Psychology: Social Influence

Conformity

Matching our behaviour and beliefs in order to match a group or person. Change of behaviour as a result of real or imagined group pressure or norms.

Bystander effect

The tendency for any given bystander to be less likely to give aid if other bystanders are present

Situational factors that affect conformity

Size of the majority
Unanimity
Task Difficulty/Ambiguity
Deindividuation

Different types of conformity according to KELMAN (1958)

1. Compliance
2. Identification
3. Internalisation

Compliance

Going with the majority even though we do not privately agree.

Identification

Temporarily adopting the behaviour of a group or person. Conforms publicly. Disagrees privately.
Gains a sense of group membership

Internalisation

Conforms publicly. Conforms privately.
Internalises and accepts the group views.
Deepest level of conformity.

Normative social influence

Compliance because of the need to fit into a group. The aim is to belong, be liked and accepted. Fear of rejection. Need to be liked.

Informational social influence

Conformity because we do not know how to behave in a situation; others provide this information so we adopt their beliefs and behaviours. Need to be right.

Diffusion of responsibility

Deciding not to help in an emergency as we think others will help.

Pluralistic ignorance

The state of affairs in which virtually every member of a group privately disagrees with what are considered to be the prevailing attitudes and beliefs of the group as a whole. The fear that you are the only person who feels the way you do then stops people with disagreeing openly or go along with the majority in certain situations.

Locus of control

The extent to which we believe we have control over our lives

External locus of control

When we believe that factors external to us control our behavior

Blind obedience

Obeying unfair or unjustified orders of an authority figure without questioning them.

Momentum of compliance

When we start something we feel the need to finish it.

Authoritarian personality

A type of personality that is respectful to authority and rigid in beliefs.

F-scale

A questionnaire designed to identify authoritarian personalities. F stands for fascism to mean authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology.

Prosocial behaviour

behavior that is seen as helpful, kind and co operative

Antisocial behaviour

behavior that is seen as unhelpful, destructive and aggressive

Social issue

a social conflict or problem that affects a community

Individualistic culture

A culture that emphasizes independence, autonomy and individuality.

Collectivistic culture

A culture that emphasizes group membership, interdependence and co operation

Culture

a set of traditions, beliefs and values shared by a group of people

Personality factors affecting conformity

Locus of control

What did Asch 1951 do?

devised an experiment whereby there was an obvious answer to a line judgement task. If the participant gave an incorrect answer, it would be clear that this was due to group pressure

Results of the experiment

• Asch measured the number of times each participant conformed to the majority view​

• On average, about one third (32%) of the participants in each trial went along and conformed to the clearly incorrect majority​

• Three quarters of the participants (75%) conformed on at least one trial

Asch’s findings when changing size of group?

• Asch found that conformity tends to increase as the size of the group increases​

• With one other confederate in the group, conformity was 3% with two others it increased to 13% and with three or more it was around 32%​

• He found little changed in conformity once the group size reached 4-5​

• 3 is considered the optimal group size for conformity to occur

Asch’s findings when changing unanimity?

• Asch was interested in whether a non-conformist would affect the naïve pp’s conformity​

• He introduced a confederate who disagreed with the other​

• This led to reduced conformity​

• Enabled the real pp to behave more independently

Asch’s findings when changing task difficulty?

• Asch made the line-judging task more difficult to judge the effect​

• When the comparison lines (e.g. A,B. C) were made more similar in length, it was harder to judge the correct answer​

• When we are uncertain, it seems we look to others for confirmation – informational social influence​

• Conformity increased under these conditions

Negatives of the experiment?

A child of its time​

• Perrin and Spencer (1981) carried out Asch’s study 25 years later with engineering students and only one student conformed in a total of 396 trials. ​

Artificial situations and task​

• Pps knew they were taking part in research and so may have simply displayed demand characteristics. Also in this task is unlike groups that we are part of in everyday life.​

Limited application of findings​

• Only men were tested and therefore results are not generalisable to women. Also Asch carried out research in the USA, an individualistic culture 

Zimbardo’s experiment

Zimbardo wanted to create a prison situation (in the basement of Stanford University) to observe the effects on those participants acting as guards and those participants acting as prisoners.

How does Zimbardo’s experiment investigate both conformity and obedience?

• The conformity to roles comes in the form of total acceptance of the role as prisoner or guard and carrying out the behaviour of that role​

• The obedience is shown by the prisoners in the obedience to the authority of the guards

Deindividuation

Loss of personal self awareness and responsibility as a result of being in a group. Deindividuation is a state in which you become so immersed in the norms of the group that you lose your sense of identity and personal responsibility. An individual relinquishes individual responsibility for actions and sees behavior as a consequence of group norms and expectations

Explain how deindividuation occurred to the prisoners in the experiment?

• This means that they seemed unable to focus on who they were and so fell into the role of being prisoner​

• This was manipulated by the humiliation of the arrest and strip-down at the beginning and the punishments carried out by the guards​

• The labelling of the prisoners as numbers also helped this ‘de-individuation’ process – they no longer had personal responsibility for their actions

Negatives of Zimbardo’s experiment

Demand characteristics ​

• Banuazizi and Mohavedi (1975) argued the pps were merely play-acting rather than genuinely conforming to social roles – Zimbardo disputes this​

Role of dispositional (personality) influences​

• Zimbardo has been accused of over-exaggerating the power of the situation to influence behaviour as only a third of the guards behaved in a brutal manner

Evaluations of ethical issues in Zimbardos experiment?

• Zimbardo’s study was considered ethical because he followed the guidelines of the Stanford University ethics committee that had approved the research (it was funded with a government grant).​

• ​

• The volunteers knew they were being used in a study but they did not know when the study would be taking place, so the initial shock of being randomly arrested one morning and taken to the mock prison put them in a mild state of shock.

Obedience

Obedience is a type of social influence which causes a person to act in response to an order given by another person. The person who gives the order usually has power or auth

What was Milgram interested in?

Milgram was interested in the apparent contradiction between the ordinariness of men involved in war crimes during the Second World War, and the terrible deeds they had carried out.

Results of the experiment?

• Earliest version where the Learner pounded on the wall – 65% of participants gave shocks up to 450 volts​

• In the main version – 62.5% of participants gave shocks up to 450 volts​

• 100% of participants continued up to at least 300 volts

List of Ethical guildlines

Consent

Deception

Confidentiality

Debriefing

Withdrawal

Protection

Which was the only guildline Milgram followed well?

He Debriefed the participants very well

Definition of consent

This means researchers should tell potential participants exactly what is going to happen to them in the experiment

Definition of Deception

The BPS guidelines say that you should try to avoid intentionally deceiving participants about the purpose and nature of the investigation

Definition of confidentiality

Means keeping personal information confidential.

Definition of Debriefing

Debriefing means telling the participants what the study was about before they leave .

Definition of right of Withdrawal

This means giving people the opportunity to leave the study at any time if they no longer want to take part.

Definition of Protection from harm

Participants should not be harmed, either physically or psychologically when participating in research.

Evaluation of the study’s internal validity

Its low because- The study has been criticised for not actually testing obedience. It has been suggested that the pps guessed that the shocks were not real and therefore their ‘real’ behaviour was not being measured. ​

• This suggests that participants may have been responding to demand characteristics​

  BUT

• Puppy study contradicts this

Explain the Sheridan and King (1972) puppy study

• Used a Milgram-like procedure​

• Participants gave real shocks to a puppy in response to orders from an experimenter.​

• 54% of male participants and 100% of female participants delivered what they thought was a lethal shock​

• This suggests that the effects in Milgram's study were genuine because people obeyed even when the shocks were real

Research that supports Milgrams experiment in saying it has good external validity

Hofling (1966) with nurses and an unknown doctor on the phone telling them to prescribe a medicine that was not on the wards approved list

Results of Hofling 1966

21 out of the 22 nurses obeyed and started to prepare the dosage before they were stopped and told that they had taken part in an experiment

Alternative explanation to Milgrams experiment?

Social Identity Theory-We favour our own group (in group) over any group to which we do not belong (out group).​

• People identify themselves as belonging to particular social groups

• The participants were willing to continue giving the shocks because they identified with the experimenter as a scientist. So long as the prods related to the science of the study (which the first three did), they were effective.

• As soon as a prod (the fourth one) asserted the authority of the experimenter, all of the participants resisted. At this point, they identified more with the plight of the learner. ​

• Therefore, the participants continued because they identified with the science, not because they obeyed the authority of the experimenter. ​

• This explanation clearly undermines Milgram's conclusions because they contradict his claim that his findings were due to participants unquestioningly accepting the authority of the experimenter.

What are the situational factors that milgram found affected obedience?

-uniform

-proximity

-location

Results when proximity was changed in Milgrams experiment

o.g study teacher and learner in adjoining rooms - 65%

Variation teacher and learner in same room-40%

variation-teacher had to force learners hand onto eletricshock plate(touch proximity)-30%

variation- experimenter left the room and gave the instructions by phone (remote proximity)-20.5%

Differences in results when location was changed

o.g yale- prestigious uni setting- 65%

variation- run down office down town-47.5%

Differences in results when uniform was changed

o.g experimenter wore a lab coat-65%

variation-role of experimenter carried out by member of public(confederate)-20%

Research supporting Milgram?

Bushman 1988 carried out a study where a female researcher, dressed either in a ‘police-style’ uniform, as a business executive or as a beggar, stopped people in the street and told them to give change to a male researcher for an expired parking meter. ​

• When she was in uniform, 72% of the people obeyed, ​

• when she was dressed as a business executive (48%) ​

• or as a beggar (52%).

What did people say was the reason for their obedience after Bushman’s experiment?

​

When interviewed afterwards, people claimed they had obeyed the woman in uniform because she appeared to have authority

Is Milgrams study generalisable?

• Both Milgram’s original study, and his variations have been replicated in other cultures and have found similar results. This suggest that Milgram’s findings are not limited to American males, but are valid across all cultures (and apply to women). This suggests a robust phenomenon is being studied. ​

• However, most replications have been carried out in Western societies.

Why could Milgram’s research be criticised for lacking internal validity?

• The original study has been criticised as it was suggested that the pps guessed that the shocks were not real and therefore their ‘real’ behaviour was not being measured. ​

• It is even more likely that the pps in the variations realised that this was not a real study and they were being manipulated. Therefore their behaviour may simply have been demand characteristics

How do Milgram’s findings run the risk of trivialising genocide?

The ‘obedience’ albi​

• Some people consider a situational perspective on the Holocaust offensive because it removes personal responsibility from the perpetrators. ​

• To suggest that Nazi executioners of Jews were 'only doing their duty by obeying orders' implies that they were also the victims of situational pressures, and that anyone faced with a similar situation would have behaved in the same way.

What is another explanation for obedience that Milgram proposed?

agentic state and legitimacy of authority

Define the Agentic state?

When we act as the agent (representative) of someone in authority we find it easy to deny personal responsibility for our actions – it’s just doing our job or just following orders.

Define the autonomous state

individuals direct their own behaviour, and take responsibility for the consequences

What is an agentic shift?

People move from the autonomous state into the agentic state when confronted with an authority figure. This shift from autonomy to ‘agency’ is called the agentic shift.

What does Milgram’s research, supporting research and history demonstrate?

how the majority of ordinary people will follow instructions even when they are acting against conscience.

Blass and Schmitt (2001)

found that people who saw Milgram’s study blamed the experimenter, indicating that they believed the participants were agents of authority.

What are the alternative reasons why people obey an authority figure?

It could be due to personality rather than the situation.

What can the agency theory not explain?

In addition, agency theory cannot explain why some people disobey authority figures, as was shown by about a third of the participants in the original Milgram study.

Definition of legitimacy authority

• This is an explanation for obedience which suggests that we are more likely to obey people who we perceive to have authority over us​

• This authority is justified (legitimate) by the individual’s position of power within a social hierarchy

Kelman and Hamilton (1989) suggest three main factors to explain obedience, what are they?

• Legitimacy of the system​

• Legitimacy of authority within the system​

• Legitimacy of demands or orders given

Define legitimacy of the system

This concerns the extent to which the ‘body’ is a legitimate source of authority:​

• government, ​

• army, ​

• religious group​

• school​

• family

Define legitimacy of authority within the system

• This is the power individuals hold to give orders because of their position in the system​

• This therefore is linked to status and the hierarchy within a particular establishment

Define legitimacy of orders or demands given

This refers to the extent with which the order is perceived to be a legitimate area for the authority figure. e.g. a teacher can ask you to complete hw but not to clean their car

Where has destructive authority been seen in history?

History has shown all too often that powerful leaders (such as Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot) can use their legitimate powers for destructive purposes,

Where has destructive authority been seen in Milgram’s experiment?

Destructive authority was shown in Milgram’s study when the experimenter used prods to order the pps to behave in ways that went against their consciences

What do the situational explanations of obedience focus on?

A situational explanation of obedience focuses on the external circumstances rather than to the personalities of the people involved

What do the social-psychological explanations of obedience focus on?

Social-psychological factors concern the influences of others on an individual’s behaviour, rather than external factors in the situation

What does a dispositional explanation focus on?

A dispositional explanation of behaviour highlights the importance of the individual’s personality

What was Adorno interested in that led him to conduct his research?

• was interested in investigating why Nazi soldiers were so willing to persecute and kill members of minority groups, such as Jews during WW II; could it be blamed on a personality trait?​

• He claimed a particular personality type is more likely to obey an authority

Procedure of Adorno et al. 1950

• Adorno et al. (1950) investigated the causes of an obedient personality in a study of more than 2000 middle-class, white Americans and their unconscious attitudes towards other racial groups. ​

• They developed an ‘F’ scale to measure the relationship between a person's personality type and prejudiced beliefs

Findings and presumptions that could be made from the F-scale?

• Those who had scored highly on the ‘F’ scale identified with ‘strong’ people and were generally contemptuous of the ‘weak’.​

• They were very conscious of their own and others’ status ​

• High scorers had a particular cognitive style:​

• there were no ‘grey areas’ between categories of people​

• They had fixed and distinctive stereotypes about other groups​

• There was a strong positive correlation between authoritarianism and prejudice

Define an authoritarian personality

a distinct personality pattern characterised by strict adherence to conventional values and a belief in absolute obedience or submission to authority. (someone who is aware of where they stand in the hierarchy and expect obedience from those below but will also obey when they recognise they don’t hold the authority)

Characteristics and associated behaviours of authoritarian personalities

.

What is the origin of the authoritarian personality based on?

Based on Sigmund Freud’s idea that the adult personality is determined by childhood experiences

Describe how an authoritarian personality is developed from childhood?

A very disciplined upbringing ​

Parents (particularly the father) are harsh and show little affection and issue severe punishments​

Unconscious hostility ​

They consciously have very high opinions of their parents but unconsciously feel very aggressive towards them​

Displacement ​

This hostility is displaced (moved on to) onto safer targets, namely those who are weaker and so are unable to hurt them​

Prejudice ​

This results in prejudice views and discriminatory behaviour

Alternative explanation to obedience?

Social identity theories

Why is Adorno’s theory limited?

There is political bias as the ‘F’ scale measures the tendency towards an extreme right-wing ideology. Adorno’s theory is limited as it cannot account for obedience to authority across the whole political spectrum.

Limitation of the method used?(paticipants)

The interviews were vulnerable to interviewer bias. As the interviewers knew the hypothesis of the study, they were aware of what information they needed to confirm it.

Limitation of the method used?(interviewer)

• Knowing the participants' test scores as well meant that they knew in advance whether the interviewee was likely to have an authoritarian personality. ​

• Therefore their questioning would have been guided by this knowledge. They may even have recorded only the information they needed to confirm their hypothesis

Limitation of Adornos research linked to sample

Sample: all male and the research was done in America, so can the results be generalised?

Limitation of Adorno linked to explaining fully

Does not explain why people are prejudiced towards some groups and not others

Limitation of Adorno linked to validity?

Adorno only found that there was a relationship (correlation) between personality type and prejudice – this cannot show cause and effect

define Resistance to social influence ​

This refers to the ability of people to withstand the social pressure to conform to the majority or to obey authority.

What types of factors influence someones ability to withstand social pressure?

situational and dispositional factors

actual names for these two factors?

-social support

-locus of control

define social support

The presence of people who resist pressures to conform or obey can help others to do the same. These people act as models to show others that resistance to social influence is possible

how does social support influence conformity

• Conformity is reduced by a dissenting peer​

• The effect is not long lasting

how does social support influence obedience?

• Obedience is reduced by one other dissenting partner​

• The dissenter’s disobedience frees the pp to act from their own conscience