Social Influence - Paper 1

Types of conformity

Conformity = tendency to change one’s beliefs or behaviour in response to assumed pressure from others.

Types = compliance, identification and internalisation. 

Compliance = publicly agree but privately disagree, temporary, need to feel accepted, leads to normative social influence.

Identification = changes public and private beliefs but only temporarily, in contact with a group, moderate - lasts as long as the group.

Internalisation = changes public and private beliefs permanently, genuine difference in belief, leads to informational social influence, need to be right.

Research into conformity - Asch’s line study

1951 to 1956.

Aim = investigate how social pressure from the majority can cause a person to conform.

Sample = 50 out of 123 participated, androcentric (all males), university students.

Procedure:  

• ‘Real’ (naive) pts was seated in a row of confederates.

• Naive pts was 6th in a row of 7-9 confederates.

• False aim = examine perceptual judgement.

• Asked all pts to pick one line out of three (labelled A,B,C) that matched a standard line.

• Naive pts could see that one was clearly a match (unambiguous).

• 12 out of 18 critical trials confederates gave the wrong answer.

• Naive pts was seated 2nd to last (could hear the majority answers before saying their own).

• 
  Findings (results): 

• Gave the wrong answer 37% of the time.

• Out of the 12 critical trials pts conformed 32% of the time.

• 25% remained independent so 75% conformed at least once.

• The control group conformed less than 1% of the time.

• Conclusion = people conform due to two reasons (want to fit in as they did not want to stand out or want to be right as they thought they had issues with their eyes).

Variables affecting conformity

Difficulty of the task = harder - similar length lines (increased - unsure look to others for help), easier - different length lines (decreased - less likely need conformation).

Support = Lucas 2006 - pts conformed to incorrect maths answers when the questions were harder.

Size of majority = small - 1 or 2 confederates (decreased - 1c+1p=3%, 2c+1p=13%, 3c+1p=33%, not sufficient to influence), large - 3 or 5 confederates (increased - informational social influence + decreased - 15c meant the pts thought it was a set up).

Contradict = Bond 2005 - normative social influence will be stronger in public settings whilst informational social influence will be stronger in private settings.

Unanimity = unanimous verdict - all confederates gave the same wrong answer, no ally (high - NSI + ISI), disturbed unanimity - same answer as pts or different wrong answer, ally (decreased - dropped to 25% from 32% conformity on 12 critical trials).

Contradict = moscovici 1969 - minority group can influence the majority if there is consistency. 

Answering in private = wrote answers down on a piece of paper (decreased - less group pressure and less fear of rejection).

Evaluation for conformity - high reliability

All sat round a table, all pts heard confederates give the same wrong answer, all pts sat in the 2nd from last seat in the row.

Same experience, standardised procedures.

Scientific rigour, replicate, high consistency, similar results.

Evaluation for conformity - practical application

Jurors warned about conformity during briefing, no excessive pressure for a specific verdict. 

Members must show individual accountability.

Used in the criminal justice system, improves the running of society, no miscarriages of justice.

Evaluation for conformity - low generalisability

Low temporal validity (1950’s, red scare, communism) + low population validity (androcentric sample).

Cared of being accused of being a communist, does not represent how women would conform to the majority)

Results can not be applied to everyone, could spread misinformation.

Evaluation for conformity - low external validity

In a lab, artificial environment.

Matching lines is an artificial task, not a real life situation like social media trends.

Results can not be fully generalised to real life conformity. 

Explanations for conformity

Deutsch and Gerard 1955 = dual process dependency model explains why people conform (distinguishes between NSI and ISI).

ISI = cognitive factors, desire to be right, ambiguous or experts we listen to as they are assumed to have more-informed knowledge, listen to people we respect and trust, leads to internalisation.

NSI = emotional factors, desire to be accepted, rewarded with reinforcement and approval, fear of rejection, fear of standing out, leads to compliance and identification.

Evaluation for explanations of conformity - ISI research support

Lucas 2006, gave pts maths questions to answer, found more pts conformed to wrong answers when questions were difficult, especially the case with those who were weaker at maths.

Situation is ambiguous, look to others for support, especially those who are stronger in maths, experts.

Value to claim, adds credibility.

Evaluation for explanations of conformity - NSI support

Asch’s line study, conformed 37% of the time, gave the same wrong answer.

Majority conformed to the wrong answer, did not want to stand out, did not want to be rejected.

Normative reasons, need to be accepted and liked by the group. 

Evaluation for explanations of conformity - fails to consider individual differences

Less confident, more need to be liked, impossible to say how everyone acts the same.

External locus of control, more conformist.

Individuals level factor can influence conformity, was not tested in research.

Evaluation for explanations of conformity - based in lab research

Not generalisable. 

Asch’s line study, judge the length of lines and match them to a standard line, not real life situation, different from social media and fashion trends.

Familiar with peers and friends, more comfortable to be yourself, less conformative.

Can not generalise, each setting and situation is unique.

Research into conformity of identification - Zimbardo’s simulated prison observation

Controlled observation.

Aim = investigate how far individuals would go when conforming to the roles of prisoner and guard.

Sample = volunteer, advert in paper, 75 applied but 24 out of 27 participated, androcentric, paid $15 each day.

Procedure:

• Pts tested so they were psychologically stable.

• Converted Stanford university psychology building into a mock prison.

• Pts randomly selected to guard or prisoner.

• 10 prisoners and 11 guards.

• Prisoners = arrested at home, told to be at university on Monday but arrested on Sunday, taken to local police station, fingerprinted, photographed, ‘booked’, at prison their possessions were removed, given white smocks and referred to as a number.

• Guards = given identical khaki uniforms, whistle, sunglasses to prevent eye contact, billy club, 3 guards did shifts of 8 hours whilst others were on look out, told to maintain the law and command respect but no physical violence.

• Zimbardo = prison warden/ superintendent. 

Findings (results):

• 10% of prisoner conversation was about life outside the prison.

• Guards talked about problem prisoners, prison topics or did not talk at all.

• First hours = guards harassed the prisoners.

• 2:30 am = prisoners woken with whistles (called a count which was done multiple times to familiarise the prisoners with their numbers).

• 2 days = prisoners rebelled by barricading the doors with beds.

• Prisoners = ‘told tales’ of other prisoners, made to do push ups with someone standing or sitting on their back, dehumanised, made to clean the toilet with their hands.

• Was supposed to finish in 2 weeks but lasted 6 days.

• 5 released before the 6 days as they experienced severe psychological harm.

• Christina Maslach = saw the abuse and told Zimbardo to stop.

• Zimbardo = believed the prisoners were disobedient and wanted ways to make them more respectful. 

• Conclusion = prison environment was the main factor for conformity, deindividualisation explains guards behaviour as all were dressed and acted the same which made them lose their agency. 

Evaluation of Zimbardo’s prison study - high reliability

All prisoners were arrested at home on Sunday evening, all guards had the same khaki uniform with a whistle and billy club, all prisoners wore a white smock and given a number.

High consistency of findings if repeated, standardised procedures.

Has scientific rigour.

Evaluation of Zimbardo’s prison study - practical applications

Deindividualisation of prisoners, numbers not names, contributed to lack of control.

Prison environment affects aggressive behaviour rather than the people in it.

Helps to understand the behaviour in prisons, findings can be applied to guards and prisoners in real life prisons.

Evaluation of Zimbardo’s prison study - low generalisability

Study done in 1973, 21 male university students.

Lacks temporal validity, androcentric sample.

Can not generalise to target population, not representative of modern time frame and to females.

Evaluation of Zimbardo’s prison study - breaks ethical guidelines

Awoken at 2:30 am to do a count, cleaned toilets with their hands, humiliated in front of others.

Zimbardo did not protect them from psychological harm, was involved but did not consciously realise it.

Lacks scientific rigour, breaches ethical guidelines.

Obedience

The following of orders given by an authority figure.

Involves = direct change of behaviour, people of different social standing, direct exercise of power 

Obedience studies - Milgram’s 1965 obedience to authority study

• Milgram = from a jewish immigrant who was interested in the reason for Adolf Eichman’s (known as the ‘Jewish specialist’) contribution to killing 6 million Jews in WW2 was because he was following orders and obeying those who were socially higher than him.  

• Real aim = investigate whether people would obey authority despite there being fatal consequences.

• False aim = effects of punishment on memory.

• Sample = volunteers from New Haven area, 20 to 50 year olds, 40 male pts, androcentric, paid $4 for turning up.

• Location = Yale university.

• Controlled lab observation.

• Obedience = measured by the volts/ shocks given to the confederate.

• Obedient = went to 450v/ the maximum voltage.

• Pts reaction measured = observations and post study interviews.

 

Procedure: 

• Naive pts was introduced to a tall, stern experimenter wearing a white lab coat.

• Naive pts was introduced to a secret confederate (acting as a pts) called Mr Wallace. 

• Experimenter explains false aim to both and says one will be the teacher whilst the other is the learner.

• They use random selection which is rigged so the naive pts always is the teacher and the confederate is the learner.

• The learner is strapped to a chair by the experimenter and teacher.

• Electrodes are attached to his arm.

• The only real shock given was at the start of the observation to the teacher to show it was real which was 15v.

• Room 2 = where the experimenter instructs the teacher to read out a list of word pairs (clean, air, blue, sky), asked to say one word and the learner has to read out the paired word, correct = moves on, wrong = shock.

• Shocks increase each time by 15v until it gets to 450v.

• Room 1 = learner is given a predetermined list of responses, roughly 3 wrong to 1 right, no vocal noises until 300v when they ‘bang’ on the walls, after this the learner's answers no longer appear on the panel, 315v = ‘bangs’ on wall again.

• 4 verbal prods from experimenter to teacher = continue please, requires continuation, absolutely essential, you have no choice.

Findings - results:

• 100% went to 300v.

• At 300v = 5 refused.

• At 315v = 4 refused.

• At 330v = 2 refused.

• At 345v, 360v, 375v = 1 refused.

• 65% went to 450v (labelled as XXX danger)

• Signs of tension = sweating, biting lips, groans, digging finger nails into flesh, 3 pts has uncontrollable seizures.

• Conclusion = pre-experimental prediction said that less than 3% would go to 450v, behaviour is not just determined by dispositional but also situational factors, fatal consequences would be blamed on someone else - less responsibility was taken of their actions, fulfill extreme requests if asked gradually and built it up. 
  

Evaluation of Milgram’s study - high reliability

Controlled lab observation, instructions read out by the teacher were the same, voltage intervals were the same.

Standardises procedures, high replicability.

Has scientific rigour, add credibility if repeated.

Evaluation of Milgram’s study - practical application

People obey when recognised as morally right or legally based, learnt in school, family and work place.

Soldiers obeying an officer, people obeying police to maintain security and safety.

Useful for a better understanding of obedience in society which helps with the running of it.

Evaluation of Milgram’s study - low generalisability

40 American male pts from New Haven, androcentric, between 20 and 50 years of age.

Lacks population validity, findings could be different on younger people or on females.

Limited to explain obedience, can not be generalised to all humans.

Evaluation of Milgram’s study - low ecological validity

Controlled lab observation, artificial setting, two separate rooms.

Not represent real life obedience situations, police and suspect interactions, task = not done in everyday life, unlike being recruited in a gang to kill the opposing gang members as they are seen as ‘family’.

Difficult to use the findings in real life situations if real life extraneous variables are not considered when completing the study.

Situational variables affecting obedience

• Loss of uniform = experimenter has no white lab coat, 65% to 20%, due to power of uniform, symbol of authority.

• Support = Bickman, asked members of the public to do certain tasks dressed as either 1) normal clothes, 2) milkman, 3) security guard, 1) 30%, 2) 47%, 3) 76%.

• Location = from Yale to a run down office block in Bridgeport, 65% to 48%, gave legitimate authority due to its prestige image, well respected, acted accordingly to surroundings, more likely to trust and listen.

• Close proximity = learner moved into the same room as the teacher (65% to 40%, people could see the harm, can not psychologically distance themselves, experiencing it in person), experimenter gave the instructions over the phone (65% to 30%, not the pressure of an individual watching, see consequences of their actions, felt more responsible).

• Absent experimenter = 65% to 21%, same room - more likely to obey due to intimidation, absent - more flexibility to get out of an agentic state and be a more autonomous state. 

• Support = Rank + Jacobson, field experiment, nurses told over the phone to give twice the dosage than recommended, 21 out of 22 obeyed, 11 noticed the dosage, 10 did not but obeyed, not allowed to take orders over the phone.

• Contradicting = hofling, tried to replicate but with a real drug, 2 out of 18 obeyed.

Situational explanation of obedience - agentic state

• Carries out orders from an authority figure.

• Gives up free will. 

• Not independent.

• Acts as an agent applying the decisions of the authority figure.

• Surrender our conscience.

• Allowing others to direct their actions but passes off the responsibility of the consequences to the authority figure.

• Diffused responsiblity.

•  Moral strain = doing something you know is wrong.

• Coping with moral strain = repression - thoughts out of awareness, denial - not admitting it happened. 

• Autonomous state = independently act, accept personal responsibility, only follow orders if we agree with its consequences.

Situational explanation of obedience - legitimacy of authority

• Perceive the authority figure to have the power to tell us what to do.

• Appearance = uniform, lab coat, army uniform.

• Behaviour = confidence, appears to be experts like doctors.

• Symbols of authority = crown, ID badge.

• Socialisation - taught from young to recognise legitimate authority and to respect it, trust them, have the power to punish.

• Parents, teachers, managers.

• Social hierarchy = subjective perception of authority, a nurse is perceived as lower in authority than a doctor. 

Evaluation for situational explanations of obedience - agentic state support

Milgram, wanted to stop but when the experimenter told them whatever happened in the room was their responsibility they continued.

Shifts from autonomous state to agentic state, moral strain but repressed it when there was a diffusion of responsibility.

Add credibility to the agentic state and autonomous state, clear switch from one to the other.

Evaluation for situational explanations of obedience - legitimacy of authority support

Rank + Jacobson, nurse told over the phone to give twice the recommended dosage of a placebo by an unknown doctor, 21 out of 22 obeyed.

11 said they knew the dosage, 10 said they did not know the dosage but did it as a doctor requested it.

Adds credibility, knew it was bad but did it as a doctor is perceived to be more trustworthy and respected in a social hierarchy. 

Evaluation for situational explanations of obedience - fails to include dispositional factors

Bickman’s security guard (76%) milkman (47%) regular person (30%) study, 30% still obeyed, situational factors are not the only reason.

Dispositional factors could have contributed, like personality traits, authoritarian personality.

Limited, does not explain all obedience, consider alternatives when explaining.

Evaluation for situational explanations of obedience - theoretical issues

Leads to obedience alibi, explaining Nazi behaviour can be seen as giving them an excuse.

Leads to war criminals not feeling as guilty as they should, stops them facing up for what they did.

Diffuses responsibility, can lead to miscarriages of justices towards war criminals, understanding could mean letting them go easy.