uniform in a variation where the experimenter was called away and replaced by a Confederate.

• The "ordinary man" came up with the idea of upping the volts each time the learner made a mistake.

• % of participants who administered the full 450V w/ the ordinary man, dropped from 65% to 20%.

• Exemplifies the dramatic power of Uniform (and what it represents about Legitimate Authority).

Obedience - Milgram's Shock Experiment (1963):

• Findings of Agentic State and Shift

Findings:

• Milgram looked at the experiment as if the Pt were the experimenter with someone else shocking the Learner.

• % of shocking rose drastically from 65% to 92.5% for the 450V.

• Demonstrates the power of shifting responsibility, and they were able to shock more due to feeling even less responsible for their actions. Therefore, their ability enter the agentic state increased their levels of obedience of shocking.

Obedience - Milgram's Shock Experiment (1963):

• Strengths

+ Participants were from a range of social backgrounds showing that class was not an issue.

+ He carried out 18 variations observing how different variables affected the data each time-increases the validity of the study as each study was v controlled and in a lab.

+ Similar study had been replicated in multiple cultures w/ the same conclusions and sometimes greater obedience rates.

Obedience - Milgram's Shock Experiment (1963):

• Weaknesses

- Deception took place (they thought it was a study in learning).

- Androcentric study-data cannot be generalised to females.

- Sampling was only from the New Haven area-may be a cultural bias to only that area and the US

- Orne & Holland stated it lacked "experimental realism" and knew that the receiver wasn't being shocked (therefore weren't worried about the consequences of their actions)

- Replications have only been taken in Western cultures so can't conclude that obedience will always occur.

Agentic State

A mental state where we feel no perosnal responsibility for our behaviour because we believe acting for an authority figure (e.g. Nazis under the rule of Hitler/Officials)

Autonomous State

• Opposite of agentic state.

• People in this state are free to behave according to their own principles and subsequently feels responsible for their actions.

Agentic Shift

• The shift from autonomy to agentic.

• This occurs when people perceive someone else as a figure of authority.

Legitimacy of Authority and Destructive Authority

Legitimacy of Authority:

• Suggests we are more likely to obey people who we perceive to have authority over us.

• This authority is justified by the individual's position of power within a social hierarchy.

Destructive Authority:

• When people in positions of power manipulate their authority for dangerous, destructive and sometimes devastating purposes (Hitler, Stalin, Kim Jong-Un etc.)

Authoritarian Personality

• A type of personality that was v susceptible to obeying people in authority.

• Thought to be submissive to those of higher status and dismissive of inferiors.

Authoritarian Personality - Adorno et al. (1950):

• Aim

• Trying to understand the Anti-Semitism of the Holocaust.

• Looking at the causes of the obedient personality in everyday Americans.

Authoritarian Personality - Adorno et al. (1950):

• Procedure

• 2000 Middle Class White Americans

• Tested peoples unconscious attitudes towards other racial groups.

• Developed the F-Scale to test those with Authoritarian Personalities.

Authoritarian Personality - Adorno et al. (1950):

• Findings and Conclusion

Findings

• Found that those who scored high on the F-Scale (authoritarian attitudes) identified more with "strong" people and were contemptuous of the "weak".

• They were very conscious of status showing excessive respect and servility to those of a higher status.

• Very strong positive correlation between authoritarian personality and prejudice.

Authoritarian Personality - Adorno et al. (1950):

• Strengths

+ Milgram used the F-scale on small group of v obedient Pts and found just like the Adorno test they scored very highly on the scale.

Authoritarian Personality - Adorno et al. (1950):

• Weaknesses

- Correlational between obedience and authoritarian personality so cannot be certain that there aren't other factors affecting the AP.

- Can't explain the majority of of a country's population such as that seen in pre-war Germany.

- Political bias - F-Scale measures the tendency of extreme right wing ideologies, despite there being similarities regarding obedience in both extreme right and left wing ideologies.

Social Support: Resistance to Social Influence

• Support from an ally can help someone build their confidence and resist conformity in a peer pressure situation.

• When there is support there is no longer fear of ridicule and are more likely to disobey orders as they don't feel independent in their actions.

• Helps challenge the Normative Social Influence.

Locus of Control: Resistance to Social Influence

• Internal Locus of Control: belief that what happens in their life is largely due to their own behaviour (they have control over their life).

• External Locus of Control:belief that what happens to them is due to external factors (fate, luck, religion). They do not have complete control over their life.

• Individuals with a high ILoC are more likely to resist pressures to conform and obey.

• Individuals with a high ELoC are more likely to succumb to pressure of conforming and being obedient.

Factors Affecting Resistance to Social Influence

• Systematic Processing: Analysis based on critical thinking. Given time to consider the consequences.

• Morality: Internal belief of what is right and wrong may overpower the idea of an authority

• Personality: Combination of past experiences and characteristics forming the individuals nature.

Minority Influence

When a small group changes the attitudes, beliefs or the behaviours of a majority group. This often leads to internalisation.

Examples of Minority Influence

• Suffragette Movement

• Mandela and Resistance to Apartheid in RSA

• MLK jr. and the Civil Rights Movement in the US

Factors Affecting the Success of Minority Influence

• Consistency

• Commitment

• Flexibility

• Style of Thinking

Consistency: Diachronic and Synchronic

• The Minority being constant in their beliefs.

• Diachronic Consistency: Maintaining the same beliefs over a long period of time.

• Synchronic Consistency: When all members of the same Minority are sharing the same belief.

Consistency: Effect on Minority Influence

• Forces the opposition to sit up and take notice of the Minority.

• May force the opposition to rethink their position.

• Consistency implies that they are certain they are correct and unwavering in their opinion.

• Disrupts established norms and creates conflict and doubt within the Majority. Can lead to questioning whether the Majority is correct.

Consistency on Minority - Moscovici's Colour Perception (1969):

• Procedure

• 172 Females/USA

• Pts were placed in sixes.

• Shown 36 slides (all varying shades of blue).

• Pts had to state out loud the colour of each slide.

• 2/6 Pts were Confed.

• Consistent Condition: Confeds stated that all 36 slides were green.

• Inconsistent Condition: Confeds stated that 24 slides were green and 12 slides were blue.

Consistency on Minority - Moscovici's Colour Perception (1969):

• Findings and Conclusion

Findings:

• Consistent Group: Pts agreed with Confeds on 8.2% of trials

• Inconsistent Group: Pts agreed with Confeds on 1.25% of trials

• The Consistent group was 6.95% more influential than the Inconsistent group.

Conclusion:

• Minorities are more likely to influence a majority when they are consistent in their actions.

Consistency on Minority - Moscovici's Colour Perception (1969):

• Strengths

+ Lab Experiment - reduced the effect of extraneous variables; greater internal validity

+ Due to controlled conditions the data is repeatable and similar testing would result in similar figures.

+ Explicitly states a cause (Consistency) and effect (Influence) relationship

+ Although Moscovici did deceive his Pts about the "Colour Perception" it nullified any demand characteristics that may have occurred

Consistency on Minority - Moscovici's Colour Perception (1969):

• Weaknesses

- Gynocentric study; data can't be generalised to Males; other research states that women are more likely to conform so men may be completely different

- Not ecologically valid as it was an Articficial Task, with "false minorities"; doesn't replicate the passion and commitment from Minorities such as advocates of Civil Rights and Gay Rights movements

- Ethnocentric within the US

Commitment

• When a minority influence is willing to demonstrate their dedication to their belief.

• This is often shown by making personal sacrifices and it is effective as it shows that the minority aren't acting out of self-interest and are instead risking lots.

• This forces people to pay attention as they think that the minority must really believe in what they are fighting for.

Flexibility

• If the minority are not flexible they can often be seen as very unreasonable and as a result the majority won't take their beliefs into consideration as dogmatic approaches from minorities are extremely ineffective.

• Therefore, the idea of accepting compromise to the majority is more effective at persuading the majority.

Flexibility on Minority - Nemeth Ski Lift (1986):

• Procedure

• Participants, in groups of four, had to agree on the amount of compensation they would give to a victim of a ski-lift accident.

• One of the participants in each group was a confederate.

• Two conditions: 1) Minority argued for a low rate of compensation and refused to compromise (inflexible); 2) Minority argued for a low rate of compensation but compromised by offering a slightly higher rate of compensation (flexible)

Flexibility on Minority - Nemeth Ski Lift (1986):

• Findings

• Nemeth found that in the inflexible condition, the minority had little or no effect on the majority, however in the flexible condition, the majority was much more likely to compromise and change their view.

Social Cryptoamnesia (Snowball Effect)

• When gradually more and more people change views on a social topic until the minority becomes majority.

• People also forget the origin on how the social change has come about.

• This is seen with LGBT+ rights and Women's right to vote.

Social Change

• This occurs when entire societies (as opposed to just individuals) adopt new attitudes and beliefs.

• This includes how people believe that the Earth revolves around the sun and on global warming.

Stages of Minority Influence in Social Change

1) Drawing attention to an issue through social proof.

2) Consistency by those trying to force social change.

3) Deeper processing of the issue by the majority.

4) The augmentation principle - when people take risks and make sacrifices for their cause.

5) The Snowball Effect

6) Cryptoamnesia