Social Influence

conformity

someone changes behaviour as a result of real or imagiined pressures

Kelman (1958) types of conformity

→ compliance - superficial to avoid social pressures

→ internalisation - permanent acception of ideas or perspectives

informational social influence

change behavior to fit in as we dont know whats right

normative social influence

change behaviour to fit in for social approval

Goldstein (2008)

shows that NSI can change behaviour - hotel puts sign up in bathroom saying most guests reuse towels to save environment whhich others follow as they assume its right

Jennes (1932)

shows that ISI changes behaviour - ambiguous situation of a glass jar with 811 jellybeans unknown to participants (N=101 psych students) - after discussion females changed original answer more than men

Asch (1950s) study procedure

→ N=123 american male undergraduates

→ 6-8 confederates w a participant

→ visual task: three lines of different lengths, took turns to call out which line they thought was the same as the original

Asch (1950s) study results

→ 37% gave wrong answer at least once

→ 25% didnt conform

→ 75% conform at least once

Asch effect

the extent to which parrticipants conform even when the situation is ambiguous

Asch varations: group size

the more confederates the more likely the participant is to conform due to higher social pressures

Asch variations: group unannimity

→ unanimity - the extent to which all members of a group agree

→ disrupting unanimous position reduces conformity, even if they were wrong

Asch variation: task diifficulty

→ increasing the difficulty increases conformity

→ ISI common when difficulty increases - task more ambiguous so look to otherrs forr guidance

evaluation of Asch: strengths

→ standardised procedure can be replicated

→ results support NSI and ISI theories

→ high internal validity (controlled lab exp)

evaluation of Asch: weaknesses

→ low ecological validity

→ low population validity - gender and culture bias

→ low temporal validity - conformist era 1950s America

→ opposing research - Perrin and Spencer (1980) repeated study in UK with lower conformity results

evaluation of Asch: low population validity

P: Asch research is considered gender and culture biased so has low pop validity

E: his sample only included American males

E: this raises an issue of generalisability as the results do not apply to our understanding of conformity in females

L: biased research lowers credibility of data produced, compromised results from biased sample

C: further research with females has been conducted - white malles usued to only be used for research whereas moodern reseach is more inclusive

obedience

acts in response to a direct order from an authority figure

Milgram (1963) cause

concern over Eichmann's statement that he felt ‘absolute of any guilt' as he followed orders from authority (Nazis)

Milgram (1963) aim

to test the hypothesis that Germans ar edifferent by researching if ordinary American men obey to administer (fake) electric shocks

→ predicted less than 1%

Milgram (1963) procedure

• 40 male participants aged 20-50 years (yale uni)

• recruited via newspaper advert

• decieved exp on ‘human learning'

• randomly assigned to teacher or learner (decieved - real ppt was always teacher + confed always learner)

• learner placed in seperate room

• teacher given test shock of 45V to convince its real

• teacher gives learner increasingly severe shocks at every mistake (15-450V)

• 300V = pound on wall

• 315V = no response

Milgram (1963) results

100% to 300V

65% to 450V (max)

35% stopped 300V-450V

Milgram (1963) situational variables: location

• change location from prestigious yale uni to run down building in bridgeport

• obedience drops to 48% of those going to 450V

• location with less status reduces obedience

Milgram (1963) situational variables: proximity

• CLOSE → teacher and learner in same room (obedience fell to 40%)

• TOUCH → teacher place hand on learner hand (obedience fell to 30%)

• REMOTE → experimenter left room and instructed teacher by telephone (obbedience fell to 21%)

• reducing distance between teacher and learner reduced obedience

Milgram (1963) situational variables: uniform

• ordinary man gave instructions rather than man in lab coat (obedience fell to 20%)

• uniform symbol of authority and produces HIGHEST levels of obedience

Milgram (1963) post experiment

• debrief so ppts aware of true aim (most happy took part)

• qualitative data analysed (ie biting nails, trembling, laughing nervously → one person had a seizure but still continued)

Milgram (1963) conclusions

• situational factors cause obedience (rather than culture or race)

• SI powerful from authority

Milgram (1963) evaluation

+ high internal validity → controlled

+ real liife applications/understanding

- low ecological validity

- ethical issues → deception

agency theory

when we act as agent of authority, easy to deny personal responsibility for our actions and instead pass responsibility

autonomous state

act under own control and decisions → responsibility for the consequences

agentic state

act as agents to others commands → pass responsibility (more likely to obey)

binding factors

aspects of situation that reduce moral strain, minimise damaging effects of beh and keep someone obedient

explanations of obedience: dispositional

human beh caused by internaal characteristics within personality of individual

explanations of obedience: situational

anything in situation that enhances obedience (ie uniform, proximity, location)

explanations of obedience: authoritarian personality

type of personality that is susceptible to obeying people in authority

why and how does an authoritarian personality develop?

harsh parenting

• strict discipline, expectations to be loyal, high standards, severe criticism etc

• characterised by conditional love

• psychodynamic explanation

Adorno (1950) procedure

• >2000 middle class white americans

• investigate cause of obediant personality and unconcious attitudes to other racial groups

• measured using fascism scale (f-scale)

• 30qs assess 9 personality dimennsions

Adorno (1950) findings

• ppl with authoritarian leanings (scored higher) identify with strong ppl and disapprove weak

• concious of their own and othhers status, show excessive respect to those of higher status

• strong positive correlation between authoritarianism and prejudice

Bickman (1974)

a field experiment that tested the effect of uniform on obedience in New York → results demonstrate social power of uniform