Social Influence

Types of Conformity

Internalisation, Identification, Compliance

Internalisation

Change in public behaviour

Change in private belief

Long-term change

Deepest form of conformity

Identification

Change in public behaviour (value the group)

No change in private belief

Short-term change

Middle form of conformity

Compliance

Change in public behaviour (no value to group)

No change in private belief

Superficial change

Shallowest form of conformity

Herbert Kelman (1958) …

suggested there are three types of conformity

Deutsch and Gerard (1955)…

developed a two-process theory for why people conform.

Informational Social Influence

the need to be right, a cognitive process regarding better information.

Normative Social Influence

the need to be liked, an emotional process regarding belonging.

Asch’s Experiment Aim (1951)

To examine the extent to which social pressure to conform from an unanimous majority affects conformity in an unambiguous situation.

Asch’s methods

Lab experiment, sample 123 male American undergraduates.

Participants were shown 18 line judgement tasks, one was a naive participant, 6-8 were confederates. 12/18 tasks confederates gave the wrong answer.

Asch’s Results (4)

32% of the time naive conformed on the critical trials.

75% of the participants conformed on at least one critical trial.

25% never conformed.

>1% gave incorrect answer in the control group.

What variables did Asch test?

GUTd -

Group size, Unanimity, Task difficulty

Asch Evaluation: Perrin and Spencer (1980)

Repeated Asch’s study with Science and Engineering students in the UK.

Only 1/396 conformed.

Lacks temporal validity.

Asch Evaluation: Mori and Arai (2010)

Repeated Asch’s study with perception altering glasses.

104 Japanese undergraduates (both genders).

73% conformity females, much lower in males.

Partial support.

Define Social Roles

The parts people play as members of various social groups, accompanied by expectations we and others have of what is appropriate behaviour in each role.

Zimbardo Study Aim (1973)

To examine whether people would conform to the social roles of a prison guard or prisoner, when placed in a mock prison environment.

Zimbardo methods

Mock prison where 24 men were randomly allocated the role of ‘prisoner’ or ‘guard.’

Arrested prisoners from their homes, stripped, deloused and given uniforms to wear.

Guards wore uniform and sunglasses, referred to the prisoners with numbers.

Zimbardo results

Within a very short time both guards and prisoners were settling into their new roles, with the guards adopting theirs quickly and easily.

Evaluation: Zimbardo

Protection from harm

Withdrawal

Informed consent

Zimbardo adopted the role of warden

Milgram Study Aim

An investigation into the obedience levels when an authority figure instructed the participant to give an increasingly strong electric shock to another “participant” in a different room.

Milgram Methods

40 American men aged 20-50 volunteered to take part in a study, supposedly on memory.

They were ‘randomly allocated’ the role of teacher or learner (Mr Wallace).

The teacher (naive participant) read a list the student had to repeat, if they got it wrong they received an electric shock.

Increasing from 15 Volts to 450.

An experimenter sat with the participant, gave prods if they were unwilling to continue.

Milgram Results

Every participant delivered all the shocks up to 300v.

5 (12.5%) stopped at 300.

65% continued to the highest level.

Some participants had uncontrollable seizures.

Milgram Evaluation: Meeus and Raaijmakers (1986)

Replicated Milgram’s results in more realistic setting with Dutch participants. 90% obeyed.

Validity across cultures.

Milgram Evaluation: Smith and Bind (1998)

Identified only two replications between 1969 and 1985 in India and Jordan.

Culturally similar countries (Spain, Australia, Scotland) suggest the research is not very “cross-cultural”.

Milgram Evaluation: Ethics

Harm.

Deception

Orne and Holland critised that participants may have been aware of study aim.

Demand Characteristics

Define Obedience

Following an order given by a person perceived to be in a position of authority.

Hoffling et al Aim (1966)

To investigate whether nursers would obey orders from an unknown doctor to such an extent that there would be a risk of harm.

Hoffling et al Method (1966)

A confederate '“Dr Smith” instructed 22 nurses to give his patient 20mg of a drug over the phone.

Maximum dose 10mg.

Hospital rules require nursers to have authorisation from a doctor to administer medicine.

Hoffling et al Results (1966)

21/22 nurses obeyed without hesitation.

Influence of authority on obedience.

Burger Aim (2009)

To develop a variation of Milgram’s procedures allowing comparison with the original investigation while protecting the well-being of participants.

Burger Methods (2009)

A clinical psychologist sat in the room who could stop the study at signs of excessive stress.

Max voltage 150 instead of 450.

Burger Results (2009)

Obedience rate of 70%.

Results hadn’t changed drastically in 40 years.

Increased historical validity.

Three Variables Milgram Investigated

Proximity

Location

Uniform

Proximity

Teacher and learner same room - obedience level of who administered full 450 volts dropped from 65% to 40%

Forcing learner hand on plate - dropped to 35%

Instructions of experimenter given over the phone - dropped to only 20.5%

Location

Conducted in a run down building in Bridgeport, Connecticut, the percentage dropped from 65% to 47.5%.

Uniform

Experimenter was replaced with another confederate who wore casual clothes, obedience dropped from 65% to 20%.

Uniform Bickman (1974)

Investigated the power of uniforms in a field experiment.

Three male actors asked members of the public to follow an instruction.

Security Guard - 76% on average obedience

Milkman - 47% on average

Pedestrian - 30% on average

Define Autonomous State

People are free to direct their own actions and are responsible for them.

Define Agentic Shift

People believing they are acting for someone else, the outcome of their actions are not their responsibility.

Define Legitimate Authority

Someone which is entitled to have its decisions and rules accepted and followed by others as is perceived to have authority.

Evaluation: Agentic Shift (Support)

Milgram’s studies support this.

Participants continued to give electric shocks after learning the experimenter was responsible for Mr Wallace being hurt.

Evaluation: Agentic Shift (Limitation)

Doesn’t explain many research findings about obedience.

Rank and Jacobson (1977) - 16/18 hospital nurses disobeyed orders from a doctor to administer excessive dose to a patient.

Evaluation: Legitimacy of Authority (Support)

Useful account of cultural differences in obedience.

Kilham and Mann (1974)- only 16% of Australian women went to the full 450.

Mantell (1971) - 85% of Germans went to the full 450.

Evaluation: Legitimacy of Authority (Limitation)

Cannot explain accounts of disobedience.

Rank and Jacobson’s experiment.

Define Authoritarian Personality

A personality type characterised by a disposition to treat authority figures with unquestioning obedience and respect.

Adorno (1950)

Developed the theory of the authoritarian personality, measured using the F-Scale (fascist).

Adorno Methods

Developed a questionnaire to measure elements of the Authoritarian Personality.

2000 white middle-class Americans answered.

Adorno Evaluation

Questionnaire are self-report.

Social desirability bias - tendency to answer questions favourably to fit in.

Acquiescence bias - the tendency to agree.

Demand Characteristics - guess the intentions of the study and change their behaviour.

Adorno Evaluation: Elms and Milgram (1966)

20 obedient and 20 disobedient previous participants completed F-Scale.

Positive Correlation between obedience and authoritarianism.

Resistance to Social Influence

Social support for conforming (eg Asch’s experiment, conformity dropped when unanimity was broken even if the different answer was still wrong.)

Social support for obedience (eg Milgram’s experiment, obedience dropped to 10% when genuine participant was joined by a dissenting confederate.)

Julian Rotter (1966)

Concept of Locus of Control (LOC).

Internal LOC- things are largely controlled by themselves.

External LOC - things are out of their control.

Rotter Evaluation: Holland (1967)

Repeated Milgram’s baseline experiment measuring whether participants were Internals or Externals.

37% of Internals did not continue to 450v.

23% of externals did not continue to 450v.

Rotter Evaluation: Spector (1983)

From 157 students in NSI situations high internals were less likely to conform than high externals.

No difference for ISI.

Rotter Evaluation: Twenge (2004)

Meta-analysis of studies, found over time people have become more external but more resistant to obedience. Challenging the link between internal LOC and high resistance.

Define Minority Influence

A form of social influence which takes place when a member of a minority group influences the majority to accept the minority’s beliefs or behaviours.

What 8 factors affect Minority Influence

1. Drawing Attention

2. Consistency

3. Deeper Processing

4. The Augmentation Principle

5. The Snowball Effect

6. Social Crytomanmesia

7. NSI

8. Gradual Commitment

Moscovici Minority Influence

32 groups of 6 women where 2 participants were confederates.

Shown a blue slide.

Confederates gave the wrong answer of green.

Moscovici Minority Influence Results

8.42% of participants agreed with the wrong answer when the minority confederate group were constant in their responses.

1.25% of participants agreed with the wrong answer when the minority confederate group gave inconsistent answers.

Minority Influence Evaluation: Deeper Processing

Research support for deeper processing.

Martin et al (2003) found people were less willing to change their opinion between initial and last measurement if they had listened to a minority group than a majority group.

Suggesting the messaged had been more deeply processed.

Minority Influence Evaluation: Flexibility

Nemeth (1986) conducted experiment into flexibility.

Groups of 3 and a confederate discussed compensation for a victim of a ski lift accident.

The minority argued for a low rate did not change

The minority offered low but then compromised.

Minority Influence Evaluation: Flexibility Results

They found the flexible minority were much more successful at changing the majority view.

Minority Influence Evaluation: Lack of external Validity

Moscovici’s task was artificial, lacks mundane realism.

Minority Influence Evaluation: RWA

Groups such as Women’s suffrage, Civil Rights Movement, Apartheid, Smoking ban etc, suggest the aspects of minority influence are crucial.

Minority Influence Evaluation: NSI

Nolan (2008) placed messages on residents doors in California saying to reduce energy usage. NSI messages led to significant decreases in energy usage.

Foxcroft (2015) reviewed social norm interventions. 70 studies where social norms were used to reduce alcohol use by students showed a small reduction in drinking quantity but no reduction in frequency.

NSI doesn’t always produce long term changes.

Minority Influence Evaluation: Resistance

Resistance to social change.

Bashir et al (2013) found that some minority groups were thought to live up to stereotypes associated with the group, which can be off-putting to outsiders.