Social Influence

Social Influence

the ways in which external social factors alter our behaviour

Conformity

a type of social influence where we choose to go along with the majority (majority influence)

e.g peer pressure, fashion trend

Jenness’ Jelly Beans

1932

1. Asked a group of individuals to guess how many jelly beans were in a jar individually

2. the group them had to arrive at a group estimate

3. He interviewed the individuals after and asked them if they would like to change their estimate. Almost all changed their estimate. Almost all changed it in line with the group estimate

Henry Kelman

1958 he suggested there were three ways in which people conform to the opinion of the majority

1- compliance - going along with the majority without analysing why there was a difference. Haven’t changed internal beliefs

2- internalisation - questioning beliefs and genuine feelings, change their internal beliefs

3- identification

ISI and NSI

Informational Social Influence - Need to be right

Instances when people conform because they are uncertain about what to do in a particular situation, so they look to others for information and guidance.

Normative social Influence - Need to be liked

This refers the instances where someone conforms in order to fit in and gain approval or avoid disaproval from others.

nAffiliators

Someone that has a great need to be likes by others

more likely to conform - Teevan

Asch - Lines, what and procedure

baseline study - against which other later studies are compared

1951

Procedure:

• show PPTS two white cards at a time. On one card there was a standard line, on the other were three comparison lines.

• PPTS were sked to say which comparison line matched the standard line

• control trail with no confederates

Asch- Lines , results

• 123 Male american participants were tested in total

• On 12 critical trials 36.8% of responses were incorrect (had conformed)

• In control trial only 1% mistakes

Asch- lines , findings

• 36.8 conformity

• there were individual differences as 25% participants never were wrong (conformed no times)

• Found they conformed for one of three reasons:

• Distortion of perception - small number of participants came to see then lines the same way as the majority (internalisation)

• Distortion of judgement - they were doubtful/ unsure of their own judgement

• Distortion of Action - Most participants continued to privately think differently but changed their answer to avoid disapproval (compliance)

Asch - Lines , variables

1- group size

procedure: little conformity when majority was one or two people

findings: majority of 3 = conformity rise to 30% - further incr. + no more change

suggests: majority is important up to an optimal point

2- unanimity

procedure: one confederate gave correct answer

findings: conformity dropped considerably

suggests: breaking groups consensus was one of the main influences in conformity

3- task difficulty

procedure: line lengths closer together - task is harder

findings: conformity incr.

suggests: influence of majority is dependant on situational factors

self efficacy

confidence in your own ability

e.g. Lucas et al did maths problems

low confidence in ability = more likely to conform

Asch - lines , limitations

• only one gender - Neto (1995) - evidence to suggest women are more likely to conform

• task and situation were artificial. replication by Perrin and Spencer (1980) - British engineering and science students same setup - found almost zero conformity, proving that Asch's baseline numbers were a product of the specific, artificial 1950s lab environment rather than a universal human trait.

obedience

a form of influence in which an individual follows a direct order. The person issuing the order is usually a figure of authority.

conformity vs obedience (5)

conformity-

can occur between people of equal status

emphasis on acceptance

behaviour adopted is similar to the source

pressure to change → implicit

not always conscious of conformity

obedience-

occurs within a hierarchy

emphasis on power

behaviour may be different from the source

requirement to change, usually explicit

will explain behaviour by obedience

Milgram - obedience

Baseline procedure and findings

Reason - To find out if the Obedience to Hitler in Germany was because they were German

Baseline procedure

confederate = given role of student

naïve participant = given role of teacher

if student got a question wrong naïve participant was told to press a button the would supposedly deliver an electric shock to the student.

Experimenter delivered set prods when questioned by the naïve participant.

‘Electric shock’ increased each wrong question → up to 450V

Prods:

Please continue

The experiment requires you to continue

It is absolutely essential that you continue

You have no other choice, you must go on.

Baseline findings:

65% went all the way to 450V

every participant → 300V

Milgrams situational variables - proximity (3)

proximity:

• teacher and learner in the same room - 40%

• teacher forces learner’s hand onto an ‘electroshock plate’ when he refused to answer a question - 30%

• experimenter left room and gave instructions to teacher via telephone (pretended to give shocks) - 20.5%

Milgrams situational variables - location

change location from university to run down building - 47.5%

Milgrams situational variables - uniform

• original study - wore lab coat

• experimenter called away and replaced with ‘ordinary member of the public’ (confederate) in everyday clothes

evaluation of milgram’s situational variables

Bickham (1974)

confederates dressed in different uniforms

• milkman

• security guard

• jacket and tie

asked public to do random tasks

people twice as likely to obey security guard and jacket and tie

supports that situational variables like uniform has effect on obediance

supporting experiments for Milgram’s obedience experiment (2)

Sheridan and King (1972)

• Participants gave real shocks to a puppy.

• Despite the real distress of the puppy

• 54% men, 100% women gave what they thought was a fatal shock

• shows the participants even continue when they know it is real, effects in Milgram’s study were genuine

Burger (2009) and Grzyb (2023)

• repetitions of the study

• Grzyb - 90% continued to 150V

• Both used ethical approach- ‘Obedience Lite’- stopping at 150V as Milgram found after 150V 79% went to the end

• External validity

Limitation experiments - Milgram’s obedience

Perry 2013

• Argued they didn’t believe the set up

• Listened to tapes of Milgram’s participants and reported only half believed it was true

• May have just played along with the experiment

Haslam (2014)

• participants obeyed first 3 prods but every participant with 4th disobeyed.

• SIT (social identity theory)- only obey to identify with scientific aims

• SIT shows a more valid interpretation of the findings

validity

internal validity

external validity

Refers to whether research findings and measurement tools are true, accurate, and measure what they claim to measure

Internal validity is the extent to which the results of a study are genuinely caused by the manipulation of the independent variable (IV) rather than confounding or extraneous variables. It looks at "inside" the study

External validity is the extent to which research findings can be generalized beyond the specific research setting to other people, settings, and times. It looks "outside" the study

Hofling et al - Nurses

1966

gives instruction to nurse via phone - false name

nurse was alone

dug was unknown to the nurse (Astroten) - above recommended dose

21/22 obey

Rank et al- Nurses

1977

instruction via phone - known name

nurse isn’t alone

known drug - Valium - 3x recommended dose

2/18 obey

situational explanations - obediance

agentic state

legitimate authority

agentic state

when someone sees themselves as acting on behalf of someone else (they are the agent)

still experience moral strain (high anxiety) but feel powerless

autonomy

independant / free. A person in an autonomous state is free to behave according to their own principles

social hierarchy

when one person is in charge, we defer to that person

binding factors

aspects of the situation that allow the person to ignore or minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour an thus reduce the ‘moral strain’ they are feeling

Limitations of Agentic state

• Mandel (1998) - Men in GRPB 101 obeyed orders to shoot civilians when given the option not to.

• Rank and Jacobson (nurses) - should mean nurses would hand responsibility to the doctor - 16/18 disobey

Strengths of agentic state

Montell (1971) - Germany: 85% to 450 V

Mann (1974) - Australia 16% to 450V

My Lai massacre - lower soldiers shifted responsibility upward to Lt Calley

Authoritarian Personality

Adorno argued it was socially susceptible to obeying people in authority → submissive to higher status but dismissive of those inferior

Dispositional explanation

any explanation of behaviour that highlights the importance of the individual’s personality

→ such explanations are then contrasted with situational explanations

Adorno - AP

1950

2000 middle-class white Americans and unconscious attitudes to other ethnic groups

F-scale to measure authoritarian personality

those who scored high were generally contemptuous of the ‘weak’

showed extreme respect and servility to higher status - traits of obedience

also had cognitive style - black-and-white thinking

fixed distinctive stereotypes

strong positive correlation between authoritarianism and prejudice