chapter 1 Social Influence

conformity

results from exposure to the majority position and leads to compliance — tendency for people to adopt the behaviour, attitudes and values from other groups

compliance

accepts influence in hope of achieving respect from others and avoid social disapproval

→ agree in public but disagree in private

internalisation

accepts influence as content of the attitude or behaviour proposed is consistent with their own value system

→ agree in public and private (permanent change in opinion)

identification

where an individual adopts an attitude or behaviour because they want to be associated with a particular group or person

normative social influence

an individual confirms with the expectations of the majority in order to gain approval or to avoid social disapproval

informational social influence

the result of the desire to be right - looking to others as a way of gaining evidence about reality

why is it difficult to distinguish between compliance and internalisation? (evaluation)

P - relationship between compliance and internalisation is complicated, difficulty knowing when each is taking place

E - assumed that a person who publicly agrees with a majority but disagrees in private, is demonstrating compliance rather than internalisation

E - possible that acceptance of groups views has occurred in public but disagreed later in private, could be due to forgetting information (resulting change in view)

L - demonstrates the difficulty in determining what is and what is not simply compliance rather than internalisation

research to support for normative social influence (evaluation)

P - US research supported the important role played by normative beliefs in shaping behaviours

E - study found adolescents exposed to the message that the majority of their age did not smoke, subsequently lead to them less likely to take up smoking

E - another study, found hotel guests exposed to normative message that 75% of guests reused their towels (indication of energy conservation) reduced own towels use by 25%

L - studies support claim that people shape their behaviour in desire of fitting in with their reference group

research support for informational social influence (evaluation)

P - studies demonstrated how to exposure to other people’s belief and opinions can shape many aspects of social behaviour and beliefs

E - studies found participants exposed to negative information about African Americans (believe view of the majority), later reported more negative attitudes toward black individuals

E - research shown informational social influence can shape political opinion, participants saw reactions of their fellow participants on screen during presidential debate

L - information produce large shifts in judgements of candidates performance, shows the importance of informational influence in shaping social influence

Asch study of conformity

wanted to assess to what extent people will conform to others opinions, even in a situation where the answer is certain (unambiguous)

Asch study of conformity - procedure

* 123 male US undergraduates
* participates were seated around a table and asked to look at 3 lines of different lengths
* all but 1 were confederates
* chose which of the 3 lines they thought was the same length as the standard line
* real participant answered 2 to last
* confederate always gave obvious wrong answer

Asch study of conformity - findings

* 33% of participants over a replicated experiment, conformed to obvious wrong answer
* 26% of participants did not conform to any of the replicated experiments
* when no confederates, less than 1% of participants conformed
* 1/2 conformed on 6 or more critical trails
* 1/20 of participants conformed on all 12 trials

Asch study of compliance - conclusions

participants demonstrated compliance due to normative social influence

Asch variations of his original study

group size, unanimity and task difficulty

group size (Asch)

• smaller groups of 1 or 2 confederates = very little conformity

• under pressure of a majority of 3 confederates = conforming responses increased 30%

—> further increases of size did not change anything significantly

unanimity (Asch)

• when real participant was supported by either another real participant or a confederate

• conformity levels dropped, reducing wrong answers from 33% to 5.5%

task difficulty (Asch)

the differences between the line lengths got smaller, the level of conformity increased

• Lucas et al (2006) suggest influence of task difficulty is due to self-efficiency of an individual

→ high-self efficiency participants (confident in own abilities) remained more independent compared to low-self efficiency

did participants show more independent behaviour than conformity? (evaluation)

P - 1/3 of the trials where the majority unanimously gave the same wrong answer produced a conforming response

E - 2/3 of the trials, participants resolutely stuck to their original judgement despite an overwhelming majority expressing a different view

E - Asch believed that, rather than showing human beings to be overly conformist (wanted to demonstrate it)

L - study demonstrated a commendable tendency for participants to stick to what they believe to be correct judgement

could there be cultural differences in conformity? (evaluation)

P - research suggests there are more important cultural differences in conformity, therefore might expect different results from other cultures

E - Smith et al analysed the results of Aschs studies across cultures, average conformity rate was 31.2%

E - average conformity rate for individual cultures was 25%, whereas collective cultures was 37%

L - suggests that the reason that a higher level of conformity arises in collective cultures, because viewed more favourably (binds community together)

criticism of Asch study of conformity

* only men tested so it could be different results for women
* done with US citizens meaning that it is limited to US culture (1956)


* more tolerant of different opinions in modern society (more accepting culture)

social roles

the behaviours expected of an individual who occupies a given social position or status

Zimbardo conformity into social roles

wanted to know why prisons guards behave brutally

• was it sadistic personalities or their social role that created their behaviour

Stanford Prison Experiment - procedure (Zimbardo)

* mock prison set up in psychology department basement in Stanford University
* 24 male student volunteers who were considered most stable were selected
* were randomly assigned to play role of prisoner or guard
* prisoners given an assigned ID number
* guards were given uniform, whistles and reflective sunglasses
* Zimbardo was the prison Superintendent
* experiment planned to last 2 weeks

Stanford Prison Experiment - findings (Zimbardo)

* guards grew increasingly abusive towards the prisoners, adjusting to role of power
* prisoners were forced to do degrading activities - some guard's volunteered for unpaid hours
* 5 prisoners released early, extreme reactions (rage/crying/anxiety)
* study terminated after 6 days
* showed 3 types of guards (tough but fair, good guards and evil guards)

—> showed people conform to roles of power despite it going against what is morally correct

—> those with no power follow what those in power tell them to (submission/obedience to authority)

BBC prison study (Reicher and Haslam 2006)

randomly assigned men to role of guards or prisoners and examined their behaviour within a specially created 'prison'

BBC prison study - procedure

* 15 male participants were divided in 5 groups of 3 people (closely matched on key personality variables)
* 1 person from each group of 3 was chosen to be a guard


* was to run for 8 days

BBC prison study - findings

* participants did not conform automatically to their assigned role
* prisoners increasingly identified as a group and worked collectively to challenge authority


* guards failed to identify with their role, made them reluctant to impose their authority

—> led to shift of power and the collapse of the prisoner-guard system

similarities between the BBC prison study and SPE

* had mock prison with guards and prisoners
* both had male participants

differences between the BBC prison study and SPE

* ethical committee on-site throughout BBC study
* guards had less authority in BBC study (reduced power)

is conforming to social roles automatic? (evaluation)

P - researchers challenged Zimbardo’s belief that the guards’ drift into sadistic behaviour was an automatic consequence of them embracing their role

E - pointed that in the SPE, guard behaviour varied from being fully sadistic to ‘good guards’ who didn’t degrade or harass the prisoners

E - implied that each guard was affected differently by the psychological experiment

L - researchers argue that this shows that the guards chose how to behave, rather than blindly conforming to their social role, as suggested by Zimbardo

did participant really conform or did they do what they thought Zimbardo wanted them to do? (evaluation)

P - researchers argued the the behaviour of participant in SPE was a consequence of demand characteristic than conformity to roles

E - presented some detail of the SPE procedure to a large sample of students who had never heard of the experiment

E - majority guessed correctly that the purpose was to show that ordinary people assigned the role of guard or prisoner would act as if they were actually the role

L - questions the reliability of Zimbardos Stanford Prison Experiment

obedience to authority

somebody acts in response to a direct order from a figure with perceived authority

obedience (Milgram)

wanted to know why a high proportion of the German population obeyed Hitlers commands

Milgram obedience experiment - procedure

* 40 american men volunteered to take part in a study (supposedly on memory)
* were introduced to another participant (confederate)
* drew lots to see who would be the 'teacher' and 'learner'
* draw was fixed (participant was always the 'teacher') an 'experimenter' was involved
* teacher required to test learner on ability to remember word pairs
* every wrong answer, teacher had to give increasingly strong electric shocks
* maximum volts was 450V in 15V increments
* learner mainly gave wrong answers and received fake shocks in silence until 300V
* if teacher asked to stop, experimenter had series of statements to repeat

Milgram obedience experiment - findings

* psychiatrists, college students and colleagues predicted how long participants would go before refusing to continue
* 3 groups predicted few would go beyond 150V + 1/1000 to 450V
* 65% continued to max shock level (450V)
* all participants went to 300V, 12.5% stopped there (where the learner first objected)

Milgram obedience experiment - conclusion

most likely a person is obedient to somebody who has an authoritative role

situational factors in obedience (Milgram)

proximity, location and power of uniform

proximity

both teacher and learner were seated in the same room (obedience fell 40%)

touch proximity (proximity variation)

force learners hand onto a shock plate (rate dropped a further 30%)

experimenter absent (proximity variation)

* experimenter gave instructions over the phone (only 21% continuing maximum shock level)
* some participants pretended to increase the shock but remained on lowest level

location

* originally located in psychology laboratory at Yale University, participants remarked that the location of the study gave confidence in the integrity of people involved

—> some indicated they wouldn't have shocked the learner if it was carried out elsewhere

* moved down to run-down office on Connecticut, obedience rates dropped slightly (48% delivering 450V)

the power of the uniform (Bushman 1988)

* uniform indicates power and authority
* Bushman carried out an experiment where a female researcher dressed in police-style, business executive or beggar uniform


* she stopped people in the street and told them to give a male researched money for an expired parking meter
* 72% obeyed, less as a business executive (48%) or a beggar (52%)

does Milgrams study lack internal validity? (test what its set out to test) (evaluation)

P - researchers claimed that participants have learned to distrust experimenters because they know the true purpose is disguised

E - another researcher discovered Milgrams study has been sceptical at the time to whether the shocks were real (researcher divided participants into ‘doubters’ and ‘believers’

E - found it was the believers who were more likely to disobey the experiment and give low intensity shocks

L - findings challenged the validity of Milgrams study and suggests that when faced with the reality of destructive obedience, people are more likely to disobey an authority figure

does Milgrams study have historical validity (evaluation)

P - Milgrams study was carried out over 50 years ago meaning it might not hold the same validity it once did

E - researcher carried out statistical analysis of obedience studies between 1961-1985, correlational analysis relating to each studies year of publication and obedience levels (no relationship found)

E - recent study, found levels of obedience almost identical to Milgrams study years earlier

L - findings suggest that Milgrams findings still appear to apply as much today as they did back in early 60s (has historical validity)

explanations of obedience

agentic state and legitimacy of authority

agentic state in Milgram's study

experimenter had prepared specific lines when the 'teacher' wished to end the trial - it is absolutely essential that you continue

agentic state

person acts as an agent on behalf of a person of an authority figure

factors needed for agentic state

self-image and binding factors

self-image

• adopt an agentic state in the need to maintain a positive self-image

• action no longer responsible, does not reflect social-image

—> actions performed are guilt-free

binding factors

* social etiquette that regulates the behaviour
* to break off the experiment, participants much breach the commitment that they made

—> subject fear that if they break off, will appear arrogant/rude, these emotions bind the learner to obedience

legitimacy of authority

a person who is perceived to be in a position of social control within a situation

legitimate authority requires an institution

hierarchy of power is important in expressing levels of legitimate authority

did Milgram just detect signs of cruelty rather than obedience (evaluation)

P - believed that the idea of the agentic state best explained his finding, did concede other possibilities

E - common belief among social scientists is that he detected signs of cruelty among his participants who had used the situation to express sadistic impulses

E - belief was substance given substance by the SPE carried out by Zimbardo and colleagues, within a few days guards inflicted rapidly escalating cruelty on submissive prisoners (no authority figure instructing them to)

L - suggests that obedience might be explained in terms of agentic state, obedience behaviour may be due to some more fundamental desire to inflict harm on others

legitimate authority explanation and real-life obedience (evaluation)

P - despite positive consequences of obedience to legitimate authority, legitimacy can serve as the basis for justifying the harming of others

E - if people authorise another person to make judgments for them about what is appropriate conduct, no longer feel that their own moral values are relevant to their conduct

E - as a result, when directed by legitimate authority figure to engage in immoral activities, people are alarmingly willing to do so

L - consequence of this is that people may readily engage in unquestioning obedience to authority, no matter how destructive and immortal are the actions called for

authoritarian personality

distinct personality pattern characterised by strict adherence to conventional values and a belief in absolute obedience or submission to authority

origins of authoritarian personality- step 1

child experiences strict parenting - parents are critical of the children and use harsh discipline

origins of authoritarian personality- step 2

parent expect extreme loyalty and have high standards of achievement

origins of authoritarian personality- step 3

offer conditional type of love which the child only gets if they behave correctly

origins of authoritarian personality- step 4

Freud suggested we learn moral values through identification with parents values

—> child with strict parents takes these values and expects people to behave like this

—> child has a strong dislike to those who don't fit in with these values

origins of authoritarian personality- step 5

child feels anger towards their parents but can't act on this anger due to fear of punishment

—> displace anger on these who they see as lower than them

conventionalism

stick to stereotypical norms and values

authoritarian aggression

aggressive feelings for those who violate the norms

authoritarian submission

submission to a legitimate authority without challenge

F scale (California F Scale/Fascism Scale)

developed as a measure of authoritarian traits or tendencies

fascism

having extreme right political views (right-wing authoritarianism)

right-wing authoritarianism

cluster of personality variables (authoritarian aggression + submission) that are associated with 'right-wing' attitude to life (capitalism)

—> highly submissive to their authority figure, act aggressively in name of authorities and is an conformist in thought and behaviour

Elms and Milgram (1966) - key study

• Milgram's study of obedience

• whether behaviour emerged only under specific situational conditions or whether it was dispositional (result of personality pattern)

dispositional

explanations of behaviours such as obedience emphasise them being caused by an individual's own personal characteristics rather than situational influences within the environment

Elms and Milgram (1966) - procedure

* follow up study using participants who had previously taken part in Milgram's experiments
* selected 20 'obedient' participants and 20 'defiant' participants


* completed the MMPI scale and California F scale to measure levels of authoritarian


* asked questions about their relationships with their parents during childhood

Elms and Milgram (1966) - findings

• higher levels of authoritarianism among participants classified as obedient

• significant difference between obedient + defiant that were consistent with idea of authoritarian personality

• obedient participants, saw the authority figure as more admirable, learner less for

—> not the case among defiant participants

Elms and Milgram (1966) - conclusion

implies that the obedient group was higher on the trait of 'authoritarianism'

is social context more important than personality? (evaluation)

P - Milgram accepted that there might be a dispositional basis to obedience and disobedience, did not believe for this was strong

E - Milgram showed variations in the social context for the study (e.g proximity) were the primary cause of differences in participants’ levels of obedience, not variation of personality

E - believed specific social situation participants found themselves in caused them to obey or resist regardless of their personalities

L - relying on an explanation of obedience based purely on authoritarianism lacks the flexibility to account for these variations (Milgram 1974)

does education play a role in an authoritarian personality? (evaluation)

P - research had generally found that less-educated people are consistently more authoritarian than the well educated

E - Milgram found that participants with lower levels of education tended to be more obedient than those in higher levels of education

E - suggests that instead of authoritarianism causing obedience, lack of education could be responsible for both authoritarianism and obedience

L - as a result, any apparent casual relationship between authoritarianism and obedience maybe more illusory than real

resistance to social influence

resistance to social influence may lie with the social support provided by others or specific personality characteristics

social support

perception that an individual has assistance available from other people, they are part of as supportive network

social support and resisting conformity

social support breaks the unanimous position of the majority and it allows the naive participants to see other ways of thinking as they feel free to follow their own conscience

social support and resisting obedience

pressure to obey can be resisted if there is another person who is seen to disobey

—> 1 of Milgram's variations with a disobedient confederate (obedience dropped to 10% carrying out 450V)

does social support help adolescents resist conformity pressures from the majority? (evaluation)

P - study showed that social support provided by friends adolescents resist conformity pressures from the majority

E - individuals with a majority of friends who drank alcohol were significantly more likely to have engaged in drunkenness and binge drinking (last 12 months)

E - however, found individuals were able to resist pressures to drink alcohol when a friends or 2 resisted

L - consisted with lab-based experiments on social influence, shows social support offered by non-drinking friends decrease the odds of non-drinker consuming alcohol (even with conformity pressures of a drinking majority)

locus of control

people differ in their beliefs about whether the outcomes of their actions are dependent on what they do (internal) or an event outside their personal control (external)

high internal locus of control

* believe they control the events in their life (more independent)
* what happens to them is a consequence of their own actions and ability (competitive + confident)

high external locus of control

- what happens to them is determined by external factors such as luck and is out of their control (less confident + less independent)

internality and resistance to social influence

1. high intervals are active seekers of information that is useful - less likely to rely on opinions of others, less vulnerable to social influence
2. high intervals tend to be more achievement orientated - more likely to become leaders rather than follow others


3. high intervals are better to resist coercion from others - more intense the pressure, greater the difference between internals's performance and the externals

is locus of control related to normative or informational social influence? (evaluation)

P - researcher measured locus of control and predisposition to normative and informational influence in 157 undergraduate students

E - found significant correlation between locus of control and predisposition to normative social influence, externals more likely to conform to this influence than internals

E - however, no such relationship for predisposition to informational social influence, with locus of control not appearing as a significant factor

L - concluded that externals would conform more than internals in situations of normative pressure but would not conform more in situations of informational pressure

are people high in externality or high in internality in todays society? (evaluation)

P - research suggests a historical tend in locus of control, with young people becoming increasingly external

E - meta-analysis found that young Americans increasingly believe that their fate was determined more by luck and powerful others rather than their own actions

E - researchers found that locus of control scores had become substantially more external in student and child samples between 1960 and 2002

E - research interprets this trend towards increasing externality in terms of the alienation experience by young people and tendency to explain misfortunes on outside scourges

minority influence

a form of social influence where members of the majority group change their beliefs or behaviours as a result of their exposure to a persuasive minority

3 minority influence styles

consistency, commitment and flexibility

consistency

minority influence is effective provided there is stability in the expressed position over time and agreement among different members of the minority

commitment

degree to which members of a minority are dedicated to a particular case or activity

—> greater the perceived commitment, the greater the influence

flexibility

willingness to be flexible and to compromise when expressing a position

minority influence (Moscivici et al (1969))- procedure

* group was made up of 4 naive participants and a minority of 2 confederates
* shown a series of blue slides that varied in intensity
* asked to judge the colour of each slide


* 'consistent' experimental condition, 2 confederates repeatedly called blue slides green


* 'inconsistent' experimental condition the confederates called the slides green 2/3 of the trials and blue on remaining 3rd

minority influence (Moscivici et al (1969)) - findings

* consistent minority influenced the naive participants to say green —> 8% of the trials
* inconsistent minority exerted little influence —> not differ significantly from control group


* (after main study) —> participants individually sorted 16 coloured disks into 'green'/'blue'
* 3 discs were ambiguously blue and 3 were unambiguously green

—> remaining 10 were ambiguous that considered either blue or green

do we process the minority’s message more? (evaluation)

P - researcher argues that the views of the minority do not necessarily lead to greater processing, but its the majority who are more likely to create greater message processing

E - tend to believe that the majority of group members share similar belief to ours

E - if the majority express a different view from the one we hold, we must consider it carefully to understand why this is the case

L - by contrast, people tens to not waste time trying to process why a minority’s message is different, it tends to e less influential

is there a tipping point for commitment? (evaluation)

P - discovered a ‘tipping point’ where the number of people holding a minority position becomes sufficient to change majority opinion

E - developed computer social networks where individual could chat with each other, held a ‘traditional’ view but researchers added alternative views

E - if listener held same opinion as speaker it reinforced listeners belief, if belief was different the listener considered it and moved to talk to another individual

L - if that individual held a new belief, listener adopted it, concluding that the percentage of committed opinion holders necessary to ‘tip’ the majority into accepting the minority position was just 100% (snowball effect)

social change through minority influence

1. drawing attention to an issue

2. cognitive conflict

3. consistency of position

4. the argumentation principle

5. the snowball effect

drawing attention to an issue

* minorities can bring about social change by drawing the majority's attention to an issue
* if their views are different to those by the majority (creates conflict that they are motivated to reduce)

e.g suffragettes used educational, political and militant tactics to draw attention to the fact women were denied right to same voting rights as men

cognitive conflict

• minority creates conflict between what majority group members currently believe and the position advocated by the minority

• don't result in a move towards the minority position, mean that majority think more deeply about the issues

e.g the suffragettes created a conflict majority group members between existing status quo (only men allowed to vote) and the position advocated (votes for women)

—> some people dealt with this conflict moving towards position advocated by the suffragettes, others dismissed it

consistency of position

* research on minority influence has established that minorities tend to be more influential in bringing about social change when they express their arguments consistently

e.g suffragettes were consistent in their views, regardless of the attitudes of others

—> protests and political lobbying, women played a conspicuous role in WW1

the augmentation principle

• if a minority appears willing to suffer for their views, seem as more committed and taken more seriously by others

e.g the suffragettes were willing to risk imprisonment or even death from hunger strike, influence is more powerful

the snowball effect

* minority influence initially has a relatively small effect but this then spreads more widely as more and more people consider issues being promoted


* until it reaches a 'tipping point' at which point it leads to wide-scale social change

e.g universal suffrage (all adult citizens having the vote) was finally accepted by the majority of people in the UK

social norms approach

if people perceive something to be the norm, they tend to alter their behaviour to fit that norm