AQA A level Psychology - Social influence

Conformity

A change in a person's behaviour or opinions as a result of real or imagined pressure from a person or group of people

Types of conformity - internalisation

Kelman (1958)

Genuinely accepts group norms

public + private change of opinions/behaviour

Permanent/persist in absence of group members

Attitudes have become part of how individual thinks (internalised)

Types of conformity - identification

Identify with group we value, want to become part of it

Publicly change opinions/behaviour even if privately don't agree with everything

Types of conformity - compliance

'Going along with others' publicly

No change in private opinion

Superficial change - opinions/behaviour stops when group pressure ceases

Explanations for conformity - 1: two process theory

Deutsch & Gerald (1955)

Two main reasons for conformity

2 central human needs: right to be right (ISI) / liked (NSI)

Explanations for conformity - 2: informative social influence (ISI)

Uncertain about what behaviours/beliefs are right or wrong

E.g. do not know answer to question in class, most other students agree, go along (feel they are probably right)

Cognitive process: desire to be right

More likely in new/ambiguous situations (not clear what is right)

Decisions need to be made quickly/group regarded as experts

Explanations for conformity - 3: normative social influence (NSI)

What is 'normal' - typical behaviour for social group

Regulate behaviour of groups/individuals

Emotional process: don't want to look foolish, prefer social approval over rejection

Strangers:don't know norms, look to others for how to behave, concerned about rejection

Friends: concerned about their social approval

More pronounced in stressful situations (greater need for social support)

Explanations for conformity - ISI (research support)

Lucas et al: students give answer to easy/difficult maths questions

More conformity to incorrect answers with difficult problems

Most true for those who rated maths ability as poor

People conform when they do not know the answer, predicted by ISI

Look to other people: assume they must be better than us/are right

Explanations for conformity - NSI (research support)

Asch line study: asked to explain why gave wrong answer

Some said self-conscious giving right answer/afraid of disapproval

Written answers: conformity fell to 12.5%

Supports that they were conforming due to NSI

Explanations for conformity - two process theory (oversimplified)

States behaviour due to either ISI or NSI

Conformity reduced with dissenter in Asch study

Reduced power of NSI (social support) or ISI (alternative source of info)

Isn't always possible to know if ISI or NSI is at work

Questions view of operating independently

Conformity: Asch's research - Asch's research (procedure)

123 American male students

Naive ppts tested individually with group of 6-8 confederates

Had to identify length of standard line (to 3 comparison lines - 2 clearly wrong)

Confederates: correct answer on first few trials

Same wrong answers on 12/18 critical trials

Conformity: Asch's research - Asch's research (findings/conclusions)

Ppts gave wrong answer on 36.8% of critical trials

High level of conformity

75% conformed on at least one trial

25% never conformed

Asch effect: conform even in unambiguous situation

Most said conformed to avoid rejection (NSI) but continued to trust own private opinion (compliance)

Conformity: Asch's research - Asch's research (variations: group size)

Number of confederates

2 confederates: conformity to wrong answer 13.6%

3 confederates: rose to 31.8%

Adding more made little difference

Conformity: Asch's research - Asch's research (variations: unanimity)

Introduced truthful confederate/dissenting but inaccurate

Reduced conformity: 25% wrong answers

Enabled ppt to behave more independently

Suggests influence of majority somewhat depends on unanimity

Conformity: Asch's research - Asch's research (variations: task difficulty)

Making stimulus line/comparison lines more similar in length

Conformity increased: ISI plays greater role when tasks harder

More ambiguous situation - look to others for what is right

Conformity: Asch's research - Asch's research (child of it's time)

Perrin & Spencer: repeated study with UK engineering students

Only one conformed in 396 trials

Felt more confident about measuring lines than original sample so were less conformist

1950s America: especially conformist time, may be less likely to conform today

Asch effect not consistent across situations/time - not fundamental feature of human behaviour

Conformity: Asch's research - Asch's research (artificial task)

Knew they were being studied - may have guessed aim and responded to demand characteristics

Trivial task - no reason not to conform

'Group' did not resemble most groups in everyday life

Does not generalise to everyday life (consequences more important/interact with groups more directly)

Conformity: Asch's research - Asch's research (limited application of findings)

Only men tested - may be subject to beta bias

Neto: women may be more conformist (more concerned about social relationships/being accepted)

American ppts - individualist culture (individual needs over group)

Smith & Bond: suggest higher conformity rates in collectivist cultures (group needs over individual)

Conformity levels sometimes even higher than Asch found

Findings limited to American men - no account for gender/cultural differences

Conformity to social roles - Zimbardo's research (1: procedure)

Stanford prison experiment (1973)

Brutality of prison guards: sadistic personality/created by situation?

24 'emotionally stable' students

Randomly assigned role: prisoner/guard

Arrested/blindfolded/strip-searched e.t.c.

Heavily regulated daily routines/rules enforced by guards

De-individualisation: losing sense of identity

Prisoner's numbers used instead of names, guards in uniform and given complete power

Conformity to social roles - Zimbardo's research (2: findings)

Prisoners rebelled within 2 days, guards retaliated

Guards constantly harassed prisoners/highlighted difference in social roles by enforcing rules

Guards behaviour threatened prisoners psychological/physical health (became anxious/depressed, 3 released early due to signs of psychological disturbance, one went on hunger strike)

More identified with role, more anger/aggression

Some appeared to enjoy power over prisoners

Study stopped after 6 days instead of intended 14

Conformity to social roles - Zimbardo's research (3: conclusions)

Revealed power of situation to influence behaviour

All within prison conformed to social roles

Conformity to social roles - Zimbardo's research (control over variables)

Emotionally stable ppts selected and randomly assigned to roles

Tried to rule out personality differences as explanation of findings

Given roles by chance: behaviour due to pressures of situation, not personalities

Increases internal validity - more confident in drawing conclusions about influence of social roles on behaviour

Conformity to social roles - Zimbardo's research (lack of realism)

Some argued that ppts were play-acting (behaviour reflected stereotypes)

One guard claimed he based his role on a brutal film character

Prisoners rebelled because they thought that was what prisoners did

Zimbardo:

90% conversations about prison life, some expressed views that prison felt real

Seemed real to them, increasing internal validity

Conformity to social roles - Zimbardo's research (role of dispositional influences)

Fromm: exaggerate power of situation and minimise power of dispositional (personality) factors

Only 1/3 guards acted brutally - another third treated them fairly and other third supported prisoners

Conclusions may be overstated

Differences in guards behaviour show they could exercise right and wrong choices (despite situational pressures to conform)

Obedience: Milgram's research (1 - procedure)

Original obedience study (1963)

Why did such a high proportion of Germans support the Holocaust?

40 male ppts recruited through newspaper ad (advertising memory study)

20-50yrs, all kinds of professions, $4.50 for turning up

'Drew lots' for role: ppts always teacher and confederate (Mr Wallace) always learner

3rd confederate (experimenter) in lab coat

Told they could leave study at any time

Learner fitted with electrodes in next room, ppts to give increasing 'shocks' when made mistakes on word pairs task

Unaware shocks were fake/Mr Wallace was an actor

15v (light shock) to 450v (danger - severe shock)

300v: learner pounded on wall and gave no response to next question

after 315v: pounded on wall, gave no further response

Standard instruction if turner to experimenter for guidance: 'absence of response should be treated as a wrong answer'

Unsure about continuing: prods

1. please continue

2. the experiment requires that you continue

3. it is absolutely essential that you continue

4. you have no other choice, you must go on

Obedience: Milgram's research (2 - findings/conclusions)

No participant stopped below 300v

5 (12.5%) stopped at 300v

65% continued to 450v

Observations: signs of extreme tension

Prior: psych students predicted behaviour - no more than 3% would continue to 450v

Unexpected findings

Ppts debriefed + assured behaviour was normal

84% glad they had participated

74% learned something of personal importance

Obedience: Milgram's research (low internal validity)

Ome & Holland: ppts guessed shocks were fake, not testing what he intended

Sheridan & King: ppts gave real shocks to puppy - 54% males / 100% females delivered what they thought was a fatal shock

Obedience in study may be genuine

70% believed shocks were real

Obedience: Milgram's research (good external validity)

Milgram argued lab-based relationship between experimenter/participant reflected wider real-life authority relationships

Hofling et al: levels of obedience in nurses to unjustified demands by doctors over the phone were very high (21/22 obeyed)

Processes of obedience in study can be generalised

Obedience: Milgram's research (supporting replications)

French documentary: contestants in TV gameshow paid to give fake electric shocks to other ppts (actors) when instructed by presenter

80% gave maximum 450v to seemingly unconscious man

Also showed many signs of anxiety

Supports Milgram's conclusions about obedience to authority (not just a one-off)

Obedience: situational variables (1 - proximity)

Original study: teacher/learner in adjoining rooms, could hear but not see

Proximity variation: same room, obedience dropped to 40%

Touch proximity variation: force hand on shock plate, obedience dropped to 30%

'Remote-instruction' proximity variation: instructions over phone, obedience dropped to 20.5% (frequently pretended to give/gave weaker shocks)

Obedience: situational variables (2 - location)

Run-down building rather than Yale university

Obedience fell to 47.5% - experimenter had less authority in this setting

Obedience: situational variables (3 - uniform)

Original: experimenter wore grey lab coat as symbol of authority

Variation: experimenter called away at start by phone call and replaced by 'ordinary member of the public' (everyday clothes)

Obedience dropped to 20% (lowest of all variations)

Uniform = strong visual authority symbol/cue to act in obedient manner

Obedience: situational variables (graph)

Obedience: situational variables (research support)

Bickman: field experiment

Effect of authority on obedience

Confederate dressed in jacket/tie, milkman's outfit, security guard uniform

Asked to provide coin for parking meter/pick up litter etc

2x as likely to obey security guard than jacket/tie

Support Milgram's conclusion: uniform conveys authority/produces obedience

Obedience: situational variables (lack internal validity)

Ome & Holland: ppts in variations even more likely to realise procedure was fake due to extra experimental manipulation

Replaced by member of public: even Milgram recognised so contrived they may have worked it out

Unclear whether results are due to obedience or 'play acting' (ppts saw through deception)

Obedience: situational variables (cross-cultural replications)

Miranda et al: obedience over 90% for Spanish students

Findings not just limited to American males

Smith & Bond: most replications taken place in Western cultures, not that different from USA

Premature to conclude findings apply universally

Obedience: social-psychological factors - agentic state

Occurs when we act on behalf of another person (become an 'agent')

Feel no personal responsibility for actions

Experience high anxiety (moral strain): realise what they're doing is wrong but feel powerless to disobey

Opposite = autonomous state (behave according to own principles/feel responsible for actions)

Agentic shift = shift from autonomy to agent (occurs when perceive someone else as an authority figure due to position in a social hierarchy)

Binding factors = aspects of situation that allow someone to ignore/minimise damaging effect of behaviour

Reduce moral strain

E.g. shifting responsibility to victim/denying damage

Obedience: social-psychological factors - agentic state (research support)

Blass & Schmidt: showed students film of Milgram's study, asked to identify who was responsible for harm to learner

Students blamed experimenter rather than ppt due to legitimate authority (experimenter = top of hierarchy) but also expert authority (scientist)

Students recognised legitimate authority as cause of obedience, supporting explanation

Obedience: social-psychological factors - agentic state (limited approach)

Agentic shift doesn't explain many research findings

Milgram: some ppts did not obey

Humans are social animals in social hierarchies, should all obey

Hoflikng et al: nurses should've shown anxiety as they understood role in destructive process, was not the case

Can only account for some situations

Obedience: social-psychological factors - agentic state (cannot explain behaviour of Nazi's)

Mandel: German Reserve Police Battalion 101

Men obeyed orders to shoot civilians in small Polish town even though not directly ordered to (could be assigned other duties)

Challenges agentic shift: not powerless to obey

Obedience: social-psychological factors - legitimacy of authority

Most societies structured hierarchically

People in certain positions hold authority over the rest of us e.g. police officers, teachers, parents

Legitimate authority: agreed by society

Most accept authority figures should exercise power over others to allow society to function smoothly

Consequences: some people granted power to punish others

Give up independence to people we trust to exercise authority appropriately

Learn to accpet authority during childhood (parents/teachers)

Problems arise when becomes destructive

Charismatic leaders use legitimate authority destructively

Behave in ways that are cruel/dangerous

E.g. Milgram study: prods to order ppts to behave in ways against their conscience

Obedience: social-psychological factors - legitimacy of authority (useful account of cultural differences in obedience)

Countries differ in obedience to authority

Only 16% Australians went to top of voltage scale meanwhile 85% Germans did

Authority more likely to be accepted as legitimate in some cultures

Reflects how societies structured/children raised to respect authority figures

Increase validity of research

Obedience: social-psychological factors - legitimacy of authority (can explain real-life obedience)

Kelman & Hamilton: My Lai massacre (Vietnam War) explained by power hierarchy in US army

Army has authority recognised by government/law

Soldiers assume orders to be legal - even if to kill/rape/destroy villages

LOA gives reasons why destructive obedience is committed

Obedience: dispositional explanations - the authoritarian personality (1 - key study)

Investigated unconscious attitudes towards other racial groups

2000+ middle class white Americans

Developed several scales, including potential for facism scale (F-scale)

E.g. obedience/respect for authority is the most important virtue for children to learn

Authoritarians (scored highly) identified with strong people and were contemptuous of the 'weak'

Conscious of their own/others status

Showed excessive respect/defence to those of higher status

Cognitive style: fixed/distinctive stereotypes of other groups

Obedience: dispositional explanations - the authoritarian personality (2 - characteristics)

Adorno et al: wanted to understand anti-Semitism of the Holocaust

Believed unquestioning obedience is a psychological disorder ((tried to find causes in personality)

Concluded people with authoritarian personalities are especially obedient to authority (exaggerated respect/submissiveness, conventional attitudes towards race + gender)

Believe we need strong/powerful leaders to enforce traditional values

Inflexible outlook

Obedience: dispositional explanations - the authoritarian personality (3 - origin)

Forms in childhood through:

Harsh parenting

Strict discipline

Expectation of absolute loyalty

Impossibly high standards

Severe criticism

Conditional love (parents love depends on child's behaviour)

Creates resentment/hostility

Cannot express feelings directly against parents (fear reprisals)

Displaced onto those seen as 'weaker' (scapegoating)

Explains hatred of people seen as socially inferior (psychodynamic explanation)

Obedience: dispositional explanations - the authoritarian personality (support for link between personality and obedience)

Elms & Milgram: interviewed fully obedient participants - all scored highly on F-scale

Just a correlation between measured variables

Cannot conclude that authoritarian personality causes obedience

Third factor: may both be caused by lower level of education, not directly linked to each other at all

Obedience: dispositional explanations - the authoritarian personality (limited explanation)

Millions of Germans displayed obedient/anti-Semitic behaviour - didn't all have same personality

Unlikely that majority of population had authoritarian personality

Alternative explanation more realistic: social identity theory (SIT) - most Germans identified with the anti-Semitic state + adopted views

Obedience: dispositional explanations - the authoritarian personality (F-scale is politically biased)

Christie & Jahoda: aims to measure tendency towards right wing ideology

But both right and left wing authoritarianism (e.g. Chinese Maoism) require complete obedience to political authority

Not comprehensive dispositional explanation: doesn't explain obedience across whole political spectrum

Resistance to social influence: social support (1 - conformity)

Can help people resist conformity

Pressure to conform reduced with dissenting peers

Asch: dissenter doesn't have to be correct (someone else not following majority frees others to follow own conscience - 'model')

Effect not long lasting: dissenter starts conforming again, so does ppt

Resistance to social influence: social support (2 - obedience)

Pressure to obey reduce if another person seen to disobey

Milgram: obedience dropped from 65% to 10% when ppt joined by disobedient confederate

May not follow their behaviour but disobedience frees ppt to act from their own conscience

Resistance to social influence: social support (research support - conformity)

Allen & Levine (1971): independence increased with one dissenter in Asch type study

Occurred even if dissenter wore thick glasses/said he had problems with vision (couldn't accurately judge lines)

Resistance not motivated by following what someone else says

Enables someone to be free from group pressure

Resistance to social influence: social support (research support - obedience)

Gamson et al: found higher levels of rebellion (independence) than Milgram

Ppts were in groups (produce evidence oil company could use to run smear campaign)

29/33 (88%) rebelled

Peer support linked to greater resistance

Resistance to social influence: locus of control (1 - internals/externals)

Rotter (1966): internal vs external LOC

Internals: events controlled by themselves (e.g. exam performance depends on how hard you work)

Externals: things happen outside of their control (e.g. failed exam = bad teacher/hard questions)

Resistance to social influence: locus of control (2 - continuum)

Isn't simply a matter of being internal or external

Continuum: high internal one end, high external the other, low internal/external in the middle

Resistance to social influence: locus of control (3 - resistance to social influence)

Internal LOCs more likely to resist pressures to conform/obey

Take responsibility for own actions/experiences = more likely to act on own beliefs

High internal LOC: more self confident/achievement orientated/intelligent, less need for social approval (traits lead to greater resistance)

Resistance to social influence: locus of control (research support)

Support link between LOC/obedience

Holland: repeated Milgram study, recorded whether ppts were internals/externals

37% internals did not continue to 450v (showed independence)

23% externals did not

Internals showed greater resistance

Increases validity of LOC as explanation/confidence that it can explain obedience

Resistance to social influence: locus of control (contradictory research)

Not all research supports link between LOC/resistance

Twenge et al: analysed data from American LOC studies over 40 years

People have become more independent and more external

Resistance due to LOC: expect more internal

Challenges link

Results may be due to changing society - things increasingly out of our control

Resistance to social influence: locus of control (limited role)

Role in resisting SI may be exaggerated

Rotter: found LOC only important in new situations

Little influence in familiar situations (previous experiences always more important)

Often overlooked

People who have conformed/obeyed in specific situations in the past are likely to do so again, even with high internal LOC

Only helpful in explaining narrow range of new situations

Minority influence (1 - internalisation)

Minority influences beliefs/behaviour of other people

Distinct from conformity (majority influence)

Most likely to lead to internalisation

3 processes: consistency, commitment, flexibility

Minority influence (2 - consistency)

Increases interest from other people

Synchronic consistency: all saying the same thing

Diachronic consistency: all saying the same thing for some time

Others rethink own vies ('maybe they've got a point if..')

Minority influence (3 - commitment)

Sometimes engage in extreme activities to draw attention to views

Must pose risk to minority - demonstrates commitment to cause

Helps gain more attention (augmentation principle)

Minority influence (3 - flexibility)

Nemeth: consistency can be interpreted negatively

Repetition can be seen as rigid/off-putting to majority (unlikely to result in conversion)

Minority need to be prepared to adapt/accept reasonable counter arguments

Balance consistency/flexibility

Minority influence (4 - snowball effect)

Hear new viewpoint: likely to think about it more

Deeper processing important in conversion to minority viewpoint

Over time: increasing numbers of people switch from majority to minority viewpoint - have been 'converted'

More converted = faster rate of conversion (snowball effect)

Gradually minority becomes majority, social change has occured

Minority influence (5 - key study)

Moscovici et al: blue-green slides

6 ppts viewed 36 blue-green slides (varying intensity)

Stated green or blue

Conditions:

1. 2 confederates consistently said slides were green (2/3 trials) = same wrong answer on 8.42% of trials, 32% wrong answer at least once

2. confederates inconsistent about colour of slides = agreement fell to 1.25%

3. control group (no confederates) = wrong 0.25% of time

Minority influence (research support for consistency)

Moscovici et al: consistent minority opinion had greater effect on other than inconsistent opinion

Wood et al: meta-analysis of almost 100 similar studies, minorities seen as consistent most influential

Confirms consistency is major factor in minority influence

Minority influence (research support for deeper thought)

Change to minority position involves deeper processing of ideas

Martin et al: ppts given message supporting particular viewpoint, attitudes measured

Heard endorsement of view from minority/majority

Heard conflicting view, attitudes measured again

Less willing to change opinions to conflicting view if heard minority group

Suggest minority message had been more deeply processed/more enduring effect

Minority influence (artificial tasks)

E.g. identifying colour of slide far removed from how minorities try to change majority opinions in real life

Jury decision making/political campaigns: outcomes vastly more important

Lack external validity

Limited in what it tells us about minority influence in real life situations

Social influence and social change: lessons from minority influence research (1 - drawing attention)

Civil rights movement

Segregation in 1950s America: schools/restaurants in southern states exclusive to whites

Marches drew attention to situation by providing social proof of problem

Social influence and social change: lessons from minority influence research (2 - consistency)

Many marches/many taking part

Minority of population but displayed consistency of message/intent

Social influence and social change: lessons from minority influence research (3 - deeper processing)

Attention: many who had accepted status quo began thinking about unjustness of it

Social influence and social change: lessons from minority influence research (4 - augmentation principle)

Individuals risked lives

'Freedom riders' - mixed racial groups got on buses to challenge separate seating for black people

Many beaten/suffered mob violence

Social influence and social change: lessons from minority influence research (5 - snowball effect)

Activists (e.g. MLK) gradually got attention of US government

1964: Civil Rights Act passed - prohibiting discrimination

Change from minority to majority support

Social influence and social change: lessons from minority influence research (6 - social cryptomnesia)

Memory that social change happened but not remembering how

Some have no memory of events leading up to change

Social influence and social change: lessons from conformity research

Asch highlighted importance of dissent

One confederate always gave correct answers: broke power power of majority, encouraging others to dissent

Dissent has potential to lead to social change

Environmental/health campaigns exploit conformity processes by appealing to NSI

Provide info about what others are doing (e.g. normative messages on bins, 'bin it - others do')

Social change encouraged by drawing attention to what majority are doing

Social influence and social change: lessons from obedience research

Milgram: importance of disobedient models

Confederate refused to give shocks: obedience in ppts plummeted

Zimbardo: obedience can be used to create social change through process of gradual commitment

Once small instruction is obeyed it becomes more difficult to resist a bigger one

People 'drift' into new kind of behaviour

Social influence and social change (research support for normative influences)

Nolan et al: whether SI processes lead to reduction in energy consumption within a community

Hung messages on front doors of houses

Key message: other residents are trying to reduce energy usage

Significan decreases in energy use compared to control group (message to save energy without reference to otehr people's behaviour)

Conformity can lead to social change through operation of NSI

Social influence and social change (minority influence only indirectly effective)

Social changes happen slowly (e.g. taken decades for attitudes against drink-driving to shift)

Nemeth: effects of minority influence are indirect/delayed

Indirect: majority influenced on matters related to central issue, not issue itself

Delayed: effects not seen for some time

Limited explanation: fragile effects/narrow role in social influence

Social influence and social change (role of deeper processing questioned)

Moscovici's conversion explanation: minority/majority influence involve different cognitive processes

Minority influence causes individuals to think more deeply

Mackie: majority influence may create deeper processing if you do not share their views

Assume others think in same ways as us: when we find majority believes differently - forced to think hard about their arguments

Central element of minority influence challenged/may be incorrect

Doubt on validity of Moscovici's theory