social influence

Conformity

A change in a persons behaviour or opinions because of real or imagined pressure from a person or group of people

What did Keenan argue about conformity

• there are 3 ways a person can conform to the opinion of a majority

• Compliance

• Identification

• Internalisation

Compliance

• don’t change internal opinion

• Go along in public

• Superficial change that stops when pressure stops

• External behaviour change

Identification

• something in group we value

• Identify as we want to be a part of it

• Publically change to achieve goal even if we don’t agree with EVERYTHING

Internalisation

• genuinely accept

• Public and private change

• Likely permanent and persists when group is gone

Who developed the two process theory as an explanation for conformity

Deutsch and Gerard

Informed social influence

• uncertain of answer so accept answer most shown

• Conform as want to be right- cognitive

When is ISI most likely to happen

• new or ambiguous situation

• Crisis situation

• Where you have to think quickly

• One person in group is regarded at expert

Strength of ISI

• people are more likely to conform when they are unsure of their knowledge

What support study did Lucas et al conduct for ISI

• asked students to give answer to maths question

• Ranged from easy to difficult

• Greater conformity to incorrect answers when questions were more difficult

What supporting study did Schultz et al conduct for ISI

• clearly explained printed messages about energy saving change behaviour of hotel guests

• Less towels used by the most energy sufficient

Weakness of ISI

• does not effect everyone’s behaviour in the same way

What study did Asch conduct that showed a limitation for ISI

• different types of people have different conformity levels

• Students conformed average of 28%

• Non students conformed average of 37%

How did Spencer’s condoning limit ISI

• science and engineering students are unlikely to conform

Normative social influence

• breaking social norm can result in social disproval

• Conform to gain acceptance- emotional practice

When is normative social influence most likely to happen

• strangers or new group

• Seeking approval from friends

• Stressful situations when you have a greater need for support

What supporting study did Asch conduct for NSI

• participants went along with clearly wrong answer 37%

• Said they felt self conscious about giving the correct answer

• Asked to write down answer

• Conformity dropped to 12.5%

NSI weaknesses

• does not affect everyone in the same way

• Less likely to conform if not bothered about being accepted

what study did Asch conduct for conformity

Standard line experiment

Who took part in Asch study

Under graduate students

Standard line experiment method

• held up two cards, one with standard line, one with three lines to choose from. Only one was the same length

• 1 naive patient in each group of 6-8

• Confederates gave right answer but then started to make intentional errors

How often did the naive patient give the wrong answer in Asch study

37%

How many participants conformed at least once in Asch study

75%

Asch: in a past interview why did the participants say they conformed

To avoid rejection

Asch effect

The extent to which people conform even when the situation is clear

What were Asch variables

• group size

• Unamity

• Task difficulty

Asch variable: group size effect

• 2 confederates: 13.6% conformity

• 3 confederates: 31.8%

• Anymore than four made little difference

Asch variables: unnamity results

• dissenting confederates reduced conformity

• Average of 25% wrong answers

Asch variables: task difficulty effect

Conformity increased when task was more difficult

Asch strengths

• controlled lab- eliminates extraneous variables

• Procedure was standardised- can be repeated

• Results showed each time that conformity exists

Asch weaknesses

• 1950’s US very conformed due to social norms- 1980 UK tested engineering students and only one conformed

• Artificial situation- demand characteristics

• Only American men- low external validity

• USA: individualist culture- higher conformity in collectivist culture

• Conformity is situational- may confirm more with a group of friends

What counter study did Fishe conduct against Asch

• study did not resemble groups often formed in everyday life

• Study could not be generalised

What study did Zimbado carry out

Stanford Prison experiment

What was Zimbados method

• 24 students randomly allocated roles of prisoner and guard

• Social roles were reinforced through uniforms and instructions such as applying for parole to leave the study

What was the role of the prisoner in zimbados study

• blindfolded, strip searched, deposed and issued a uniform and number

• Daily routines heavily regulated by guards

• Only used numbers

What was the role of the guards in zimbados study

• had own uniform with mirror shades to hide their eyes

• Told they had COMPLETE power

Findings of Zimbados study

• prisoners rebelled by two days but failed and became more depressed

• Study stopped after 6 days rather than 14

• Guards treated prisoners harshly. The more they identified the more brutal they became

Conclusions from Zimbados study

Social roles can be easily adapt and have strong influence on behaviour

Limitations to Zimbados study

• low population validity- only male American students 1971 so no generalisation

• Low ecological validity due to artificial setting

• Zimbado highly biased

How was Zimbado biased

• said power of situation influenced behaviour, minimising individual personality

• HOWEVER only 1/3 behaved brutally

What counter study of Zimbado did Reicher and Haslam conduct

• replicated

• Guards failed to develope shared social identity as a group but prisoners did and took control

What evidence did Zimbado use to combat Reicher and Haslam study

• evidence from events at Abu Grahib prison

• Situational factors are important

What did Banaazizi and Monomed argue in relation to Zimbados study

• participants were play acting

• Guard said he based his role off a character from Cold Hand Luke

What evidence did Zimbado provide to combat Banaazizi and Monomed argument

• 90% of the prisoners conversation were about prison life

• Therefore situation seemed real

Zimbado strengths

• Zimbado had some control over the study- emotionally stable recruited

• Random allocation- shows behaviour due to pressure of situation not personalities

• Real life application

Obedience

• form of social influence where you follow a direct order usually from somebody of authority who has ability to punish

What did Milgram study

Obedience

How were participants recruited for Milgrams study

• 40 recruited by newspaper and flyers for ‘memory study’

• Drew fake tickets for role

• Confederate as learner and participant as teacher

What was the method for Milgrams study

• learner is separate room and giver shock if made a mistake in work memory task without knowing they were fake

• 15-450 volts

• Experimenter gave 4 standard prods

What happened at 300V in Milgrams study

• learner pounded on wall or gave no response

What were the sequence of four standard prods in Milgrams study

• please continue

• The experiment requires you to continue

• It is absolutely essential that you continue

• You have no other choice; you must go on

How many participants stopper at 300V in Milgrams study

• 12.5%

How many participants continued to 450V in Milgrams study

65%

What’s were the findings to Milgrams study

• qualitative data

• Show signs of extreme tension

What happened after Milrgams study

Participants were debriefed and assured behaviour was normal

What did Milgrams follow up questionnaires reveal

• 84% glad they had participated

• 74% felt they had learnt something important

What is a strength of milgrams study

• lab study- good external valididty

• Relationship between experimenter and participant reflected real life authority relationships

What is one replication of Milgrams study

• participants thought they were contestants in pilot episode

• 80% gave maximum shock to unconscious victim

What replication of Milgrams study did Sheridan and Kings conduct

• shocks to puppy

• 54% males and 100% of females delivered “fatal” shock

What study did Hofling et al conduct to show a real life application of Milrgams study

• unknown drug labelled with maximum dosage of 10mg

• Doctor told nurse over phone to administer 20mg

• 21/22 obeyed showing the Milgrams study can be generalised

What study did Rank and Jacobson conduct to counter Hofling et al

• repeated with Valium so nurses were familiar with drug

• 2/18 obeyed

What limitation did Orne and Holland argue for for Milgrams study

• participants guessed shocks were fake

• Some expressed during recordings

• Experiment lacked validity

What limitation of Milrgams study dud Baumrind argue for

• ethics

• Deception- random allocation and real shocks

• Can cause psychological harm and damage reputations

What alternative explanation did Haslam and Reicher give for Milgrams study

• first three prods were appeals for help with science

• Fourth prod was the only one requiring obedience

• Shocks not given out of obedience but due to identification with the experiment as a scientist

How many obeyed when Milgrams experiment transferred to a run down office

• 47.5%

• Indicated that experimenter had less authority in this area

What was Milgrams proximity variation

• teacher and learner in same room

• 40% obeyed

What was Milgrams touch proximity Variation

• teacher holds learners hand onto shock plate

• 30% obeyed

What was Milgrams remote instruction proximity variation

• experimenter over phone

• Some pretended to give shocks or gave weaker shocks

• 20.5% obeyed

How many obeyed in Milgrams study when the experimenter dressed as an ordinary member of the public

• 20%

• Lab coat gave visual representation of authority and cue to behave in an obedient manner

What was the obedience rate in Milgrams original study

• 65%

Agentic state

• mental state

• Feel lack of responsibility for behaviour as beleive they are acting for authority figure

• Feel moral strain when they realise what they are doing is wrong but feel powerless to disobey

Autonomous

• feel independent and free

• Behaves according to own principles

Agentic shift according to Milgram

• autonomous to Agentic

• Occurs when someone perceives an individual as a figure of authority

• Assumes greater power due to position on social hierarchy

Binding factors

• aspects of situation that allows the person to ignore or minimise damaging behaviour

• Reduce moral strain

What are 3 binding factors

• shifting blame to victim (he volunteered)

• Denying damage (I thought it was fake)

• Placing responsibility on others (I was told to do it)

Legitimacy of authority

• authority agreed by society and most accept that they should be allowed to exercise social power

• Allows society to function normally

• Learn acceptance from childhood

Consequence of legitimacy of authority

• some people granted power to punish others

• Problems arrive when this become destructive e.g WW2

How is destructive authority shown in Milgrams study

• When experimenter uses prods to order participants to behave in ways that went against their consciences

What is a case study of destructive authority

• Mailai massacre

• 1968

• 504 unarmed civil killed by American soldiers

• Women raped, children bested to death, houses burnt with people still inside

• Only in soldier arrested: “I was following orders”

Research support for the Agentic state

• Blass and Schmidt

• Showed students film or Milgrams study

• Asked who was responsible for harm

• Said it was experimenter

• Shows recognition of legitimacy of authority

What were the results of a repeat of Milgrams study in Australia and Germany

• Kilman and Mann: 16% of Australian went to top of voltage scale

• Mantel: 85% of Germans

• Reflects how society is structured and children raised which increases validity as findings found from cross culture research

Agentic shift weakness

• doesn’t explain all research findings

• Some did not obey

• Humans are social animals in social hierarchy so they should obey

How does Rank and Jacobsons study consolidate a weakness for the agentic state

• nurses should have known the descision was the responsibility of the doctor

• Therefore agentic shift can only account for some situations of obedience

Dispositional explanations of obedience

Any explanation of behaviour that highlights importance of the individuals personality in contrast to situational explanations

What did Adorno identify

Authoritarian personality

Authoritarian personality

• especially susceptible to obeying people in authority

• Submissive or those of higher status

• Dismissive or inferiors

• Cognitive style

• Respect for fixed procedures

F-scale

• questionnaire developed by Adorno

• Measures authoritarian personality

What was Adornos procedure

• gave over 2000 white middle-classed male Americans questionnaire

• Measure if they had authoritarian personality

Findings of Adorno

• high scores on the F-scale: identify with strong people and think low of the weak

• Strict stereotypes

• Strong positive correlation between prejudice and authoritarianism

What did Adorno say was the origin of the authoritarian personality

• formed in childhood from harsh parenting and conditional love

• As they cannot express resentment they displace it onto others

Characteristics of authoritarian personality

• especially obedient to authority

• Show discrimination towards lower social economic status

• Conventional attitudes towards sex, gender and race

• BELEIVE country is under threat and their religion and love of their country is needed to be reinforced

How did Milgram and Elms support authoritarian personality

• interviewed sample of participants who were fully obedient in previous studies

• Score high on F-scale

• Group of less obedient score low

• Shows correlation

What is a limitation to Milgram and Elms study

• analysed individual subscales that found unusual characteristics for authoritarian

• Did not glorify father, did not receive unusual levels of punishment

• Shows link between authoritarian personality and obedience is complex

Authoritarianism weakness

• cannot explain obedience in a majority of a countries population

• Pre-war Germany didn’t express this personality

• Social identity theory for antisemitism is more realistic

F-scale limitations

• Christie and Jahoda

• Politically biased so Adornos theory is not a comprehensive dispositional explanation

• Only measure tendency towards extreme right measures

Weaknesses for Adornos study

• acquiescence bias in questionnaires

• Cannot be generalised due to low population validity

How did Asch show resistance to Social Influence

• if one confederate refused to conform it increased likelyhood of real participant not conforming

• If they began to conform so would the patient

How did Milgram show resistance to social influence through social support

• Obedience levels dropped from 65-10% when confederate in experiment disobeyed

• Act as role model

• Encourages to act from own conscience

What did Rotter produce

The idea of the Locus of control which is the sense we each have about what directs events in our life

What questionnaire did Rotter produce

• 29 item Locus of control questionnaire

• Low score- internal

• High score- external