Social Influence

Explanations of Conformity: Key Concepts

Conformity

Dual Process Model
(Deutsch & Gerard, 1955)

Informational Social Influence
Ambiguity

Normative Social Influence
Belonging to a group

Types of Conformity: Key Concepts

Compliance
Go along for approval
(NSI)

Identification
Accepts attitude as true in order to be accepted
Temporary

Internalisation
Accepts views
Can lead to true conformity
(ISI)

Explanations of Conformity: Evaluation

+ Research supporting NSI, people shaping behaviour to fit in (Asch)

+ Research supporting ISI

Pots conformed more when problems were difficult as they were less certain (Todd Lucas et al)
H Unclear whether NSI or ISI at work (Asch dissenter study)

I/D: Nomothetic, general laws
H Doesn’t account for individual differences (nAffiliators)

Conformity Research

Asch (1951)

123 male undergrad ppts

Estimate which of 3 lines was closest to a comparison line

Groups 7-9 only one real ppts, rest confederates

33% conformity

Individual differences: ¼ conformed in none, 50% conformed in half, 1 in 20 conformed in all 12

Conformity Research: Evaluation

- Lacks ecological validity
May experience demand characteristics, trivial so no reason not to conform
Susan Fiske (2014): Doesn’t resemble real world groups

- Gender/culture bias
Only male and white ppts so no insight into women or other cultures

- Ethics of deceiving
H Low ethical cost is outweighed by benefits

Variables Affecting Conformity: Key Concepts and Stats

Unanimity
One confederate gave right answer → from 33% to 5.5%
One confederate gave diff wrong answer → from 33% to 9%

Difficulty - becomes ISI
More ambiguous task → more conformity

Group size
Little conformity when majority is 1-2 people
3 majority - 30%
Only important up to optimal 3-4 people

Variables Affecting Conformity Study: Evaluation

- Gender/Culture Bias
Other research has found that individualist cultures are less likely to conform

+ High control and scientific
Standardised
- Ecological validity
Doesn’t represent less controlled environment eg when there are consequences to conformity

I/D Nomothetic rules
H Doesn’t account for individual differences

Stanford Prison Experiment: Key Concepts

Conforming to Social Roles (Zimbardo)

21(24) male uni students, randomly allocated prisoner or guard

Guards given uniform and sunglasses and set up prison, keep order but no rules
Prisoners arrested at home and had smock dress, flip flops and stocking cap

Guards began to harrass and behave in sadistic manner
Prisoners adopted submissive prisoner like behaviour, ‘told tales’ and discussed prison issues a lot

1 prisoner released after 36 hours because of uncontrollable emotional outbursts
3 released in next few days after signs of emotional disorders

Shut down on day 6 due to danger of lasting harm

Stanford Prison Experiment: Evaluation

- Lacks ecological validity
Other researchers argued it was a response to extreme demand characteristics

- Ethical issues
Even though they volunteering, psychological and physical harm
Sparked debate and led to reform

- Culture and gender bias

I/D: Nomothetic approach
Assumes all conformity to social roles occurs same way

Obedience to Authority: Study

Milgram

Electric shocks

Milgram’s Study: Procedure

40 males (age 20-30) from New Haven, representative of diff occupations
Paid £4.50 no matter what

At Yale Uni in elegent interaction lab

Teacher, learner, experimenter

Sample shock of 45V

Shocks went up in 15V increments (15-450V)

Experimenter gave standardised prompts

Milgram’s Study: Findings

Predicted 1.2% go up to 450V

0 stopped below 300V

4 stopped at 315V (learner stopped answering)

26 continued to 450V (65%)

Extreme tension observed:
Stuttering, trembling
Nervous laughter or smiling

Milgram: Evaluation

+ Research Support (Hofling) with ecological validity

- Ethical Objections
Diana Baumrind (1964) criticised deceoption in psychological studies
H 1 year follow up found no harm, only 1.3% sorry to be in study

- Lacks internal validity
Whilst Milgram reported 75% believed genuine, (Orne & Holland) and (Gina Perry) argued otherwise
May be demand characteristics
H Real signs of tension and Counter study with real shocks (Sheridan & King)

Milgram Real World Study

Hofling

Obedience in nurses

Telephoned ward pretending to be doctor, asked to administer a patient with unfamiliar drug

Hospital rules would prohibit following

21/22 followed orders

Milgram Realism Research

Gina Perry (2013)

Studied tapes of experiment and reported only 1/2 believed

2/3 were disobedient

Milgram Real Shocks Research

Sheridan & King (1972)

Similar study with real shocks to a puppy

54% men and 100% women gave what they thought to be fatal shock

Situational Variables Affecting Obedience: Key Concepts

Uniform

Proximity

Location

Obedience Rate: Proximity

40%

Obedience Rate: Touch Proximity

30%

Obedience Rate: Remote Authority

20.5%

Obedience Rate: Venue

47.5%

Obedience Rate: Experimenter Legitimacy

20%

Situational Variables of Obedience Study

Bickman (1979)

3 confederates dresses as milkman, security or jacket & tie

Asked passers to complete small tasks

2x more likely when security than jacket & tie

Situational Variables Affecting Obedience Study: Evaluation

- Lacks ecological validity and mundane realism
H Bickman’s study supports + cross cultural variations

- Low internal validity (Orne & Holland : variations seem unrealistic)

+ Cross Cultural Replication (Meeus & Raaijmakers)
H Not very cross Cultural (take place in countries with similar concepts of authority)

I/D: Nature/nurture
Suggests extreme situational factor can determine behaviour and doesn’t take into account disposition
Criticised by Mandel for offering excuse for evil behaviour

Situational Variables of Obedience: Cross Cultural Research

Meeus & Raaijmakers

More realistic variation with Dutch ppts

Ordered to say stressful things in interview

90% obeyed

Explanations of Obedience

Legitimacy of Authority

Agentic State

Legitimacy of Authority: Key Concepts

Hierarchal societies

Agreed upon

Trust and accept

Agentic State: Key Concepts

Autonomous Individual

Agentic state

Pass on responsibility

High moral strain

Binding factors

Legitimate Authority: Evaluation

+ Research Support of Aviation Accidents (Tarnow) + Milgrams Variations

+ Explains cultural differences (Kilham & Mann and Mantell)
Authority more likely to be accepted in some

- Doesn’t explain disobedience in a clear accept hierarchy

Aviation Accidents study with legitimate authority

Tarnow (2000)

Study Aviation Accidents from NTSB black box analysis

Excessive dependence on captins authority and expertise

‘lack of monitoring’ errors in 19/37 accidents

Cultural Replications of Milgrams Study

Kilham & Mann (1974)
16% Australian women went to 450V

Mantell (1974)
85% German ppts

Agentic State: Evaluation

+ Research Support from Milgram’s variation
Once responsibility was on experimenters, acted more easily

- Doesn’t explain disobedience (Rank & Jacobson)
16/18 disobeyed orders from doc to give excessive medication

Authoritarian Personality: Key Concepts

Personality pattern

Conventional values

Absolute obedience

Intolerant of ambiguity

Disciplined upbringing
Fear of parent → Excessive respect of authority
Hatred of parents → hate and anger displaced onto others

F-Scale: Key Concepts

Adorno et al (1950)

>2000 middle class, white Americans

Unconscious attitudes to other ethnic groups

Several measurement scales including potential for fascism

Authoritarian leanings identified with strong and contemptous of weak
Conscious of status and showed extreme obedience to authority

Authoritarian Personality: Evaluation

+ Milgram analysis supporting (Elms & Milgram)
H Analysis of individual subscales: obedient ppts had unusual characteristics (not glorifying fathers, no unusual level of childhood punishment or hositility to mother)
Too complex to be useful predictor

- Cannot explained obedience across a whole culture
Pre war Germany: unlikely to be all authoritarian, more likely they identified with Nazi state

- Politically biased interpretation of Authoritarian personality as only right wing (Christie & Jahoda)
Extreme right and left wing both emphasise importance of complete obedience

I/D: Milgram claimed social context (nature) more important than disposition (nurture)

Authoritarian Personality Obedience Research

Elms & Milgram (1966)

Small samples from original obedience studies complete F-Scale

20 obedient ppts score higher overall than 20 comparison disobedient

F Scale: Evaluation

+ Varying agree and disagree statements - reliability

- Only correlational

- Demand characteristics

- Population validity

- Not all prejudiced people had harsh upbringing and vice versa

Explanations of Resistance

Social Support reducing conformity

Social Support increasing disobedience

Locus of Control

Social support reducing conformity: Evidence

Allen & Levine (1971)

Asch type replication

No support - 97%

Supporter with normal vision and correct answers - 36%

Support with thick glasses and gave some incorrect different answers - 64%