PSYCHOLOGY: Social Influence

What is deception?

Deliberately misleading or withholding information from participants

What is (lack of) informed consent?

If a researcher chooses to deceive pps, they can't give informed consent. (as they are literally not informed)

What is (lack of) right to withdraw?

-Allows pps to withdraw all data from the experiment and it's results.
-Prevents damage to pps, as well as compensation for deception.

What is (lack of) confidentiality?

When identities are protected from public, using pseudonyms (fake names), allowing the pps privacy with their results.

What is (lack of) protection of harm?

Some experiments may deal with difficult and damaging topics, physically and emotionally.
(a pp should leave the experiment in the same state that they entered it in)

What is conformity?

Also known as 'majority influence'
An individual (or small group) is influenced to change their behaviour, attitudes and/or beliefs by a larger group (majority)

What are the types of conformity?

-Compliance
-Identification
-Internalisation

What is compliance?

When an individual agrees with the group publicly, but their private beliefs and views remain in disagreement - temporary conformity

What is identification?

Public and Private acceptance of majority influence in order to gain acceptance - generally temporary conformity

What is internalisation?

The individual has considered the views and beliefs of others and accepted them as their own, agreeing both publicly and privately - permanent conformity

Procedure of The Asch Paradigm (1951)

-123 male pps, who believed they were taking part in a visual perception test
-Groups of 6-8,
-Only one real pp per group, the rest would be stooges.
-Stooges would answer the question wrong on 12/18 of the trials (on critical trials)

Findings of The Asch Paradigm (1951)

-Average conformity rate was 32%
-75% of pps conformed on a least one critical trial
-25% of pps did not conform on a single trial
-5% of pps conformed every time

Conclusions of The Asch Paradigm (1951)

-Asch interviewed the pps following the study
-Pps said they conformed as they:
・Wanted to avoid ridicule
・Were having doubts
・Genuinely believed the others were right (some cases)

What is ISI?

Informational social influence - desire to be right

What is NSI?

Normative social influence - desire to be liked/fit it

How does personality effect Asch's Paradigm?

Some people are more susceptible to coformity than others, hence the 25% that never conformed and the 5% that always conformed.

Asch's Variations: Group size - Procedure

1:1 - conformity rate of 3%
2:1 - conformity rate of 13%
3:1 - conformity rate of 32%, same as original study, and remains similar for other combinations.

Asch's Variations: Group size - Conclusions

3 is a significant figure, as increasing group size further yields similar results.
NSI and ISI felt strongly in smaller group.

Asch's Variations: Uninamity - Procedure

Variation 1: Use of 'dissenter' who gives correct answer, instead of the wrong one - 32% to 5.5%

Variation 2: Dissenter gives wrong answer but different to rest of confederate - 32% to 9%

Asch's Variations: Unanimity - Conclusions

Having an ally - i.e someone who goes against the majority - frees us from the constraints of conformity
Feeling less like 'the odd one out'

Asch's Variations: Task difficulty - Procedure

Asch made the lines similar to each other, making the comparison, and therefore the task more difficult.

Conformity rate increased from 32%↑

Asch's Variations: Task difficulty - Conclusions

The more difficult the task, the more we look to other for help, i.e conformity increases due to 'desire to be right' - ISI

Evaluation of Asch's Paradigm and variations - task validity

-Artificial task in artificial environment - task may not reflect real 'conformity'
-Participants didn't want to risk ridicule from others
-Could be argued groups were also artificial, not representative of real life
(Asch argued that the signs of stress displayed by pps meant that they did take the situation seriously, and not displaying demand characteristics)

Evaluation of Asch's Paradigm and variations - Lack of variation

Pps were all:
-All male
-University students (around the same age)
-Of similar political views
NOT REPRESENTATIVE

Evaluation of Asch's Paradigm and variations - 'Child of its time' and Cultural differences

-McCarthyism scare - Communism becomes a major fear for the American people
-Idea of conformity now scares people, under fear of being labelled 'communist'
-Experiment yielded different results in different place - the more collectivist a culture, the higher conformity rate.
-TEMPORARY VALIDITY

Evaluation of ISI

-Jeanne's study: pps given an 'ambiguous' task with no clear / obvious answer (guessing how many jellybeans are in a jar etc.)
-When individuals were allowed to change their answers after hearing other pps guesses, they moved their estimates to match the others.
-Pps looked to others for guidance.

Evaluation of the NSI

-Replication of Asch's study, with pps writing their answers, instead of saying them out loud.
-Conformity rates dropped to 12.5%
-Individual differences in NSI - not everyone is concerned about being liked

Zimbardo: Stanford prison experiment - Method

-24 Male university student pps
-Volunteered through newspaper ad
-Assessed on emotional and physical stability
-Randomly allocated into two roles: prisoner and guard
-Experiment was set to run for two weeks

Zimbardo: Stanford prison experiment - Role of a prisoner

-Arrested from their homes
-Finger printed, stripped and given a nylon stocking cap and numbered smock, with chained ankles
-Informed of their rights: 3 meals, 3 supervised toilet visits and 2 visits per week.

Zimbardo: Stanford prison experiment - Role of a guard

Given:
-Uniform
-Dark reflective sunglasses
-Handcuffs
-Truncheon
Told to 'maintain order'

Zimbardo: Stanford prison experiment - Results

-Both prisoners and guards quickly identified with their social roles
-Prisoners rebelled and guards became increasingly abusive towards them.
-Prisoners were dehumanised and punished for 'bad behaviour'
-Five prisoners were released early, due to physical and metal suffering. (right to withdraw)
-Experiment terminated after 5 days

Zimbardo: Stanford prison experiment - Conclusion

-People conform quickly to assigned social roles
-Situational factors were largely responsible for the behaviour found.

Zimbardo: Stanford prison experiment - Dual Role

-Meant that the experiment carried on for longer, as Zimbardo took up the role of 'researcher' and 'prison-superintendent'
-Zimbardo could therefore, not remain objective, as he had too much involvement within the experiment

Zimbardo: Stanford prison experiment - Demand Characteristics

-Pps 'playing a part' - not actually identifying with roles, and instead following along with the experiment, to please Zimbardo
-Guard nicknamed 'John Wayne' said he was inspired by the film Cool Hand Luke.

Zimbardo: Stanford prison experiment - Situational or dispositional?

-Zimbardo argued that the results of the experiment were dispositional, as pps didn't display similar behaviours in checks before the experiment.
-However, Haslam and Reicher argued the results were down to disposition.
-Guards ranged from 'sadistic' to 'good guards', showing possible effects of personality on the results.

Zimbardo: Stanford prison experiment - Rechier and Haslam's replication

-When replicating Zimbardo's experiment, pps did not conform to their social roles as well as they did in Stanford
-Prisoners had an uprising, causing a power shift, and a collapse of the prison system
-Conformity to social roles is not an automatic response, as Zimbardo had implied it to be.

Zimbardo: Stanford prison experiment - Random allocation

-Randomly allocated pps into their groups, eliminating researcher bias.
-Reduced experimenter variables

Milgram: Obedience - Original study - Set up

-40 male American pps, recruited through newspaper, as volunteers (Opportunity sampling)
-Paid $4.50 to take part
-'Paired' with Mr Wallace (stooge) and 'randomly' assigned role of teacher

Milgram: Obedience - Original study - Content

-'Student' given list of varied words to memorise
-'Teacher' would then ask the learner to recall these words
-If a pair was wrong, 'learner' would be shocked, starting at 15 volts, going up in increments of 15 to 450V
-At 300V, learner bangs on the wall and complains.
-After 315V is reached, 'learner' becomes irresponsive

Milgram: Obedience - Original study - Results

Quantitative:
-100% of pps went up to at least 300V
-65% continued to the full 450V
Qualitative:
-Pps displayed sweating, discomfort, trembling etc. (typical signs of distress and tension)

Milgram: Obedience - Original study - Conclusion

Under the right circumstances, ordinary people will obey unjust orders from someone perceived as a legitimate authority figure.

Milgram: Obedience - Situational Variables - Proximity of the learner

-Leaner and Teacher placed in same room
-Obedience of pps up to full voltage dropped from 65% to 40%
-More difficult to act in an agent state, as pps could see Student

Milgram: Obedience - Situational Variables - Proximity to authority figure

-Experimenter was moved out of the room and gave instructions verbally, over the telephone
-Obedience fell from 65% to 20.5%
-Absence of legitimate authority, making it easier to remain in an autonomous state

Milgram: Obedience - Situational Variables - Location

-Original study took place in Yale University, so location was moved to rundown office building
-Obedience dropped from 65% to 47.5%
-Yale represents 'legitimate authority', with it's prestigious setting and authority status
-Once the authority is removed, people feel less pressured to obey

Milgram: Obedience - Situational Variables - Uniform

-In the original, the experimenter was dressed in a white lab coat, to represent authority
-In this variable, the experimenter is dressed in normal clothes
-Obedience dropped from 65% to 20%
-Uniform is a symbol of authority

Milgram: Obedience - Ethics

-Use of deception - to create believable environment
-Milgram states it was necessary and negates the deception through a thorough debriefing
-Milgram also lacked protection of pps, as they were in distress and concerned states during the experiment
-Milgram said that people were criticising the 'finding and not methodology'

Milgram: Obedience - Methodology

-Control - systematically changed one variable, maintaining a high level of control
-Demand characteristics - pps 'knew' the student wasn't in pain, Milgram suggested otherwise, due to physiological signs of stress displayed by pps
-Sample - not varied enough

Milgram: Obedience - Obedience alibi

-Study may offer an excuse for 'evil behaviour'
-Suggest that behaviour is beyond control

Bickman (1974): Uniform

-Confederates asked if people on street could pick up litter or provide a coin for a parking meter
-Stooge either wearing smart suit or security guard's uniform
-Twice as likely to obey order when stooge is dressed as guard.

What is an Agentic state?

When an individual acts on behalf of an authority figure - feels less personal responsibility

Wha is an Autonomous state?

When an individual is acting independently - more likely to feel personally responsible

Explanation for Obedience: Milgram on blame

-Milgram conducted a variation, in which pps were told that they were personally responsible for what happened to the student. Almost no pps obeyed.
-The pps who refused to shock Mr Wallace were more likely to when assured that the experimenter (not them) took full blame for their actions.

Explanation for Obedience: Discussion/Commentary

-Schmitt (2001) showed a video of Milgram's study, and pps identified that the experimenter was to blame, not the pp.
-Limited - personality differences
-Pps in Milgram's study can be described to be in an agent state.

Legitimacy of Authority: Why do people obey?

-Most places have an established social hierarchy, by which certain positions have power over others (police officers, parents, teachers)
-THe authority seems legitimate as it has been agreed on by society
-UNIFORM can act as a symbol of this authority

Legitimacy of Authority: Discussion/Commentary

-Yale office variation of Migram - 65% to 47.5% - removal of 'legitimacy'
-Bickman - twice as likely to obey when asked by uniform
-Hofling - 21/22 nurses obeyed possibly 'dangerous' orders of doctor
-Milgram's replications:
-16% in Australia
-85% in Germany
CULTURAL DIFFERENCES

What is an Authoritarian personality?

-Submissive to those who are superior
-Hostile to those who. believe them to be inferior to them
-Hold fixed and distinctive stereotypes about groups of people
-Rigid and inflexible in their thinking and behaviour
-Highly politcal

How is the Authoritarian personality measured?

F-Scale (fascism) - respondents rate agreement to statements, such as 'if people would talk less and work more, everybody would be better off'

Why does the Authoritarian personality develop?

-Parenting style - 'conditional love'
-Repression of hostility causes displacement of strong emotions

Authoritarian Personality: Elms and Milgram (1966)

-Follow up study with 20 'obedient' pps, found they scored higher on the F-Scale
-Less educated = AP
-Situational variables - location more influential than AP in obedience
-F-Scale may be prone to social desirability bias

What is Resistance to social influence?

The ability of some people to withstand the social pressure and either NOT CONFORM to the majority or NOT OBEY the authority figure.

What is Social Support?

The idea that when an illy is present, people can resist the pressure to conform/obey much easier

Resistance to conformity - presence of an 'ally'

Unanimity of a group is broken by the presence of an ally, releasing the person from the pressures of SI (social influence)

Resistance to obedience - presence of an 'ally'

Disobedient 'ally' acts as a role model - the larger the group gets, the more people want to join (safety in numbers + diffusion of responsibility, leads to less consequences felt)

Asch's variation - Resistance to conformity

-'Dissenter' now included in the group, who broke away from the conformity of the other stooges by proving a different answer (correct or incorrect)
-Conformity dropped from 32% to 5.5% (when correct answer is given)
-32% to 9% (when answer is incorrect)

Asch's variation - Conclusions

Having an ally frees us up from the constraints of conformity and social influence.

Milgram's variation - Social support within obedience

-Real pp additionally paired with two other 'teachers' (also confederates)
-Stooges refused and withdrew from experiment early
-Obedience to 450V dropped from 65% to 10%

Milgram's variation - Conclusions

If the pp has support from a disobedient ally, they are more likely to resist the pressure of an authority figure

What is the Locus of Control? (LOC)

A scale which determines the amount of control a person believes they have over their life (dispositional)
High Internal = Lots of control - More RESISTANT to SI
High External = Little control - not RESISTANT to SI

LOC Holland (1967) - Dispositional effects

-Repeated Milgram's original study
-37% of internals 'resisted' obedience
-23% of externals resisted obedience b

Evaluation of LOC

-Spectre - LOC only affects NSI not ISI
-People have become more external over time, but have a higher resistance to obedience
-Rotter (1982) - LOC is only affective in unfamiliar situations - familiarity needs to be factored in

What is minority influence?

When a smaller group of(1 person or a small group) persuade a larger group (the majority) to change their beliefs, attitudes and behaviours

What three factors allow minority influence to occur?

-Consistency
-Flexibility (compromise)
-Commitment (sacrifice)

What is Consistency?

The minority speaks with a single voice with no contradictions (they are unanimous)

What is synchronic consistency?

The minority are all in agreement.

What is diachronic consistency?

The minority holds the same view point over time - not wavering in their message

What is flexibility?

'Compromise' - if minority is viewed as co-operative and reasonable, it leads to a better chance at changing the majority's views

What is commitment?

'Sacrifice' - Show dedication to a view point, involving a personal sacrifice

Evaluation of Minority Influence

-Nemeth - flexible confederate on 'Ski lift compensation claim' - TIMING IS KEY!
-Minority Influence is rare!!
-Moscovici - pps showed NOT green, then consistent minority insisted was green - 8.42% said green
-Minority seen as deviant - people like the majority more
-Health care - consistent message!!

What is Social Change?

-Begins with minority influence (consistent, flexible, committed)
-Cognitive conflict as a result
-'Snowball effect'
-Conformity - people want to stick with the new majority - NSI and ISI

What is the Snowball effect?

When members of the majority slowly move to the minority, 'snowballing' social change.

What is social cryptoamnesia?

Where individuals forget the original source of the change.

Evaluation of Social Change?

-Research support for normative influences- Nolan et al - people lowered energy consumption when they thought others were too - majority power!
-Real life support - #MeToo, Civil Rights etc.
-Minority influence is indirectly effective - Doesn't usually work!
-Minority often viewed in a negative light by others (especially majority)

Evaluation of Zimbardo Stanford prison experiment - Ethics

-Ethically, Zimbardo's experiment was grey.
-Consent was ambiguous
-But experiment passed through Stanford Ethics board.

Evaluation of Zimbardo Stanford prison experiment - Negatives

-Dual role - Zimbardo took on both 'researcher' and 'prison superintendent' - he got too involved in the experiment, causing the prison to run longer, despite the pps suffering.
-Demand characteristics - pps were just playing a part, give a role to play so they understood how to act.
-The conformity into roles doesn't always happen - Reicher and Haslam (2006)

Evaluation of Zimbardo Stanford prison experiment - Positive

-Real world application - some beneficial reforms in the ways prisoners were treated, however long term impact was limited.
-Use of random allocation - situation not personality.

Milgram: Obedience of authority - Method

-40 male American Yale students
-All pps volunteered and paid $4.50
-On arrival, they met the 'researcher' and 'participant', Mr Wallace (both confederates)
-'Drew lots' to decide on which role, but outcome was fixed so pp would always be 'teacher' administering shocks.

Milgram: Obedience of authority - Research

-Pps asked Mr Wallace to recall a list of words, if he got any wrong then he would be shocked, in increasing increments of 5V, starting at 15V
-Maximum voltage was 450V
-At 300V, 'leaner' would bang on wall and complain
-After 315V, 'learner' would become irresponsive.

Milgram: Obedience of authority - Results

Quantitive (measurable):
-100% of pps went to at least 300V
-65% continued to the full 450V
Qualitative (non-mesurable):
-Signs of distress and tension
-Stuttering
-Sweating
-Trembling

What is Obedience?

A form of social influence that is in direct response to an order from another person who is seen to be in a position of authority.

Milgram's Variations: Proximity of the learner

Teacher and leaner placed in the same room. Teacher could see distress caused by shocks.
Pps who administered full 450V dropped from 65% to 40%

Milgram's Variations: Proximity of the teacher

The authority figure was placed in a different room.
Obedience rates fell from 65% to 20.5%

What is an agentic state?

People see themselves as agents of others (i.e. an authority figure) so their own individual conscience and morality does not operate.

What is an autonomous state?

Where you are acting on your own opinion and are aware that you are responsible for your actions

Milgram's Variations: Location

-Original study took part in Yale University
-Changed location to rundown office building.
Obedience rate dropped from 65% to 47.5%