Social influence - ALL

Conformity to social role

What is a social role?

• the behaviours expected held by society of individuals of certain social positions/status

• we accept these expectation, internalise them, so informs behaviour

Conformity to social role

What is situational behaviour?

a person’s behaviour is due to the situation/environment, not dispositional characteristics

Conformity to social role

What is dispositional behaviour?

When a person’s behaviour is due to their personal characteristics, rather their situation

Conformity to social role

What were SPE’s aims?

• establish whether the brutality of prison guards was due situational or dispositional

• if people would conform to the social roles they were given

Conformity to social role

SPE procedure?

• Stanford Uni’s basement converted to mock prison

• Zimbardo was the prison superintendent

• 24 mentally stable, male, student Ps who responded to newspaper ad

• Randomly assigned role of guard or prisoner

• observed the behaviours

Conformity to social role

What did Zimbardo do to the prisoners/guards?

Prisoners:

• unexpectedly arrested at home

• finger printed

• stripped

• deloused

• given uniform w/ id number attached- dehumanisation (removed all individual identity)

Guards:

• Uniform + reflective sunglasses (prevent eye contact)

• Given clubs + whistles

• told they had FULL control of prisoners BUT can’t use physical violence

Conformity to social role

How long was the experiment meant to last vs how long did it last?

Meant to last 2 weeks but was stopped after 6

Conformity to social role

what were the findings + Zimbardo’s conclusion of the SPE?

• everyone conformed to their social roles

• the more the guards identified with their roles the more aggressive they became

• prisoners became increasingly more passive + obedient

• had to be abandoned after 6 days because prisoners were becoming distressed

• CONCLUSION - social roles can influence our behaviour — seemingly well-balanced men became unpleasant/aggressive as guards

Conformity to social role

Evaluation: SPE variable control

emotionally stable Ps (variable control) + random assignment → behaviours bcs of situational NOT dispositional factors increasing internal validity + more confident in drawing conclusions

Conformity to social role

Evaluation: limitation of SPE variable control

lack pop val + eco val - IRL not all prisoners/guards will be ‘emotionally stable’ SO difficult to apply to real life scenario as lacks generalisability

Conformity to social role

Evaluation: ethics of SPE

eg: protection from harm + right to withdraw - P wanted to leave + Zimbardo convinced to stay, prisoners left early bcs of adverse reactions to the physical/mental torment, some guards reported feelings of anxiety + guilt - ZIMBARDO’S ROLE OF SUPERINTENDENT CONFLICTED W/ RESEARCHER’S ROLE TO PROTECT FROM HARM + RIGHT TO WITHDRAW

HOWEVER Zimbardo debriefed + regular check ins for years after + concluded no lasting harm was caused

Conformity to social role

Evaluation: SPE contradiction

Riecher and Haslam (2006) (SPE partial replication) - prisoners eventually took contro (possibly bcs guards failed to develop shared social identity BUT prisoners did + refused to accept the limits of assigned roles) SO maybe brutality of SPE due to shared social identity NOT conformity to a social role

(also lacks relaibilty)

Conformity to social role

Evaluation: SPE gender bias

only used ‘healthy + emotionally stable’ males, yet generalised the findings to both males + females (beta bias) → limitation bcs can’t generalise bcs makes assumptions + hasn’t been tested → may result in androcentrism (define) → negative social consequences

Conformity to social role

Evaluation: SPE dispositional differences

behaviour of the guards varied dramatically, from extremely sadistic behaviour to a few good guards who helped the prisoners, suggesting situational factors aren’t the only factor in conformity to social roles + disposition should be considered

Conformity to social role

Evaluation: SPE demand characteristics

Banuazizi and Movahedi (1975) vast majority of students who hadn’t heard of the SPE guessed the purpose, that guards would act in hostile/domineering way, and prisoners would become passive suggesting results may be due to demand characteristics not conformity to social roles

Conformity to social role

Evaluation: SPE IRL evidence

Abu Ghraib - prisoners were brutally torchered by guards → eco val, BUT socially sensitive - may be used to avoid legal consequences? Blame of psychology of social role + not take responsibility for actions

Role of Social influence processes in social change

What is misperception?

The gap between a perceived norm and the actual norm

Role of Social influence processes in social change

What is a social norms intervention?

Attempt to correct misperceptions of normative behaviour of peers in attempt to change the risky behaviour of target population

Role of Social influence processes in social change

What are ways social change can come through minority influence?

• Snowball effect

• Drawing Attention

• Cognitive conflict

• Consistency of position

• The augmentation (commitment) principle

Role of Social influence processes in social change

What’s social change?

When a whole society adopts new belief/way of behaving which becomes widely accepted as the 'norm'

Role of Social influence processes in social change

What is the snowball effect?

Van Avermaet (1996)

• Initially has a small effect

• then spreads more widely until eventually leads to large scale social change (eg: After suffragettes actions, the idea spread to majority + got sufferage)

• to work = privately accepting → publicly expressing

Role of Social influence processes in social change

What is Cognitive conflict

• Minority creates conflict in minds of majority b/w what’s currently believed + what minority believe (eg: Only men being allowed to vote)

• majority will think more deeply about the issue/opinion of minority

Role of Social influence processes in social change

What is Consistency of position

Social change = more likely when minority = consistent in its position (eg: Suffragettes consistent in their views regardless of others attitudes)

Role of Social influence processes in social change

What is The augmentation (commitment) principle?

• If minority suffers for its views → taken more seriously (eg: Suffragettes risked imprisonment/even death)

• seen as more committed →taken more seriously

Role of Social influence processes in social change

What is Drawing attention?

• A minority can bring about social change by drawing attention to an issue (eg: Suffragettes and the lack of votes for women)

• If their views are different, this creates conflict majority is motivated to reduce

Role of Social influence processes in social change

What is social cryptoamnesia

• public opinion changes gradually over time

• until minority view = accepted as norm, but people forget where the view originally came from

Role of Social influence processes in social change

What are examples of minorities causing social change?

• Martin Luther King/civil rights movement

• Gay rights movement

• Suffragettes

Role of Social influence processes in social change

Describe Martin Luther King’s social change:

• 50s America, black people didn’t have same rights as white (eg: segregation)

• MLK challenged majority view to get political/social rights for black people using peaceful protests (eg: marches)

• His ideas = so unpopular that his home = bombed, + he was arrested

• the actions of civil rights activists influenced the majority

• Nowadays = laws ensuring equal rights regardless of race

Role of Social influence processes in social change

Describe the Gay rights movement:

• Homosexuality = decriminalised in England + Wales (1967)

• but age of consent = 21 + still persecuted

• successfully changed attitudes

• eg: the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) 2007 = illegal to discriminate vs gay men/women in supplying goods/services

• same-sex marriage = legalised in UK (2014)

Role of Social influence processes in social change

Evaluation: evidence of it, but gradual

eg: suffragettes (minority group) caused social change BUT over long period of time → suggests minority influence can be extremely important in society, usually takes place slowly

Role of Social influence processes in social change

Evaluation: Socially sensitive

Researchers should consider implications of research on social change (complete cost/benefit analysis) → should be sure it won’t harm researched groups (eg: findings can be used to justified discrimination) → harder to research it bcs of social sensitivity

Role of Social influence processes in social change

Evaluation: real life application

eg: Civil rights movement, gay rights movement, suffragettes → practical application

Role of Social influence processes in social change

Evaluation: deeper processing

nature of deeper processing has been questioned - Moscovici suggested MI causes individuals to think deeply- a diff cognitive process from majority influence BUT Mackie (1987) argues majority influence creates deeper processing if you don’t share their views (bcs forced to think about these) → SO central element of MI = challenged + may be incorrect → casting doubt on validity of Moscovici's study

Minority influence

1. What is minority influence?

2. What type of social influence takes place?

1. When an individual or small group influences the beliefs and behaviours of a larger group of people - can be powerful enough to create social change

2. Internalisation (majority changes views, not just public behaviour/compliance)

Minority influence

What three things make minority influence more effective?

• consistent (bcs view seems more stable w/ agreement b/w members)

• flexible (bcs not in position of power, so need to negotiate position, but not inconsistent)

• committed (seem more powerful if show dedication to position)

Minority influence

What is group identification’s role in minority influence?

If perceive a minority group to be like us (eg: sexuality, race, etc) → more likely to be influence to their ideas

Minority influence

Describe a study on consistency + commitment in minority influence:

Moscovici et al (1969):

• Groups of 6 females (4 Ps, 2 confederates)

• shown 36 blue slides (varying brightness), but confederates said were green

• Either: consistent minority or inconsistent (said 12/36 = green) minority conditions

Findings:

• Control - slides called 'green' 0.25% of the time

• Consistent condition = 8.4% of trials called slides green

• Inconsistent condition = 1.25% of trials called slides green

Conclusion:

• consistency is important in minority influence

Minority influence

Moscovici et al (1969) criticisms:

1. Ps = women, so can't generalise results to men

2. the use of a control group, shows that the participants were actually influenced by the minority rather than being independently unsure of the colour of the slides

3. In a similar experiment, participants were asked to write down the colour rather than saying it out loud

4. In this condition, even more people agreed with the minority, which provides more support for minority influence

Minority influence

What study researches flexibility’s effect on minority influence?

Nemeth et al (1974) - repeat of Moscovici et al (1969) BUT Ps answered w/ all the colours they saw (eg: green-blue) rather than one colour (eg: just blue or green)

Minority influence

What were the variations for the minorities in Nemeth et al (1974) and their findings?

1. only said 'green’ - no effect on Ps

2. said 'green' or 'green-blue’ at random - no effect on Ps (inconsistency)

3. said brighter slides were 'green-blue' and duller 'green' - influenced Ps (bcs consistent, but flexible)

Minority influence

Nemeth et al (1974) conclusion:

rigid consistency ('green') wasn't effective bcs seemed unrealistic when more subtle responses allowed (‘green-blue’)

Minority influence

What was Moscovici’s theory, and what did it believe?

Conversion theory (1980):

• minority influence works differently to majority influence (compliance)

• main factor enabling it to work = consistency (shows commitment) bcs makes people examine their view in detail → identification

Minority influence

How does commitment work with the success of minority influence according to Moscovici’s conversion theory?

1. minority views can be seen as wrong, bcs don't align w/ the norm

2. consistency shows minority’ s committed to a clear view + isn't willing to compromise/give in to pressure to conform

3. Validation process (Moscovichi) - Have to seriously consider whether minority is right, and if you should change your view

4. If no reason to dismiss minority view (eg: error in perception/reasoning, acting out of self-interest, etc), then you begin to convert to minority view

Minority influence

What does the social impact theory suggest the difference b/w minority/majority influence is?

• minority influence = same process as majority influence - just balance of factors creating the social influence = different

• number in a minority = relatively small BUT if minority has strength + immediacy - can still exert social influence

• majority doesn't need as much strength/immediacy, because have numbers

Minority influence

Evaluation: minority influence research oversimplifies

studies make clear distinction b/w majority and minority in terms of NUMBERS BUT IRL difference b/w majority + minority = more than that → majorities usually = power/status vs minorities usually = committed/tight knit groups whose members know/support each other → SO MI research = oversimplifies/largely ignores these dynamics → findings may not apply to IRL MI situations

Minority influence

Evaluation: Moscovici et al (1969) generalisation issues

lab experiment → lacked eco val/mundane realism bcs artificial task → Ps maybe saw task as trivial exercise - might act diff if principles were involved (eg: like IRL minority influence) → hard to generalise to IRL

Minority influence

Evaluation: Moscovici et al (1969) overlooks the power of identification

has been shown individuals can temporarily adopt group views - identification → Ps may have identified w/ confederates → temporarily took on belief that slides were green

Minority influence

Evaluation: Supporting research for MI as whole

Moscovici et al (1969) found 32% Ps gave same answer as minority at least once → suggests the minority does have an impact on the majority, even if it is a small impact, that can lead to social change

Minority influence

Evaluation: Supporting research for consistency

Wood et al (1994)’s meta-analysis of 97 MI studies found minorities perceived as consistent = more influential → supports idea of importance of consistency + conversion theory in MI

Minority influence

Evaluation: Moscovici et al (1969) gender bias issues

only used women, but tried to apply to men too (beta bias - minimises possible differences between the sexes) issue bcs it doesn’t provide evidence for the effect on males → more research needed to increase understanding of MI

Conformity

What is conformity?

Following/complying with the social norms

type of social influence

Conformity

What are the types of conformity?

Compliance

Internalisation

Identification

Conformity

Social Proof

A psychological phenomenon where people accept that others actions indicate the appropriate behaviour in a given situation

Milgram et a (1969) - stooges staring up at building on busy street in NYC - 1 stooge - 20% stopped to look, 5 stooges - 80%

Conformity

Compliance?

• Conforming publicly, privately disagreeing

• Gain other’s approval

• short term

Conformity

Internalisation?

• aligns with the beliefs of the group

• desire to be right

• both public and private acceptance

• long term

Conformity

Identification?

• For status or opportunity etc

• you conform to be associated with the group

• this may include both compliance and/or internalisation

• They will adopt the attitudes and behaviours

• Lasts as long as in the group

Conformity

What does NSI stand for/definition?

Example:

normative social influence

conforming to be accepted by a group, despite privately disagreeing

eg: Schultz et al (2008) - hotel guests told 75% reuse towels everyday, towel usage reduced by 25%

Conformity

What does ISI stand for/definition?

when is it more likely?

Example:

informational social influence

conforming to gain knowledge/be ‘right’

more likely when ‘right’ answer is ambiguous/others are experts/crisis situation

eg: Wittenbrink and Henley (1996) - Ps exposed to negative info about African Americans report more negative attitudes to black people

Conformity

Evaluation: Support for ISI

Jenness (1932)

• glass bottle w/ 811 white beans

• 101 psych students - individual estimate

• Then groups of 3, asked for group estimate

• Nearly all changed their answer when given the opportunity to guess again

• Ambiguous situation = ISI likely → believe group is more likely to be right than individual guesses

Conformity

what is social influence?

The process by which an individual's attitudes, beliefs or behaviours are modified by the presence or actions of others.

Conformity

Asch

Asch (1956)

• 123 male Ps, told doing sight test

• groups of 4-6 confederates, 1 P

• asked about lengths of lines, P answered 2nd to last

• 75% conformed at least once, 32% only conformed

• Vs >1% incorrect answers in control

proof of conformity/compliance

Conformity

What variables effect conformity?

Asch (1956)

• Unanimity of majority - 1 confederate gave correct answer (ally) - conformity from 32% to 5.5.%

• Difficulty - conformity increased bcs of ISI

• Group size - low conformity when majority was 1-2 people, when 3 conformity jumped to 30%, further increase didn’t significantly increase conformity

Campbell and Fairey (1989)

• group size - diff effect depending on task/motivation

• motivated to fit in + subjective answer = conformity

• motivated to be right + clear answer = low conformity

Lucas et al (2006)

• Difficulty - moderated by self efficacy of individual - if confident, less likely, if unconfident, more likely

Conformity

What is the Two Process Theory?

Deutsch and Gerard (1955) - theory that conformity is due to either ISI or NSI

Conformity

Evaluation: Asch support for NSI + ISI

Asch (1956) - most Ps said they conformed bcs wanted to fit, some said bcs thought group was better informed - support for both ISI + NSI

Conformity

Evaluation: Two Process theory is oversimplified

States it is due to EITHER ISI or NSI, but Asch (1956) - conformity reduced w/ ally (32% → 5.5%) maybe bcs ally reduced power of NSI (bcs social support) or ISI (bcs supports alt source of info) SO not always possible to know if it’s ISI or NSI + idea that they work independently is oversimplified.

Conformity

Evaluation: limitation of ISI and NSI → individual differences

Individual differences - Perrin and Spencer (1980) found less conformity in Asch paradigm engineering students (so confident about precision), suggesting people w/ knowledge/confidence about task are less influenced by apparently ‘right’ view of majority

Conformity

Evaluation: I + D (reductionism of nomothetic approach)

ISI + NSI try to create universal laws to explain SI → reductionist approach as this one explanation may not ably to all people, in every situation - should consider individual/situational variables to be more holistic

Conformity

Evaluation: Asch, ecological validity

p’s performed artificial tasks in an artificial environment, so behaviours exhibited may not represent behaviours people would experience IRL → limits application

Conformity

Evaluation: Asch, temporal validity

Argued it was a ‘child of it’s time’ - Perrin and Spencer (1980) recreated it in the late 70’s and found 1/396 instance of conformity - suggests that Asch’s results aren’t consistent over time so not an enduring feature of humanity

Conformity

Evaluation: Asch, dispositional differences

Asch might have had highly conformist individuals (eg: external locus of control) so were more susceptible to social influence → down to individual differences as to if a person conforms or not

Conformity

Evaluation: Asch, gender bias

only male students in his original study, but generalised the results to males and females (beta bias) so cannot be generalised to females as no females took part, so may have acted different - Neto (1995) suggests women are more conformist than men → may lead to androcentrism

Explanations of Obedience

What is obedience to authority?

A type of social influence where someone acts in response to a direct order from a figure with perceived authority

Explanations of Obedience

What are social-psychological explanations of obedience?

• legitimacy of authority

• agency theory

Explanations for Obedience

What are the explanations for obedience?

Situational:

• agentic state

• legitimacy of authority (justified by individual’s position of power within a social hierarchy)

Dispositonal:

• Authoritarian Personality

Milgram’s study/Situational variables/Explanations of Obedience

How does a variation of Milgram’s shock study support the importance of legitimate authority?

• when in run down location + told was run by private company dropped to 48%

• Milgram argued the experimenter's authority = higher in Yale situation bcs status/prestige

Situational Variables/Milgram’s study/Dispositional explanation of Obedience

What was Elms + Milgram (1966), and what’s the relation to Milgram’s original study?

• Wanted to figure out if results of OG study were due to situational/dispositional factors

• same Ps asked open Qs about relationship w/ parents, their childhood, and attitudes towards the experimenter and learner in OG study

• more obedient participants had worse relationships with their fathers + scored higher on F-Scale

Situational Variables/Milgram’s study/Dispositional explanation of Obedience

What did Elms and Milgram (1966) suggest?

• link b/w authoritarian personality + obedience

• BUT results = correctional (a reason to justify their behaviour)

• difficult to say what the exact cause of obedience was

Dispositional explanation of Obedience

What is the Authoritarian personality?

Adorno et al (1950) - refers to a person w/ extreme respect for authority + is more likely to be obedient to those w/ power over them due to ‘overstrict parenting’

Dispositional explanation of Obedience

What were the limitations of the F-Scale?

• right wing political bias

• Ps knew it was a test → could change to fit their ideal (demand characteristics)

Explanations of Authority

What is destructive authority?

when someone with legitimate authority becomes destructive + uses their power for the wrong reasons

Explanations of Authority

What is legitimacy of authority?

a persons authority is legitimised by their position of power within a social hierarchy

Explanations of Obedience

1. What is the Agentic state?

2. Why might we enter the agentic state?

1. Milgram (1973) - when people behave on behalf of an external authority + see themself as an agent carrying out another person’s wishes, not their own

2. feel less responsible for their actions + and maintain positive self image

Explanations of Obedience

What are binding factors?

Give two examples

Factors keeping people in the agentic state eg:

• fear of being rude

• Fear of increasing anxiety levels by disobeying

Explanations of Obedience/Milgram’s study

How was the agentic state encouraged by Milgram’s shock study?

encouraged bcs Ps voluntarily entered social contract (an obligation) w/ experimenter to take part + follow procedure of study

Explanations of Obedience

What is an agentic shift?

• Start in an autonomous state

• soon as you start following orders you undergo an agentic shift, and entered an agentic state

Explanations of Obedience (Agentic + Legitimacy)/Milgram’s study

What were potential binding factors Milgram suggested that may have kept his Ps in the agentic state?

• Reluctance to disrupt the experiment - Ps already been paid → may have felt obliged to continue

• Pressure of the surroundings - took place in prestigious uni → made experimenter seem like legitimate authority

• The insistence of the authority figure — if Ps hesitated →told had to continue

Explanations of Obedience/Milgram’s study

What did Milgram think about obedience before/after his study?

• Before, Milgram believed people = autonomous + could choose to resist authority

• Agency theory shows Milgram's findings changed his mind + authority figures have large impact

Milgram’s study/Situational variables/Explanations of Obedience

Evaluation: Milgram ecological validity

Lab study - highly controlled + in Yale → hard to apply to everyday life bcs people’s behaviour changes in controlled settings + people may be more likely to obey bcs Yale = prestigious (legitimises authority)

Milgram’s study/Dispositional Explanation of Obedience

Evaluation: Milgram lack generalisability + dispositional influences

maybe person’s disposition decides whether they obey or not (eg: authoritarian personality) - demand characteristics (could be extraneous variables) → can’t apply to everyone bcs people have different/unique dispositions

LINK TO GENDER BIAS

Explanations of Obedience/Milgram’s study

Evaluation: Milgram’s study supports Agency theory

Ps said they wouldn’t have gone as far by themselves + people who watched vids of experiment said experimenters = more to blame, so shock study supports agency theory bcs Ps felt as thought they were ‘agents’ carrying out experimenter’s wish + felt less responsible

LINK TO DOESN’T FULLY EXPLAIN

Explanations of Obedience

Evaluation: Agency theory doesn’t fully explain

LINK FROM MILGRAM SUPPORT

Although Milgram’s study supports, sometimes people resist pressure to obey authority (eg: because of situation/individual differences) (eg: 12.5% stopped at 300V) → Agency theory doesn't explain why some = more likely to resist pressure to conform/obey

Explanations of Obedience

1. Where does Legitimate authority come from?

2. What makes a person a legitimate authority?

3. What can help to legitimise authority?

1. having a defined social role which people respect - usually because implies knowledge/legal power

2. bcs socialised to recognise authority of eg: parents, police, doctors, etc, they = legitimate authorities (given right to tell us what to do) → more likely to obey

3. Uniform/location

Situational Variable/Explanations of Obedience

Describe a study into legitimacy of authority + uniform’s effect to obedience:

Bushman (1988) found when a female researcher asked people in the street to give change to male researcher for expired parking meter dressed as: Police (72% obeyed), Business executive (48%), Beggar (52%)

In later interview, said obeyed police uniform bcs appeared to have more authority

Explanations of Obedience:

Evaluation: Agency Theory give limited explanation

doesn’t explain many of Milgram’s findings (eg: why some Ps didn’t obey → humans = social animals + involved in social hierarchies →should all obey) → suggests, at best, agentic shift accounts for only some situations of obedience

Explanations of Obedience:

Evaluation: Alternative explanation to Agency Theory + Legitimacy of Authority

People w/ internal LOC (Rotter) = less likely to obey compared to those with an external LOC

suggests that individual difference may play a key role in whether an individual obeys the experimenter or not

Explanations of Obedience

Evaluation: Practical application

Kelman and Hamilton (1989) argue that My Lai massacre (where 504 civilians were killed by US soldiers) can be understood in terms of the power hierarchy of the US army → supports legitimacy of authority as explanation Calley (only solider to face charges) said he was following orders

Explanations of Obedience

Evaluation: Cultural differences

Mantell (1971) found that 85% of Germans went to the top voltage, compared to 65% in the USA → suggests some cultures authority = more likely to be accepted as legitimate and be entitled to demand obedience from individuals

Situational Variables

What are the situational variables for obedience?

• proximity (to pain)

• location - where the experiment is taking place

• Presence of ally

• power of uniform - uniform (eg: lab coat) confirms authority

Explanations of Obedience/Situational Variables

How may situational variables feed into explanations of obedience?

Situational variables (eg: uniform, location) may help to LEGITIMISE authority → obedience, agentic state