Social Influence

Conformity definition

When an individual changes their behaviour, opinions or beliefs due to real or imagined group pressure

Explaination for conformity ISI

Informational social influence

• look to group of guidance to be correct or right

• More likely in uncertain/ambiguous situations

• Cognitive proccess which leads to internalisation - permanent change in behavoir

Explanation for conformity NSI

Normative social influence

• conformity to be liked and accepted by group

• Occours in situations of rejection or social approval

• And emotional process Which leads to a temporary change in behavoir from compliance - changing in public behavoir not private

Jenness

Study on conformity in an ambiguous task

• 101 psychology students

• Private estimate of jellybeans in jar

• Group discussion and estimate then another private estimate

• Found that final estimate moved towards group guess - ISI

Asch study

Procedure and results

Supportive evidence of NSI

• 123 Americans males undergrads believed they were doing visual test

• Always second from end

• 12 critical trials and 18 normal

• Found 32% conformed on critical trials

• 74% conformed on at least one trial

• 26% never conformed

• Was due to NSI as after study interview ppt said they were “afraid of disapproval”

Factor affecting conformity - private answers

In Asch experiment when answers were given privately conformity decreased form 32% to 12.5% showing that NSI is the main reason for conforming

Limitation of conformity - Individual differences

Jenness - females conform more often then males

Spector - those with external LOC are more likely to conform the internal

Variables affecting conformity - Group size

1 - 3%

2 - 13%

3 - 32%

7-9 - 32% (baseline)

15+ - 29%

Goes down due to screw you effect - demand characteristics as participants start to understand true aim

Variables affecting conformity - unanimity

Confederate gives correct answer - 5.5%

Confederate gives a different incorrect answer - 9%

Break in unanimity Ines ppt confidence to give different answer

Allen and Levine - resistance to conformity

Valid vs invalid support (Asch like task)

Dissenter had Good eyesight - 36% conformed

Dissenter had Bad eyesight - 64% conformed

Baseline - 97% conformed

Variables affecting conformity - task difficulty

Lines more similar in length (more difficult) - 45% conformed

More ISI occurred

Lucas et al.

Difficult and easy maths problems

Conformity higher on the harder math problem but conformity less in those who said they were better at maths

Bond and Smith

Conformity changes depending on culture

Collectivist - group over self - Fiji 58% conformed

Individualist - self over group - Belgium 14% conformed

Limitation of Asch - McCorthyism

Study done in 1951 in which sonically was very anti communist (McCorthyism) so being differing or the odd one out was dangerous so conformity is likley to be higher at this time

Perrin and spencer - replicated study in 1981 and conformity dropped to 0.25% suggesting finding were due to 1951 America - so Asch findings may not reflect conformity today

Obedience definition

Complying with the demands of an authority figure

Milgram (1963) - procedure and findings

Wanted to find out why Germans obeyed Hitler

Ppts - male volenteered given $4.50

Learner and teacher “randomly” selected

Given sample shock then had to shock learner when wrong

180v - learner complained of heart problems

300v - learner banged on wall

315v - learner refused to answer

Experimenter gave ‘prods’ such as ‘please continue’ ‘you have no other choice, you must go on’

Results - 100% of people went to 300v

65% to 450v - many shows severe distress - ‘full blown uncontrollable seizures’

Hofling - Proximity limitation

21/22 nurses administered an unknown drug, more then max dosage, due to an unknown doctors orders over the phone - real life setting proximity doesnt stop obeying authority

Situational variable affecting obedience - proximity (Milgram results)

When confederate administered shock - 92.5%

When learner and teacher in same room - 40%

When teacher forced hand onto shock plate - 30%

Orders over phone - 20.5%

Situational variable affecting obedience - location

A run down office building compared to Yale - 47.5%

Less prestigious so decreases legitimacy of authority

Situational variables affecting obedience - uniform

When experimenter taken away and replaced with ordinary member of the public in everyday clothes - 20%

Due to social hierarchy - uniforms add to legitimacy of authority

Bickman

Feild study - random people on street asked to do an easy task by:

Security guard - 76% (authority to punish)

Milkman - 47%

Plain clothed pedestrian - 30% (no higher in social hierarchy - some listen due to LoC)

Explanation for obedience - agentic state A01

Autonomous state (usual functioning state - behave independently and feel responsible for actions)

Agentic shift - Through binding factors (e.g uniform, prods, agreement) and moral strain (e.g nail biting, sweating - follow morality or not)

Agentic state (deny personal responsibility, believe we are ‘agent’ for authority figure - de-individualised - dont take responsibility for own actions)

Caspar et al. (2023)

Looked an pain signatures in brain when told to give shock or given choice too, when ‘obeying order’ pain signature was much less - evidence for agentic state

Limitations of agentic state

• 35% of people in milgrims experiment did not obey fully

• Some ppt can maintain autonomous state

• Some ppt still obeyed in autonomous state - e.g 20.5% phone or 30% hand on shock plate

• Agentic shift can only account for some obedience - best used long side others (e.g legitimacy of authority or authoritarian personality)

Legitimacy of authority - obedience A01

More likely to obey those we perceive to have authority over us, social hierarchy

Visible symbols - e.g uniform, location

Or position of power - e.g ability to punish, societal expectation

Blass (2012)

Strength of legitimacy of authority - cross culture difference

Meta analysis of Obedience changing based on country

South Africa - 87%

Italy - 85%

Germany - 85%

Australia - 28%

Explains difference across cultures as differences in socialisation or the social hierarchy

Dispositional explanation - authoritarian personality A01

Adorno et al.

• have extreme respect for authority

• Contempt for those of lower status

• Black and white thinking

• Highly conventional attitudes

• Belive socially is ‘going to the dogs’

(Thought bro be developed from harsh parenting - fear displaced onto ‘weak’ - so unquestioningly obey authority)

Mesure though f-scale (fascism scale) - correlation between authoritarian personality and collective triaits that lead to obedience

Strength of authoritarian personality - elms and Milgram

Interviewed small sample of people of fully obeyed - all completed f-scale and scored significantly higher then disobedient participants

Limitation of authoritarian personality - cannot be only explanation

65% of participants in milgrims study were fully obedient

Only 15-20% of people have authoritarian personality

Also those scoring low on f-scale should have e disobeyed immediately but 100% reached 300v

Limitation of authoritarian personality - acquiescence bias

F-scale phrased in a way which also mesures a tendency to agree (acquiesces) so its possible those who score highly dont have authoritarian personality but just are more agreeable

Resistance to social influence - social support A01

Situational factor

Social support is perception of assistance from others resisting social pressures

Conformity - dissenting ally acts as model for independent behaviour showing it is possible to resist group pressure, ally can give individuals confidence in own judgment (ISI) or make them feel less alone standing out (NSI)

Obedience - disobedient role model acs and model for independent behaviour giving courage to act on own conscience, also challenges legitimacy of authority figure and minimise perceived consequences - diffusion of responsibility

Strength of social support - milgrim

Variation of milgrims study

Two Confederates with native ppt left early

One left at 150v and 20% of ppt refused to continue

Other left at 210v and 60% of ppt refused to continue

Only 10% continued to max shock compared to 65% in orignal study

Limitation of social support - Asch

Who and when support is provided

Most research consists of strangers but evedience shows when OneNote is more emotionally close to dissenter, resistance increases due to trusting them

Asch also found the earlier the support is provided the more influençai al it is - when dissenting ally dissented later in study instead of from start conformity only dropped to 8.5% instead of 5.5%

Locus of control - A01

Rotter (1966) - LoC refers to extent in which indervidual believes they are in control of their own life - is a continuum

High external LoC - believe what happens to them is from external factors beyond their control (e.g luck, fate etc.)

High internal LoC - believe what happens they are responsive for what happens to them and rely on own judgement (e.g ability and effort)

This with higher internal are more likely to resist social influence as they take greater responsibility for their own actions and feel more self-confident so less need to seek approval, and can think more independently

Supportive evidence for LoC - 2 studies

Holland - obedience - milgrims baseline study

37% of pt with internal LoC were disobedient while only 23% of those with external were

Spector - conformity

Found students with high internal LoC were less likely to conform (but no diffrence with ISI)

Limitation of LoC - Twenge et al.

Contradictory evidence

Analysis of data found from 1960-2002 American individuals have become more external in their LoC but evidence also suggest that over time Americans have become more disobedient

Weakens suggestion that LoC changes resistance

Limitation of LoC - othe factors

Loc ignore other factors such as

Experience - only affects new situations, if conformed or obeyed in past likely will again despite LoC

Systematic proccessing - more likley to resist if given time to consider consequences

Morality - those with high moral considerations are more resistant - such as preist in milgrims study refused to obey saying he only obeyed god

Minority influence - A01

Persuasive minority changes attitudes, beliefs or behavoir of majority

Causes internalisation of minority viewpoint - social Change

Successful minority has commitment, consistency and flexibility

Commitment - willing to take risks or make personal sacrifice (e.g pay cut, prison) augmentation principle - beliefs seen as more valid, extreme activity’s also make majority pay attention , adds significance to view and shows dedication

Consistency - unchanging belief overtime (diachronic consistency) and through menbers (synchronic consistency) makes minority seem certain, credible and competent

Flexibility - inflexible minority’s can seem off-putting or too extreme/rigid, minority who adapt their views and accept reasonable counter arguments make majority more receptive

Strength of consistency

Moscovici

172 femal ppts - 36 blue slides

Consistent - two confederates said green on all trials - 8.4% said green

Inconsistant - said green 24/36 times - 1.25%

Control - 0.25%

But only 8.4% is still very low

Strength of minority - real life eg

Suffragettes

Strength of flexibility

Nemeth

Inflexible - argued for low rate of ski lift accident compensation and would not change - little or no effect

Flexable - argued for low rate but compromised slightly higher - more likely to change view

But very artificial research