Social Influence

What is social influence?

ways in which a persons thoughts,feelings and behaviour are affected by others including conforming,obedience and minority influence

What is conformity (majority influence) and the 2 types?

form of social influence - change in persons behaviour or opinions as a result of real or imagined pressure from person/group
internalisation and compliance

What was Kelmans conformity type internalisation about?

conforms with group as genuinely accepted group norms - if engaged to other views encouraged to engage in validation which is process examining own beliefs to see if they’re right - group may convince individual the group is right - leads to acceptance in public and private - permanent and strongest form of comformity

What is compliance?

individual goes along with group in public but privately does not change their personal opinion - exposed to views/actions of majority engage in social comparision - focus on what others are doing to adjust own actions to fit in - involves desire to fit in so public not private acceptance of groups behaviour - behaviour will stop when not with group

What is the main study on conformity?

Asch experiment in 1951

What is an overview of the Asch experiment?

claimed to demonstrate conformity need to get people to disregard the obvious right answer 
two cards had to match the line with each participant being asked with of three lines matched the standard line 
told about visual perception - naive participant was tested individually with 6 to 8 confederates - naive not aware of experiment + was always last or next to last - gave answers out loud
first few trials correct answers were given - confederates were instructed to give same wrong answer for 12 of 18 trials known as critical trials (1 trial = 1 time identifying the line)

What were the outcomes of the Asch experiment?

naive participants gave a wrong answer 36.8% of time 
75% conformed at least once (25% never conformed)
5% conformed every time
results described as Asch effect - extent to which participants confrom even when situation is unambiguous

What variables affecting conformity did Asch explore?

group size - unanimity - task difficulty
extended baseline study by carrying out a number of variations to investigate variables which increases and decrease conformity

How does group size affect conformity?

varied the number of confederates from 1 to 15 - found a curvilinear relationship between group size and conformity - 1 to 2 did not produce high levels of conformity - when 3 conformity rose to 31.8% and conformity rate levelled off - when group too large conformity reduces because partcipant suspects others are colluding suggests no need for majority more than 3 for social influence to have an effect
concluded that most people are sensitive to others views because just 1 or 2 confederates were needed to sway opinions

How does unanimity affect conformity?

tested by one confederate instructed to give a different answer (not always correct option) - presence of dissenting confederate - rate decreased to less than a quarter of the level when the answer was unanimous - presence of dissenter enabled naive participant to behave more independentley - conformity depends on large extent if answer is unanimous

How does task difficulty affect conformity?

made diffrence between stimulus and comparision lines much smaller - increased conformity as participants not sure of own judgement + more reliant on others (informative social influence) as situation was ambiguos

What is evaluation point 1 of Asch research?

limitation is tests conformity in an artificial situation with an artificial task - knew in research study + may have simply gone along with demands of situation (demand characteristics) - Fiske (2014) believes group did not behave like an everyday group ‘not very groupy’  meaning findings did not generalise to everyday situations - especially true when consequence of conformity more important - however research support for effect of task difficulty by Lucas et al (2006) found participants conformed more in solving maths when questions were harder - shows Asch was correct in saying task difficulty is a variable that affects conformity

What is evaluation point 2 of Asch reserach?

another limitation is Aschs participants were all American men - other researhc suggests woman may be more comformist (Neto 1995) - US is an individualist culture whereas collective cultures such as China found conformity rates higher - Perrin and Spencer repeated with engineering students found only one student conformed in 396 trials - possible usa in 50s very conformist (McCarthyism) - this is limitation because means Asch effect not consistent across situations and time + tells us little about conformity in woman

What is evaluation point 3 of Asch reserach?

strength of research is support from other studies for effects of task difficulty - eg Lucas et al asked their participants to solve hard + easy maths problems - conformed more when problems where harder - shows Asch was correct in claiming that task difficulty is one variable that affects conformity

What is counter evaluation point 3 of Asch reserach?

however the study found conformity is more complex than Asch suggested - partcipants with high confidence in their maths ability conformed less on hard tasks than those with low confidence 
shows individual-level factors can influence conformity by interacting with situational variables eg task difficulty but Asch did not research this 

What are the spare evaluation points of Asch reserach?

weakness dependant on confederates being convincing as results invalid if believe being tricked - countered by Mori and Arai who overcame this problem by getting participants to wear special glasses and similar results were obtained which suggests Asch results were valid 

What are the two explanations for conformity?

two-process theory by Deutsch + Gerard - informational social influence and normative social influence

What is informational social influence?

form of influence which is the result of a desire to be right - looking to others as a way of gaining evidence about reality + may lead to internalisation 

What is additional information about ISI?

assumption that humans need to be right - about who has better information - you or the group - new situations we look for others about how to behave
occurs most when situation ambiguos - there is a crisis - we believe others to be experts 

What is normative social influence?

form of social influence where an individual conforms with the majority in order to gain approval or to do what is ‘normal’ behaviour for a group

What is additional information about NSI?

assumption that humans need to be liked - have a need for social companionship + fear of rejection - involves conforming in order to gain approval 
important condition is individual must believe they are under surveillance this means only conform in public but not necessarily internalise the view + does not endure over time 

What is an evaluation point for NSI?

research support - strength of NSI there is evidence to support it - eg when Asch interviewed his participants some said they conformed because they felt self-conscious and were afraid of disapproval shwoing they conformed to fit in - further demonstrated when Asch asked to write their answers conformity fell to 12.5% showing private answers changed normative pressure to conform

What is additional evaluation point for NSI?

furthermore NSI can be used to promote positive behaviour - Schultz et al used this power to persuade hotel guests to reuse their towels by simply informing ‘75% of guests choose to reuse their towels’ +p those told conformed more than those not told - showing people conform to what is considered to be normal group behaviour

What is an evaluation point for ISI?

research support - strength there is research evidence to support ISI - Lucas et al found participants conformed more often to incorrect answers when maths problems where difficult as situation is ambiguos + participants did not want to be wrong so relied on answers given - showing ISI is a valid explanation of conformity because results are what ISI would expect 

What is a counter evaluation point for ISI?

unclear whether ISI + NSI at work in research studies or in real life - eg Asch found conformity reduced when there was a dissenting participant - may reduce NSI power because they provide social support - or may reduce power of ISI because they provide alternate source of social information - therfore hard to seperate ISI + NSI and both processes probably operate together in most real-world conformity situations

What is another evaluation point for NSI?

limitation NSI does not predict conformity in every case - some people are greatly concerned with being liked - eg nAffiliators where McGhee + Teevan found these type lf students were more likely to conform - this shows that NSI underlies conformity for some people more than others - these are individual differences in conformity that cannot be fully explained by one general theory of situational pressures

What is another possible reason for conformity?

Turner makes criticism that two-process theory is simplistic + incomplete explanation as fails to consider factor of social identity - our nautral need to be liked and to be right does not explain every instance of conformity - instead we sometimes conform to a group because of our desire to belong to it known as referent social influence 

What is obedience?

type of social influence whereby somebody acts in response to a direct order from figure with perceived authority - implication person receiving order is made to respond in way that would not be done without the order

What is the key study of obedience?

Milgram (1963)

What is the procedure of Milgram?

aimed to see whether ordinary people would obey unjust command from person in authority + go as far to harm an innocent person
40 american men volunteered to take part on a study on memory - introduced to another participant (confederate) - drew lots to see if they will be the teacher or the learner which was fixed so participant always the teacher - an experimenter in lab coat was also presentan authority figure (experimenter) ordered participant (teacher) to give an increasingly strong shock to a learner located in a different room in 15 volts steps up to 450 volts - shocks were fake but teacher did not know this

What was the baseline findings of Milgram?

26 out of 40 participants (65%) continued to max 450 volts
all participants went to 300 volts
only five participants (12.5%) stopped at 300 volts
also qualitative collected based on observations eg most argued + showed signs of extreme tension including sweating

What other data did Milgram collect?

before experiment he asked psychiatrists + colleadues to predict how far his participants would go called presumptive consent - unanimously said most people would refuse to obey + only a few would go beyond 150 volts

What did Milgram conclude about obedience?

ordinary people are astonishingly obedient to authority + suggested committed due to situational factors + not dispositional factors meaning crimes committed by Nazis due to considerable pressure to obey an authority figure + not because Germans were in any way different from other people

What is the evaluation point 1 for on Milgram’s obedience study?

weakness is would lack internal validity if participants didn’t believe they were giving real shocks - Orne + Holland argued experiment lacked internal validity as situation was unreal - asked to deliver near fatal shocks for trivial reasons + therefore suspend own judgement + rely on experimenter judgement - Perry discovered many participants had been sceptical at time whether shocks were real - howether Milgram challenges saying distress shown by participants proved they did think was real + reported 75% of participants believed shocks were genuine - furthermore Sheridan + King found high levels of obedience when participants trained puppy using real electric shocks 54% of men + 100% of woman gave fatal shocks - therefore likely Milgrams research did have internal validity

What is the evaluation point 2 for on Milgram’s obedience study?

strength is research support for relationship between authority figure and the participant in real life situations - lab experiments often lack external validity but Hofling et al conducted a study in hospital - nurses asked over phone by unfamiliar doctor to administer 20mg of an unfamiliar drug with maximum dose of 10mg + 21 out of 22 would have obeyed - study demonstartes obedience to authority as found in Milgram’s lab study does occur in real-life settings + can be generalised to other situations

What is the counter evaluation point 2 for on Milgram’s obedience study?

however limitation is Milgram’s conclusions about blind obedience may not be justified - Hasam et al showed Milgram’s participants only obeyed when experimenter delivered first three prods + when experimenter used fourth prod (you have no other choice) participants disobeyed - according to social identity theory participants only obeyed when they identified with scientific aims of the research - showing SIT may be more valid interpretation of Milgram’s findings rather than situational factors encourage obedience

What are the three situational variables in obedience?

proximity + location (Milgram) + uniform
Milgram performed a number of variations on the basic experiment+ determined a number of situational variables that lead to more or less obedience

How does proximity affect obedience rates?

in baseline study could hear not see the learner
A - victim was in same room as participant (proximity to learner) - obedience drops to 40% as learner distress clearly seen
B - teacher has to place learners hand on shock plate (touch proximity) - obedience drops to 30% because makes more personal
C - experimenter not in same room (proximity to authority) - obedience drops to 20.5% + behaviour changed from original experiment
proximity allows people to psychogically distance themselves from the consequences of their actions eg in baseline less aware they were causing harm

How does location affect obedience rates?

original experiment in psychology lab at Yale University where prestigious location may have inspired confidence experimenter knew what he was doing + therefore affected outcomes
to examine the effects experiment was conducted in offices in Bridgeport away from university - obedience drops to 47.5% which suggests new location has less perceived authority
the location of prestigious university gave legitimacy + authority to study adding to perceived authority of experimenter

How does uniform affect obedience rates?

someone wearing a uniform may be perceived as having legitimate authority + more likely to obey their orders
Bickman 1974 - 3 confederates dressed in three outfits - jack and tie - milkman - security guard who stood in street and asked the public to perform tasks eg pick up rubbish - people were twice as likely to obey security guard (38%) as jack and tie confederate (18%) - decreased to 14% for milkman
uniform encourages obedience because we accept uniform entitles them to expect obedience because their authority is legitimate 

What is evaluation point one of situational variable in obedience?

research support for importance of uniform in perceived authority - Bushman found female assistant dressed in police-styled uniform had obedience rates of 72% asking strangers for money for a parking meter which lowered to 48% when dressed as a businesswoman - highlights power of uniforms in obedience + supports Milgram’s findings that visible signs of authority increase obedience - further demonstrated in a Milgram variation where experimenter with grey lab coat was replaced by confederate acting like member of public in ordinary clothes where obedience was at its lowest of 20% participants obeying

What is evaluation point two of situational variables in obedience?

criticism of research is that it offers an excuse for evil behaviour - Mandel criticises Milgram’s situational explanation for obedience + says explanation offers an ‘obedience alibi’ for evil behaviour - believes situational factros not always found in real-life events - eg 1942 Poland reserve police battalion carried out mass killing of Jews despite being in close proximity to victims - demonstrates factors do not decrease obedience in extreme situations - furthermore perspective overlooks role of dispositional factors ie some people may be more obedient either as a consequence of genetics or upbrining which may be just as important in determining whether people obey authority - suggests Milgram’s explanation based soley on situational factors likely to oversimplify causes of obedience - Mandel right to argue that attributing the Holocaust to situational pressures while ignoring role of disposition is offensive to survivors

What are the two explanations for obedience?

agentic state and legitimacy of authority

What is agentic state?

refers to way an individual may obey an order perhaps something they see as ‘wrong’ because individual hands over responsibility for outcome of their action to authority figure - proposed obedience to destructive authority occurs because a person does not take responsibility instead acting as an ‘agent' - where an agent acts for someone + feel moral strain 

What is the other state?

autonomous state - where an individual may shift from the autonomous state (where they take responsibility for own actions) to agentic state (where they act as an agent for another person) - Milgram called this the agentic shift + occurs when other person has greater power because of their position in social hierarchy where person attributes responsibility for consequences of their actions to authority figure - eg I was only obeying orders

What are binding factors?

Milgram observed many participants wanted to stop but seemed powerless to do so - he said we are socialised into acting agentically from very young age as we expect children to be obedient at home + school so we learn not to be rude or cause ourselves stress by questioning those with perceived authority - these factors keep us acting as agents of authority - therfore person can ignore damaging effect of their behaviour + reduce the ‘moral strain’ because they can ‘shift’ responsibility to the victim or the authority

What is legitimate authority?

a person perceived to be in position of social control within a situation - Milgram believes shared expectation among people that many situations have socially controlling figure so accept them - institutions such as schools + prisons seen as organisations that require people to obey whose who have legitimate authority - Milgram believes people allow legitimate authority to ‘define the situation’ which means we accept their version of reality - consequence is some people are granted the power to punish others

What is destructive authority?

problems arise when legitimate authority becomes destructive - history shows us charismatic + powerful leaders such as Hitler + Stalin have used their legitimate authority for destructive purposes - seen in Milgrams study when experimenter used prods to order participants to behave in ways that went against the participants consciences

What is an evaluation point for agentic state?

strength of explanation is Milgram’s own studies support the role of agentic state in obedience - majority of participants resisted giving shocks + questioned experimenter and if told he was responsible for the harm they would continue with no further objections showing that once participant perceived themselves no longer responsible they acted more as agents - however agentic shift is limited explanation because cannot account for all situations - Milgrams research showed a third of participants did not obey + these participants subjected to same hierarchies + therefore should have obeyed meaning its likely that individual differences may account for obedience diffrences - furthermore Milgram claimed found in real world  however Hofling et al study nurses did not show same level of anxiety - agentic state would predict a level of moral strain when ordered to do something immoral - therefore likely Agency Theory limited explanation as cannot explain obedience in all situations 

What is an evaluation point for legitimate authority?

research support for role of l authority in obedience - Blass and Schmitt found students who watched film of Milgrams study felt experimenter was responsible for harm - indicated responsibility was due to him being seen as legitimate authority - said seen as scientific + therefore expected authority - Milgram showed obedience down to 20% when repeated with replacement experimenter not wearing lab coat (visible sign of authority) showing presence of a legitimate authority can increase obedience - therefore legitimate authority can be useful  to explain cultural differences in obedience studies where structure of some countries along with how we raise our children explain differences - however limitation cannot explain disobedience when clear hierarchy is established where Milgrams disobedient paticipant seemed to recognise experimenters scientific authority but still disobeyed - likely some people may have innate tendencies to obey or disobey which have greater influence on behaviour rather than legitimacy of authority

What is another explanation for obedience?

Not complete explanation for destructive obedience such as genocide where dehumanisation can explain these real-life events better as shows us easier to obey destructive order if recipients are dehumanised - made lesser than human which makes them perceived to be deserving of treatment they received and gives person less moral strain - explanation supported by real life examples - eg Nazis portrayed Jewish people as subhuman and argued inferior race were a threat to them - therefore dehumanisation may be more likely explanation for destructive obedience rather than agentic state

What is ethical problems 1 in social influence research?

If misled or information withheld leads to deception and lack of informed consent - in Asch study believed taking part in visual perception and knew nothing of confederates meaning they were deceived- lack of informed consent as did not consent to take part in study of conformity - Milgram deceived participant by telling them were involved in study of effects of punishment and may not have agreed knowing the distress would cause them

What is ethical problems 2 and 3 in social influence research?

Should feel free to leave when they choose ie they have the right to withdraw - Milgram study was not clear had right to withdraw as said they would have known they could withdraw but were given verbal prods to encourage them to remain
Should not be placed at risk such as protection from psychological and physical harm - Diana Baumrind claimed Milgram placed people under great emotional distress - became extremely distressed at what they had done - resulting in loss of self-esteem - therefore participants gain new negative knowledge of themselves

What counters the ethical issues?

attempts of presumptive consent by seeking advice before and did not realise stress he would cause
participants debriefed + ensured behaviour normal - follow-up survey reported 84% were glad they are participated (Milgram) + APA investigated experiment and found it ethically acceptable

What are some reasons ethical issues occur?

cost-benefit could be done as reseach may be justified on grounds of what we learn meaning short-term cost on participants may be justified due to long-term gain for future generations 
social influence research may be invalid if participants suspect nature of experiment therefore deception may be justified as demand characteristics are reduced eg difficult for Asch to research conformity
research conducted when ethical guidelines had not been established so can be argued theses studies led to introduction of guidelines protecting future participants

What is the other explanation for obedience?

not everyone obeyed in Milgrams experiment so situational factors alone cannot fully explain obedience - Adorno believed high obedience in Holocaust was due to a psychological disorder rooted in individuals personality (authoritarian personality) - is dispostional explanation as attributes a person’s behaviour to individual characteristics rather than extrenal factors

What is the authoritarian personality?

charactised by strict adherence to conventional values,submission to authority and tendency to be hostile towards those perceived as inferior - Adorno argued this personality is especially susceptible to obeying people

How does AP lead to obedience?

show extreme respect for authority + view society weaker than it once was so believe we need powerful leaders to enforce traditional values such as love for country and family - have contempt for those of an inferior social status - these characteristics makes them more likely to obey orders from source of authority
have inflexible outlook on world - cognitive approach of no grey areas everything is either right or wrong + very uncomfortable with uncertainty - therfore believe people who are ‘other’ (eg belonging to a different ethnic group) responsible for ills of soceity as convienent target

What is the origin of the authoritarian personality?

believes origins found in our childhood - these people tend to be raised by extremely harsh parents with extreme strict discipline,expectation of absolute loyalty,impossibly high standards + use of physical punishment - parents only give love and affection when child behaved appropriately - these create resentment + hostility in a child but they cannot express these feelings directly against their parents due to fear of punishment - these fears are displaced onto others who are perceived as weaker called scapegoating which explains why people with AP tends to show hatred for people who are socially inferior - psychodynamic explanation

What was Adorno et al research?

study of more than 2000 middle-class white Americans + their unconscious attitude towards other racial groups - developed a scale that would measure potential for fascism called the F-scale - found those who scored high on F-scale tended towards authoritarian leanings

What is evaluation point 1 of authoritarian personality?

strength is research that supports link between obedience + authoritarian personality - Elms and Milgram interviewed 20 obedient participants from Milgrams study + 20 defiant participants and asked them to complete the F-scale + other peronality tests - also asked series of open-ended questions regarding relationships with parents + attitude to experimenter - found very little difference between general personality traits but 20 fully obedient participants score significantly higher on F-scale as regarded authority figure as more important than learner showing link between AP and obedience
howether obedient participants different to typical AP as did not glorify their fathers or experience unusual levels of punishments/hostile attitude to their mothers - furthermore link is correlation between two measured variables + is impossible to draw conclusion that AP causes obedience as could be other factors eg situational factors

What is evaluation 2 of the authoritarian personality?

limitation of AP as explanation for obedience as cannot explain obedient behaviour in majority of country’s population eg pre-war Germany millions of individuals displayed obedient + racist behaviour but have range of different personalities - seems extremely unlikely all could have AP - more likely explanation is social identity theory as majority of Germans identified with anti-semitic state + would scapegoated ‘outgroup’ of Jews - makes Adorno’s explanation limited as alternative explanation more realistic - furthermore F-scale limited as only measures tendency towards extreme right-wing ideology - Christie + Jahoda argued that this politically biases AP towards exreme right-wing behaviour but doesn’t take into account left-wing authoritarianism which also emphasises complete obdience to political authority - therefore Adorno’s theory is incomplete as doesn’t give a comprehensive dispositional explanantion for whole political spectrum

What are the two explanations of resistance to social influence?

social support (situational) and locus of control (dispositional)

How does social support affect resistance to conformity?

conformity can be resisted if other people do not conform - one situation people able to resist NSI when group power reduced by pressure of dissenter - if someone not following majority acts as social support - Asch found dissenter presence even if not right anwer caused a dramatic drop in conformity as social support enables people to be free to follow their own conscience as other people (or ally) act as model of independent behaviour as their dissent shows majority no longer unanimous

How does social support affect resistance to obedience?

can help people resist pressure to obey - if we have disobedient ‘model’ to copy this will free person to act according to their own conscience - in a Milgram variation real participant accompanied by 2 disobedient confederates + rate of obedience dropped from 65% to 10% - participants used defiance of peers to remove themselves from causing further harm - disobedient model challenges legitimacy of authority figure so makes it easier for others to disobey

What is locus of control?

refers to extent to which individuals believe they can control events in their lives where people with internal locus of control who believe they are in control of their own lives + mostly responsible for what happens to them - people with external locus of control feel their lives + actions are strongly influenced by luck,fate or other external circumstances where actions dependent on events outside their personal control - LoC is a continuum ranging from high internal LoC to high external LoC on the other end of the continuum

How does locus of control affect resistance to social influence?

people with high internal LoC are more able to resist pressure to conform or obey - if they take responsability for their actions they tend to base their decisions on their own beliefs rather than depending of opinions of others - have characteristics that make them resist: more self-confident , more achievement orientated + high intelligence - are active seekers of information that is useful to them + more likely to become leaders rather than follow others

What is evaluation 1 of resistance to social influence?

strength is research support that presence of dissenter increases resistance to conformity - Allen and Levine showed social support resulted in stronger resistance to pressure to conform - tested using an Asch type of experiment where social support offered by either a supporter who had poor or good eyesight despite the difference both of these provided participant with social support and in good eye condition 64% resisted pressure to conform + in poor eye condition 36% resisted which was significantly higher than control group at 3% - supports the view social support enables a person to be free from pressure of group - however Asch showed order of dissent important as if dissenter first there was more resistance to conformity compared to going 4th as tended to validate participants own judgment - shows may be other factors that affect resistance to conform other than just ally presence

What is evaluation 2 of resistance to social influence?

strength is research support for role of social support in disobedience - Mullen et al found when disobedient models broke law by jay-walking participants were more likely to jay-walk themselves - supports idea disobedient models increase social influence - further supported by Gramson et al who found higher levels of disobedience in groups which also supports idea - however individual differences may influence ability to disobey - Kohlberg showed moral reasons may be reason why peopl able to resist authority - gave a group of Milgrams volunteers imaginary moral dilemmas + found those who based decisions on general moral principles were more defiant in Milgram study - means social support may be an oversimplified reason for disobedience

What is evaluation 3 of resistance to social influence?

strength is research support than an internal locus of control increases resistance to obedience - Holland tested link between LoC + obedience - repeat of Milgrams study found 37% of internal LoC participants did not continue to highest shock level compared with 23% of the external LoC participants - means that internal LoC showed greater resistance to authority - Blass reanalysed data increase validity - But there is evidence that LoC is related to NSI but not ISI - Spector measured in LoC and predisposiiton to both social influences in 157 undergraduate students - found significant correlation between LoC + predisposition to NSI with externals more likely to conform - however was not the case with ISI + LoC was not significant factor in ISI means our views of LoC is limited when trying to understand how it affects resistance to social influence

What is evaluation 4 of resistance to social influence?

limitation of explanation for resistance is effect of LoC may be exaggerated - Rotter believes only comes into play in novel situations + has very little influence over behaviour in familiar - limitation of explanation as people typically behave the same way as they did before