social influence

Social influence

Process by which a persons attitudes or beliefs are modified by presence or action of other

Asch procedure

123 male undergraduates , asked to observe lengths of 3 lines and took turns to call out which comparison line they believed was the same length as the others. Always answered 2nd last - confederates told to give same incorrect answer

Asch findings

Participants agreed 36.8% of the time. ¼ of ps never conformed , 1/20 conformed on all. Control was introduced to show that correct answer was obvious, ps made mistakes only 1% of the time

Asch variation - group size

Varied majority from 1 to 3 people = when p was faced with one individual who gave different answer , they answered independantly, when majority increased to 2 they now accepted more, when incraesed to 3, now accepted 32% of the time . Further increases didn’t effect

Asch variation - unanimity of majority

Change - real p was given support of either another real p or a confederate instructed to give right answer . Effects - conformity levels dropped significantly, reducing wrong answers from 33% to 5%. When a second different answer was given that was different from majority and correct answers, conformity still dropped to 9%.

Asch variation - difficulty of the task

Change - differences in line length made smaller so correct answer was less obvious . Effect - level of conformity increased due to information social influence, so situation is more ambiguous and people are more likely to look for guidance

Asch evaluation - population validity

lacks population validity as sample of participants isn't widespread and therefore isn't representative of the population which decreases the generalisability of the study. This is because all the participants were the same biological sex ( male ) and roughly the same age ( undergraduate students), they were also all students so there was very little variety and they were more likely to behave similarly.

Asch evaluation- temporal validity

The study lacks temporal validity as this study was carried out in the 1950's which is a very different era to our current one, this could make it less valid as there could be new influences on conformity now which were not present in 1956. Additionally , post ww11 conformity was high.suggests that it is not representative or generalisable to conformity to today as now have big push on individualistic nature.

Minority influence

Form of social influence in which a minority influences the majority to adopt their beliefs, attitudes or behaviours

Minority influence is Different to conformity as

Minority influence majority so they take on ideas , leads to internalisation or conversion

Moscovici procedure

4 naïve participants  + 2 confederates , shown slides of varying intensity and asked to judge the colour of each slide

There were 3 conditions

1. 2 confederates were consistently wrong every time

2. 2 confederates were inconsistently wrong 2/3 of the time

3. No confederates = control condition

Moscovici findings

1. Consistently wrong = 8% influenced

2. Inconsistently wrong = 1.25% influenced

3. By confederates = 0.25% influenced 

Moscovici conclusion

• Small but significant changes

• Minority can sway the majority , as 8% is significantly different to 1.25% so its unlikely that the change in opinion is due to chance.

 

3 factors to consider for minority influences

Consistency, flexibility, commitment

Consistency

Keeping the same beliefs over time  ( over time = diachronic, between members = synchronic)

• Draws attention

• Increased amount of interest

• Makes people start to evaluate + consider own views in comparison

Flexibility

minority may need to be prepared to adapt their position e.g. accept reasonable + valid counter arguments

• Not flexible creates rigid unbending + dogmatic ( undeniably true) minority = unappealing

• Minorities have to strike the right balance between consistency + flexibility

 

Commitment

demonstration of their dedication to their position E.g. personal sacrifices

• It works as extreme activities draw attention

• if risky it will draw even more attention =  augmentation principle

Explaining process of social change

1. New info makes people stop and think

2. Causes deeper processing and comparison of their own view to the minority view, which causes conversion

3. The snowball effect - the more this happens the faster the conversion rate , so minority view turns into majority view. 

 

Evaluation of minority influence - research support for consistency

• E - moscovici et al - see previous notes

  • wood et al - meta analysis of 100 studies - found that minorities who were consistent were the most influential

• T - consistency is a minimum for a minority to be influential

Evaluation of minority influence - deeper processing

• P - research support for deeper processing

• E - martin et al demonstrates that exposure to minority opinion -> deeper processing - ps attitudes were more resistant to change after they had been influenced by a minority than after they had been influenced by a majority.

• T- supports role of deeper thinking in creating lasting change i.e. internalisation

Evaluation of minority influence majority- mundane realism

• P - artificial task - mundane realism

• E - colourful slides vs issues with real consequences on peoples lives

• T - generalisable issue - studies lack mundane realism  

Resistance to social influence

Ability of people to withstand the social pressure to conform to majority or obey

Social support

Presence of people who resist pressures to conform or obey can help others do the same - they act as models, showing that disobedience is possible

Locus of control

Refers to the sense we have about what directs events in our lives

Internal locus of control

Believe they are mostly responsible for what happens to them

External locus of control

Believe what happens to them is mostly a matter of luck / fate

How does locus of control explain resistance to social influence

High ILOC are more able to resist pressures to conform as they take personal responsibility for their behaviours and base their actions on their own beliefs

How does social support help resistance to conformity

• someone else not conforming acts as a model of indépendance and raises possibility of other ways of thinking

• Breaks the unanimity

How does social support help to resist obedience

• acts as a model of dissent - raises option of behaving according to own conscience

• Challenges the legitimacy of authors - undermining the agentic shift

Evaluation of resistance to social influence - meta analysis of studies

Over time - people have become more resistant to obedience, but more external - An increase in resistance to obedience would theoretically mean increase in internal locus of control, as they’d be more likely to make decisions based on what they believe in, so goes against this idea.

Evaluation of resistance to social influence - social support groups

p’s told to produce evidence to run a smear campaign, in groups to discuss. 29 out of 33 groups rebelled. P’s discussing in groups gave them opportunity to voice their opinions, and any dissenters could raise the possibility for the others that they could disobey orders

• Challenges legitimacy of authority

Dispositional explanation

Suggests obedient behaviour is due to internal traits e.g personality rather than situational/ external factors

Authoritarian personality

personality type defined by Adorno as being especially susceptible to obeying authority. Submissive t authority and dismissive of those lower than them

Profile of authoritarian personality

Extreme respect for authority + obedient to it

-> susceptible to obeying those in authority + submissive to those of a higher status.

-> inflexible outlook = rigid cognitive style - black or white thinking , no grey areas

-> have contempt for their inferiors - become harsh, hostile, and dismissive towards people perceived as having a lower status than themselves.

Origins of AP

• Harsh parenting - strict / rigid discipline

  • Expectation of absolute loyalty

  • Impossibly high standards

  • Severe criticism of any sever failings

• Conditional love - love is dependant on how they behave

—> creates resentment + hostility in child - cannot express this to parents So causes repression

-> displacement onto inferiors results in scapegoating  

Research into AP - method

• 2000 middle class white Americans - unconscious attitude towards racial groups

• Used the F - scale ( fascist scale ) - questionnaire

Research into AP- findings

• Found - high scores on F scale linked with:

  • Identification with the strong

  • Contempt towards the weak

  • Deference and servility to those of higher status

  • Black and white thinking 

Evaluation for AP - situational variables

Cannot account for effects of situational variables. M’s variations showed that social context is another factor influencing obedience, so relying solely on AP cannot explain findings. Suggests that a complete explanation of obedience needs to include both situational and dispositional factors

Evaluation for AP - research support

Support from Milgram, interviewed p’s and compared f scale score for fully obedient vs disobedient. Fully obedient scored much higher - demonstrates link between AP and obedience

Legitimacy of authority

An individuals authority is justified by the position they hold in the social hierarchy , obedience is likely if the order is from above you

Social hierarchies

Societies are structured in a hierarchal way, people in higher positions have more authority over people lower than them

Agentic state

A mental state where we feel no responsibility for our own actions, we believe we are agents of the authority figure. Frees people from demands on their conscience

Autonomous state

We are free to behave as we choose, according to our own principles, we feel responsible for our own actions

Agentic shift

Cognitive shift from autonomous state to the agentic state - occurs when given an order by someone higher in the heirarchy.

Binding factors

aspects of social situations that make disobedience difficult e.g factors which keep people in the agentic state

Milgram - procedure

40 ps told it was a study to test effects of punishment on learning. 2 confederates acted as learners while ps were the teachers. Teacher required to test learner on ability to remember word pairs. If learner got one wrong teacher would give an electric shock, increasing the volts with each wrong answer

Milgram aim

to investigate how far ordinary people would go in obeying an authority figure

Milgram - findings

65% continued to max volt of 450v. All ps continued to 300v , only 5 stopped there. Ps showed signs of extreme tensions , 3 had uncontrollable seizures. All ps debriefed and assured that their behaviour was normal

Milgram conclusion

Concluded that German people are not different, as Americans were willing to obey orders even when they might harm another person

Milgram variation - location

Change = from science lab in Yale to run down office block - effects = 48% obedience to 450 volts

Milgram variations - proximity

1. Teacher and learner in same room = 40% obedience

2. Teacher forces learners hand onto plate = 30% obedience

3. Experiment leaves room and gives instruction via telephone = 20.5% obedience

Milgram variation - uniform

Experimenter called away + replaced by member of public in plain clothes = 20% obedience

Milgram evaluation - research support

Obedience lit used to avoid ethical issues and found that 90% of ps continued to 150v, supports Milgram findings about obedience to auhtority

Milgram evaluation - alternative interpretation

Milgram’s findings may reflect identification with scientific goals rather than blind obedience: study found participants obeyed early prods but all disobeyed the final order, supporting social identity theory over blind obedience.

Milgram evaluation - cross cultural replications

Cross-cultural support for Milgram: study found 90% obedience in Dutch men and women using a realistic task, suggesting Milgram’s findings generalise beyond American males and across cultures.

Compliance

Superficial + temporary, outwardly go along with majority but inwardly disagree

Internalisation

Take on the majority view as we accept it as correct, private as well as public change of beliefs.

Normative social influence

Based off of need to be liked , agree with majority to gain approval, most likely to occur in stressful situations with strangers, and those we are most concerned with being approved by.

Informative social influence

Need to be right, agree with majority as we believe them to be correct, cognitive process, most likely to occur in new or ambiguous situations

Evaluation of explanations for conformity - research support for internalisation

Investigating mask wearing during Covid, one group of ps told that other people were wearing masks correctly, findings - these ps more likely to wear masks correctly compared to uninformed group.

Evaluation of explanations for conformity - research support for normative social influence

Study on smoking in adolescents, told that majority of people their age did not smoke. Findings - adolescents were then much less likely to take up smoking

Evaluation - hard to distinguish between compliance and internalisation

It’s possible that view has occurred in public but dissipates in private , so may not be internalisation