Social influence - P1

16 marker plans including AO1 and AO3 using the AQA specification.

Types of conformity and explanations of conformity - AO1

AO1:

• Internalisation - (deepest level) accepting views publicly and privately, because you believe they are right.

• Compliance (most shallow) - accepting views publicly but not privately, because you want to be accepted by group. Conformity stops when monitoring stops.

• Identification - accepting views publicly and privately because you believe them to be right, but only to be associated with the group.

NSI - explanation for compliance - desire to be liked.

ISI - explanation for internalisation - desire to be right.

Types of conformity and explanations of conformity - AO3

1 - difficult to distinguish between compliance and internalisation. If someone accepts views publicly, it is clear that it is compliance. However, it is possible that the person accepted the views as right (internalisation), but the view may have been forgotten or replaced by another view after on in private. This makes it harder to distinguish between compliance and internalisation. However, this is all circumstantial, and it is possible that this didn’t happen.

2 - there is research support for normative social influence. Linkenbach and Perkins found that adolescent teen who saw that a majority of their peers their age didn’t smoke, were subsequently less likely to take up smoking. Similarly, Shultz et al found that hotel guests who were exposed to the message that 75% of the guests reused their towels, reduced their own towel use by 25%. This supports the idea that people shape their behaviour out of a desire to fit in with people. However, although normative social influence may have an effect on behaviour, it is possible that they don’t recognise the effect of other people’s behaviour on their own. Nolan et al found that, when questioned about what had an effect on energy conservation, people believed the influence of neighbours had the least impact, when in fact it had the most impact. This shows that people rely on beliefs about what should motivate their behaviour, rather than accepting that others’ behaviour might have an impact.

3 - there is also research support for informational social influence. Henley found that ppts exposed to negative information about African Americans, were more likely to have a negative attitude towards them. In a study conducted by Fein, he found that participants who saw what was supposedly their fellow ppts reaction in a presidential debate, had a large shift in judgement when it came to assessing candidate behaviour, which suggests an influence in terms of informational social influence.

Variables affecting conformity (Asch) - AO1

• group size - very little conformity levels when there were 1/2 Confederates, but when it was 3, conformity jumped to 30%. Further increasing didn’t significantly change conformity levels, meaning size matters, but only to a point.

• Unanimity of the majority - having a confederate side with the ppt and give the right answer, conformity dropped to 5%. Having a dissenter who gave an answer that differed from the confederate and the ppt, conformity dropped to 9%. Breaking the unanimous position of the group affected conformity levels.

• Task difficulty - the harder the task, the higher the conformity rate. Asch made the lines more similar in length, conformity increased. Lucas found that high-efficacy individuals, people more confident in their abilities, were more likely to be independent in their answers than low-efficacy individuals. This shows that both situational and individual differences affect conformity levels.

• Asch study - 123 male US undergraduates. 1 ppt and rest confederates - required to give wrong answer on 12/18 trials - conformity was 33% - when asked why, ppts said their private belief didn’t change, only their public one.

Variables affecting conformity (Asch) - AO3

1- Asch research a child of its time, as it was conducted in a particular time in American history, particularly the era of McCarthyism, where people were afraid to go against the anti-Communist majority, and so were more likely to conform. Perrin and Spencer replicated the study and found that there was only one instance of conformity out of 396 trials. However, when they redid the study with ppts as prisoners on probation and confederates as probation officers, they found the results were similar to Asch. This supports the idea that people are more likely to conform if there are perceived to be negative consequences to not conforming. However, it is imperative to add that ppts only conformed on 1/3 of the trials in Asch study, meaning on the other 2/3, ppts stuck to their judgements. Asch aimed to show that there was a tendency for ppts to stick to their beliefs, rather than be highly conformist.

2- there is a lack of research on larger majority sizes. Since Asch claimed the peak level of conformity was 3, that’s what other researchers used when conducting similar procedures. No studies other than Asch used more than a majority of 9. This supports Bonds idea that studies have used a limited rage of majority sizes, hence skewing results.

3- there are cultural differences in conformity. Smith analysed the results of Asch type studies and compared them across different cultures. The average conformity rate was 31%. However, in individualistic cultures, it was about 25% but in collectivist cultures, it was 37%. This is because conformity is viewed more favourably in these cultures as a social glue that binds communities together. This shows that the study done by Asch was an imposed etic, as it generalised findings from an individualist culture, the US, and aimed to generalise. Furthermore, it it guilty of androcentrism, focusing on men, and lac population validity, as it used students, which isn’t representative of the entirety of society.

Conformity to social roles (Zimbardo) - AO1

• stanford prison experiment - 24 volunteers randomly assigned to play either prisoner or guard. Aimed to see interaction between 2 groups without an obvious authority figure.

• Prisoners - arrested at home, deloused, given uniform and ID number (no name).

• Guards - given uniform and sunglasses to block eye contact and clubs and whistles. Zimbardo was prison superintendent. Meant to last 2 weeks.

• Results - both groups conformed - passive prisoners, violent guards. 5 prisoners released early due to extreme reactions like rage or crying. Study stopped after 6 days. The Stanford prison experiment shows how individuals quickly conform to assigned social roles.

Conformity to social roles (Zimbardo) - AO3

1- further research done to investigate this. BBC prison study replicated this and found that the prisoners didn’t immediately conform to their roles and worked collectively to challenge the authority of the guards. The guards didn’t identify with their roles and hesitated to impose authority on the prisoners. This led to a collapse of the prisoner-guards system and a shift in power. They used a matched pairs experiment, with 15 ppts separated into 5 groups of 3 people matched on key variables, where one was assigned a guard role and the other 2 prisoners - this was random. This challenges Zimbardo’s conclusions by suggesting that social roles are not as fixed as initially thought, and that individuals may resist conformity when they perceive injustice.

2- the study has some relevance to real life events like Abu Ghraib, which was a military prison in Iraq known for the US soldiers torturing of Iraqi prisoners in 2003/4. Zimbardo believed that the guards were victims of situational factors like boredom and no perceived authority figure, which led to the abuse. These factors, present in both the SPE and AG were believed to play a part in, along with power, the abuse of prisoners. However, although the AG situation was real life, the SPE wasn’t, yet there were questions around the ethical issues of the study. Although the study followed the Stanford University ethic guidelines, even Zimbardo suggested it could have been terminated earlier, once prisoners were showing signs of emotional distress, like rage and crying. He attempted to rectify this by providing debriefing sessions and concluded that there wasn’t any lasting negative effects. Realising the potential harm, the researchers involved in the BBC experiment used the same basic set up as Zimbardo, with greater steps to minimise the risks of potential harm.

3- Zimbardo's study lacks ecological validity as it was set in a simulated environment rather than a true prison. Critics argue that the artificial setting may not accurately reflect real-life circumstances. Additionally, some have claimed Zimbardo's role as the superintendent may have influenced participants' behavior, raising concerns about demand characteristics. This suggests that factors outside the experimental design could have impacted the results, questioning the reliability of the findings.

Situational variables affecting obedience (Milgram) - AO1

• 40 ppts - 2 confederates, the experimenter and the ‘learner’.

• Drew lots, they were rigged so the ppt was always the teacher and confederate was the learner.

• Testing ability to remember word pairs. There was strong electric shocks the ppt had to give, going up by 15 volts each time to 450 volts.

• Confederate gave wrong answers - at 300v, he pounded the wall and didn’t respond to the next question.

• Experimenter has prods like ‘you must go on’ for the ppt.

• Milgram asked students prior what their predictions are - they said 1/1000 would go to 450v. 100% went to 300v, 65% went to 450v.

• Proximity - obedience fell to 40% when both learner and teacher in same room. Obedience dropped to 30% when teacher has to put the hand of the learner onto a shock plate. When the experiment gave instructions over the phone, only 21% went to 450v.

• Location - moved study from Yale university to run-down office - obedience rates dropped slightly but not much, with 48% going to 450v.

• Uniform - Bushman - female researcher stood in street in either a police uniform, business or beggar. 72% for police, 48% for business and 52% for beggar obeyed. Police uniformed - appeared to have authority.

Situational variables affecting obedience (Milgram) - AO3

1- there is an issue with the internal validity of the study. Orne and Holland claimed that ppts distrust experimenters because they know that the true purpose of the study might be disguised. One of Milgram’s research assistants separated the ppts into doubters and believers, and found that this latter group were more likely to disobey and give low intensity shocks throughout. This challenges the validity of Milgram’s study, showing that when faced with destructive obedience, one that may result in harm, people are less likely to obey an authority figure. However, this argument overlooks the careful design of the study to maintain a degree of uncertainty. Milgram's procedure, such as the learner's performance and the use of the shock machine, was designed to keep the participants guessing about the reality of the shock. Furthermore, the gradual increase in the shocks delivered represented a foot in the door approach, where ppts felt committed to the experimenter and found it hard to resist larger demands. This shows that loyalty to an authority figure affects obedience rates.

2- although the study lacks internal validity, it is high in historical validity. Blass wanted to test if Milgram’s study, conducted over 50 yrs ago, would still be relevant. He did a correlational analysis of obedience studies carried out between 1961 and 1985. He found no relationships whatsoever, meaning that the later studies had nor more or less obedience than the ones conducted earlier. This suggests that Milgram’s findings are still as relevant today as they were back then.

3- there is research against the concept of obedience as a explanation of real-life atrocities. Mandel found that in 1942, the men of the Reserve Police Battalion 101 got ordered to carry out a mass killing of Jews in Poland. Their officer made an offer to be assigned to other tasks if they didn’t want to do this. However, despite the factors like close proximity to victims, which, according to Milgram is meant to increase defiance, only a small number of people accepted, with the vast majority going ahead with the task. Mandel claims that it isn’t obedience that explains these actions, but rather societal views like antisemitism, that are the reality behind such behaviour.

Agentic state and legitimacy of authority - AO1

• autonomous state - responsible for your own actions.

• Agentic shift - moving from autonomous to Agentic state.

• Agentic state - seeing yourself as an agent for carrying out another person’s wishes.

  Why?

• Self image - someone in the autonomous state in Milgram’s study might refrain once looking at the consequences. But someone in the Agentic state doesn’t see themselves as responsible, as the action isn’t their responsibility - guilt-free.

• Binding factors - social etiquette, like commitment to experimenter and fear of appearing rude, bind the ppt to obedience.

• Legitimacy of authority - someone in a position of social control in a situation.

• Institution - category of institution (scientific) matters more than the status of it that causes people to obey.

Agentic state and legitimacy of authority - AO3

1- Agentic state and real-life obedience. Milgram claimed that people continuously shift back and forth from an autonomous to an Agentic state, but this doesn’t explain the gradual, irreversible transition that Lifton saw in his study of German doctors working at Auschwitz. They changed from normal healthcare professional prioritising the welfare of patients, to men and women capable of carrying out lethal experiments on prisoners. This shows that it may be the amount of time that people have committed eveil acts that change their behaviour, rather than the Agentic shift. Zimbardo’s and Milgram’s research furthers the concept that obedience cannot just be explained in terms of Agentic shift, but it can also be explained as a desire to inflict pain on others. Milgram detected signs of cruelty amongst his ppts, who used the situation to express their sadistic impulses. Zimabrdo found that the guards in his SPE inflicted violence almost immediately on their increasingly submissive ppts. This was despite the fact that there was no obvious authority figure guiding them.

Dispositional explanation for obedience - AO1

• Authoritarian personality - personality type with strict adherence to conventional values and a believed in obedience to authority.

• F-scale - Adorno - agreeing with statements like ‘rules are there to be followed, not changed’ indicates signs of an authoritarian personality. People who scored high were likely to be raised by parents who used an authoritarian parenting style - acquire these behaviours through learning and imitation.

• Right - wing authoritarianism - Altemeyer - 3 characteristics for obedience:

• Conventionalism, authoritarian aggression, authoritarian submission.

  Elms and Milgram:

• 20 obedient and 20 defiant ppts - completed F- scale and MMPI scale.

• Higher levels of authoritarianism in obedient ppts.

Dispositional explanation for obedience - AO3

1. There is research evident for the authoritarian link to obedience. Although there are several studies like Elms and Milgram that have found that authoritarian ppts are more obedient, there has been questions around whether the shocks were perceived to be real. Vatiné et al used an immersive virtual environment whee an actor that was the learner was recorded and displayed on a computer. Ppts were told that the experiment was a simulation and the shocks weren’t real, but ppts still responded as though they were real. Ppts who displayed higher levels of RWA were the ones who obeyed the most, confirming the link between authoritarianism and obedience. However, there is also a link between a lack of education and authoritarianism and obedience. Milgram found that ppts with lower levels of education tend to be more obedience that those with higher levels. This shows that any apparent cause between authoritarianism and obedience might be more illusory that real.

2. Milgram claims that the social factors should be considered more than the dispositional ones. Although he accepted that there is a dispositional basis to obedience and disobedience, he didn’t believe that the evidence was very strong. He showed that the various variations like proximity and location were the primary causes of obedience levels, rather that personality variations. He believed it was the specific social situation that caused obedience or disobedience. This shows that relying on an explanation for obedience based entirely on authoritarianism is not flexible enough to account for the other social variations.

Resistance to social influence - AO1

• social support - breaks unanimous position of the majority.

  Locus of control - the perceived cause of outcomes of actions

• High internal - control events in our life - more independent in thoughts and rely less on the opinions of others.

• High external - what happens is determined by external factors - more fatalistic attitude and less personal responsibility for their actions - less independent.

• High internals are achievement-oriented, active seekers for information, can resist coercion from others.

Resistance to social influence - AO3

Social support:

1. Researchers investigated the importance of the response order. Allen and Levine wanted to see whether the position of the person providing social support made any difference to a ppt resisting the majority. In one condition, a confederate answered first, giving the right answer, while the other confederates gave the wrong answer. The ppt was always answering last. In the second condition, the confederate answered fourth. Support was more effective in position 1 than position 4. The researchers suggest that a correct first answer, confirming the ppts judgement, produces an initial commitment to the correct response that endures even when the other members disagree.

2. There is research support for the importance of social support in resisting social influence. Rees and Wallace showed that the social support provided by friends helped adolescents resist conformity pressures from the majority. Individuals with a majority of friends who drank alcohol were more likely to have engaged in drunken and binge drinking previously. However, they also found that individuals were able to resist pressures when they had friends who also resisted. This shows that the social support of offered by non-drinking friends a decrease the odds of a person conforming, even when faced with the pressure of the majority.

Locus of control:

1. The locus of control is related to normative social influence but not informational social influence. Spector measured locus of control and predisposition to normative social influence and informational social influence in 157 undergraduate students. He found a significant correlation between locusts of control and predisposition to normative social influence, but not informational social influence. High externals were more likely to conform to this form of influence than internals. He concluded that externals would conform more than internals in situations of normative pressure, but not informational pressure.

2. There is supporting research for the idea that people, especially the younger generation, are becoming increasingly external. Twenge conducted a meta-analysis which found that many young Americans increasingly believed that their fate was determined by luck rather than their own actions. Researchers found that locus of control scores were more external in students. Twenge bases this off the alienation children feel and the tendency to explain misfortunes on outside forces.

Minority influence - AO1

• Conversion process

• Consistency - needs to be stability in the position expressed over time - diachronic - maintain message over time. Synchronic - group agrees on the same message.

• Commitment - dedication to the cause

• Flexibility - Mugny highlights need to negotiate the minority position rather than enforce.

  Key study - Moscovici:

• 4 ppts, 2 confederates - shown a series of blue slides varying in intensity.

• Consistent condition - 2 confederates called slides green - ppts called it green on over 8% of trials.

• Inconsistent condition - called slides green on 2/3 of trials. Ppts said on 1.25%.

• Last condition - called the slides blue. Ppts said on 0.25%

• Afterwards, ppts asked individually to sort 16 discs into either green or blue.

• 3 were definitely green and 3 were definitely blue. The remaining 10 could be considered both.

• They had to establish a threshold point - consistent condition ppts judged more to be green. Influence was more private than public.

Minority influence - AO3

1. There is research support for flexibility - Nemeth et al used a simulated jury situation where members were required to discuss the amount of compensation to be given to someone involved in a ski-lift accident. When a confederate placed an alternative point of view and refused to change his position, this had no effect on the other group members. A confederate who compromised and showed some degree of shift towards the majority, exerted an influence on the group. However, influence was only evident in those who shifted late rather than those who shifted earlier - shown to have caved in to the majority. This suggests that flexibility is only effective at changing majority opinion in certain circumstances.

2. Research shows that there is a tipping point for commitment. Xie et al found a point where the number of people holding a minority position is enough to change majority opinions. They developed computer models social networks, where people were free to speak to each other. Each person had a traditional view, but the researchers added some individuals who represented an alternate point of view, which they expressed consistently. If the opinion was different, a listener would consider it and move on. If the next individual held the same new belief, then the listener adopted this view too. This led to a gradual shift in opinion. The study found that the percentage of committed opinion that was needed to tip the majority view was 10%.

Social influence processes in social change - AO1

• drawing attention to an issue - creates a conflict the minority want to reduce. Suffragettes - educational, political tactics to draw attention to the issue of women being denied the same voting rights as men.

• Cognitive conflict - majority think more deeply about issues being addressed. Can either move towards the position or reject it. Suffragettes - conflict between the status quos and the position advocated by the women.

• Consistency of position - more influential if they are consistent over time and with each other. Suffragettes - protests continued over years, women played key role in WW1.

• Augmentation principle - minority is willing to suffer for views, seen as committed. Suffragettes - willing to risk imprisonment and hunger strikes.

• Snowball effect - tipping point to wide scale social change - all adults being able to vote.

Social influence processes in social change - AO3

1. There is evidence that social influence processes can lead to significant change, such as the civil rights movement, which demonstrates the effectiveness of minority influence in promoting social reform. However, changes can be slow and often require sustained effort and commitment from minority groups to achieve lasting results. The approach doesn’t always work, as shown by DeJong et al, who tested the effectiveness of social norms marketing campaigns to drive down alcohol amongst students in 14 different colleges. Even though they received normative information that corrected their misconceptions about drinking norms, they didn’t lower their alcohol consumption. This shows that not all social norms interventions can produce social change.

2. There are issues with the boomerang effect in terms of social change. Schultz et al found that although most interventions are aimed toward less desirable behaviours, it an also affect those whose behaviour is more desirable than the norm. For those individuals who already engage in the constructive behaviour, like drinking less than the norm, a normative message can compel them to increase these aspects of their behaviour to be more in line with the norm. This shows how a social norms campaign can cause those who drink less than the norm, to increase their usage to fit in to the norm.