Social Influence

Social Influence

Occurs when one’s emotions, opinions or behaviours are affected

Conformity

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

Compliance

Shallowest type of conformity. Temporarily conforming publicly but not privately whilst the group is monitoring your behaviour.

Identification

Conforming publicly and privately but temporarily, behaving the same as the group because we value them and want to be part of them.

Internalisation

Deepest type of conformity. Changing views both publicly and privately for a long period of time.

Obedience

An individual is following direct orders  usually from an authority figure who has the power to punish you.

Jenness (1932)

Students were asked to estimate the amount of beans in a jar and then discussed later with a group. When asked again, he found individuals changed their estimates to fit in with the group estimate.

Asch (1951)

Aim – To investigate whether people conform to the majority

Procedure – 50 American male students participated in a vision test. They were put in a room with 7 confederates and asked to state aloud which comparison line was most like the target line, the answer was clear. The participants were placed second to last. The confederates answered incorrectly 12 out of 18 times, known as the critical trials. Asch’s control trials had no confederates.

Findings – On average, 1/3 (32%) of participants conformed and went along with the clearly wrong answer. In the critical trials, about 75% of participants conformed and 25% never did. 5% of participants conformed in every trial. In the control group, less than 1% gave the wrong answer.

Conclusion – Most participants conformed publicly, however didn’t change their views privately. This shows people are more likely to comply when the views and approval of the group are important to them.

Asch’s variations

Group size – Asch varied the number of confederates from one to fifteen. He found a curvilinear relationship between group size and conformity rate. Conformity increased with group size up to a point. 3 confederates = conformity rose to 31.8% The presence of more confederates made little differences – the rate levelled off. 1 confederate = 3% conformed.

Unanimity – Asch introduced a confederate who disagreed with the other confederates (a dissenter). 5.5% conformed with a dissenter present. Only 9% conformed even if the dissenter gave the wrong answer. The rate decreased to less than a quarter of the level it was when the majority was unanimous.

Task Difficulty – Asch increased the difficulty of the line judging task by making the comparison lines more similar to the stimulus line. Asch found conformity increased, possibly the task becomes more ambiguous. Informational social influence = look to others for guidance and assume they’re correct and you’re wrong.

Zimbardo - Stanford Prison Experiment (1973)

Aim – To investigate whether people conform to their social roles

Procedure – Zimbardo created a mock prison in Stanford University basement and participants were given either the role of prisoner or guard at random. Participants were volunteers and were paid $15 a day. Prisoners were arrested at their homes without warning and booked at a local police station. The prisoners stayed in small cells with barred doors and bare walls. They were stripped naked upon arrival at mock prison and given prison clothes and bedding. They were given a smock, a cap, a chain around their ankle and only referred to by number. Guards were issued khaki uniform, reflective sunglasses, whistles and handcuffs and a list of tasks to complete.

Findings – Participants quickly conformed to their social roles. The guards became aggressive and assertive whilst the prisoners became submissive and dependent. After 36 hours, one prisoner had to be released due to mental breakdowns. Four prisoners were released early. The experiment was called off after 6 days, despite meaning to last 2 weeks.

Conclusion – People quickly conform to social roles, so social roles can shape people’s behaviours and attitudes.

Normative Social Influence

Following the majority’s behaviour in order to fit in, to gain social acceptance. You may not always agree with the majority. It’s most likely to lead to compliance as people change publicly not privately. It can also lead to identification as people change publicly and privately but only temporarily in the presence of a group.

Informational Social Influence

Following others who are more likely to know what to do to make sure you don’t make mistakes as you don’t know the correct way to behave.

Milgram

Aim – To assess how far people will go in obeying an authority figure

Procedure – 40 men volunteered to be in a study at Yale University on ‘memory’. The volunteer was introduced to another participant (a confederate). Both drew lots to see who’d be the ‘teacher’ or ‘learner’. The experimenter was in a grey lab coat to present themselves as an authority figure. The participant would always be the teacher. Teacher had to give Learner an electric shock every time they made a mistake on a memory task. Shocks increased up to 450V. They could hear the learner but not see him. Experiment continued until 450 volts was reached or the teacher refused to continue. If the teacher tried to stop, the experimenter responded with a series of prods.

Findings – All participants delivered shocks up to 300V. 12.5% (5 participants) stopped at 300 volts and 65% continued to the highest level of 450V. Milgram collected quantitative data including observations such as participants showing signs of extreme tension e.g. nervous laughter. Milgram’s students guessed that 3% of participants would go up to 450V (pathological fringe) but 65% actually did.

Conclusion – People are willing to obey orders even when they might harm someone.

Situational Variables affecting Obedience

Proximity – When the teacher and learner were placed in the same room, obedience dropped from 65% to 40%.

Touch proximity – Teacher had to force the learner’s hand onto an ‘electroshock plate’ if the learner refused to do it himself.

Remote instruction – When the experimenter left the room and gave orders over the phone, obedience dropped to 20.5% and some participants pretended to give shocks. More distance allows participants to psychologically distance themselves from consequences as they’re less aware of the harm they’re causing.

Location – Conducted in a run-down office block instead of Yale. Obedience fell to 47.5%. Yale provided legitimacy and authority but the office block did not. Obedience was still high due to the perceived ‘scientific’ nature of the experiment.

Uniform – The experimenter was called away due to an inconvenient telephone call and replaced by an ‘ordinary member of the public’ in everyday clothes. Obedience dropped to 20%.

Agentic State

A mental state where we feel no personal responsibility for our behaviour as we are acting for an authority figure, freeing us from our consciences. 

Autonomous State

When a person is free to behave according to our own principles and feels a sense of responsibility for their own actions.

Agentic Shift

Shift from autonomy to agency, usually when someone perceives authority.

Legitimacy of Authority

More likely to obey people who we think have authority over us, that hold status in social hierarchy. We believe there will be punishments if we don’t.

Binding Factors

Parts of the situation allow the person to ignore or minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour.