SOCIAL INFLUENCE

1.1 CONFORMITY

Key terms

conformity - a change in a persons behaviour or opinions as a result of a real or imagined pressure from a person or group of people

What was Aschs baseline procedure

123 American men were tested
Each participant saw two large white cards on each trial. They were asked to say which of the comparison lines was the same as line X
Used groups of 6-8. Only one participants was genuine, always seated last or next to last. The others were all confederates who gave the same incorrect scripted answers

What were Aschs baseline findings

the genuine participants agreed with confederates 36.8% of the time
25% of the participants never gave a wrong answer

What 3 variables were investigated by Asch

Task difficulty
Unanimity
Group size

Aschs variation for task difficulty

Increased the difficulty of the line judging task by making the lines more similar
As difficulty increased, conformity increased
This shows informational social influence (the need to be right)

Aschs variation for unanimity

Introduced a confederate who didn’t conform
As unanimity decreased, conformity decreased
This was even true when this confederate and the participant had different answers

Aschs variation for group size

varied the number of confederates from 1-15
Found a curvilinear relationship between group size and conformity. Conformity increased with group size but only until a certain point
With 3 confederates, conformity rose to 31.8%, then the rate levelled off

Evaluation

Artificial situation and task

participants knew they were in a research study so may have produced demand characteristics
Fiske argued that Aschs groups did not resemble the groups that we experience in everyday life
This means that findings do not generalise to real world situations, especially where the consequences of conformity may be important

Limited application

Only used men. Neto suggested that women may be more conformist than men because they are more concerned about social relationships and being accepted
Only applies to individualistic cultures (US). Bond and Smith conducted similar studies in collectivist cultures and found conformity rates are higher

Research support

Lucas asked participants to answer easy and hard maths questions. Found that the harder questions had higher levels of conformity
However - Lucas found that conformity is more complex than Asch suggested, there are individual factors such as confidence

Ethical issues

the participants were deceived because they thought the confederates were also genuine participants
However the benefits outweigh the ethical costs. By increasing our knowledge of why people conform, it may help us avoid mindless destructive conformity

1.2 CONFORMITY TYPES AND EXPLANATIONS

3 type of conformity: suggested by Herbert Kelman

Internalisation
Identification
Compliance

Internalisation

a persons genuinely accepts the group norms
Private and public change of opinions/ behaviour
This change is usually permanent, persisting even in the absence of other group members

Identification

Conform because we value something about the group and want to be apart of it
We publicly change opinions/ behaviour but may not privately agree with everything

Compliance

going along with the other in public, but privately not changing opinions/ behaviour
Results in a superficial change, the behaviour/ opinion stops as soon as the group pressure stops

Explanations for conformity

Morton deutsch and Harold Gerard suggested a two process theory. That there are 2 main reasons why a person conforms (the need to be right ISI, the need to be liked NSI)

Informational social influence (ISI)

the need to be right
Cognitive process - due to what you think
Leads to a permanent change in opinion/ behaviour (internalisation)
Most likely to happen in new situations (where there is some ambiguity) or in crisis situations (where decisions must be made quickly)

Normative social influence (NSI)

the need to be liked
Emotional process - wanting to gain social approval
Leads to a temporary change in opinions/ behaviour (compliance)
Most likely to occur in situations with strangers or with friends, more pronounced in stressful situations where people have a greater need for social support

Evaluation

Research support for NSI

Asch interviewed his participants and found that some conformed because they felt self-conscious and were afraid of disapproval
When participants wrote their answers don, conformity fell to 12.5%

Research support for ISI

Lucas found that participants conformed more to difficult maths questions
This is because the situation became more ambiguous, partipants did not want to be wrong so they conformed to other
however — it’s unclear whether its ISI or NSI at work. Asch found that conformity decreased when unanimity decreased. This may be showing NSI - providing social support. Or may be showing ISI - providing an alternate answer. So they probably operate together in most real world situations

Individual differences in NSI

some people are more concerned with being liked (nAffiliators).
Paul McGhee and Richard teevan found that students who were nAffiliators were more likely to conform

1.3 CONFORMITY TO SOCIAL ROLES

Social roles= the parts people play as members of various social groups. These are accompanied by expectations we and others have of what is appropriate behaviour in each role

Zimbardos research

The Stanford prison experiment

set up a mock prison in the basement at Stanford university
21 male volunteers, all were tested as ‘emotionally stable’
Students were randomly assigned to play the role as guard or prisoner
Both encouraged to conform to social roles through uniform and instructions

Uniforms

prisoners — given a cap to cover their hair, identified by a number
Guards — a club, handcuffs, mirrored shaded
This created a loss of personal identities (de-individuation), which made them more likely to conform

Findings

guards took up their roles, within 2 days the prisoners rebelled
Guards then used ‘divide and rule’ tactics. Such as constant harassment and head-counts (mostly at night). This was to remind prisoners of their powerlessness
After their rebellion failed, the prisoners became subdued, depressed and anxious
One was released due to psychological disturbance, 2 more were released on the 4th day. One went on hunger strike (he was force fed then put in ‘the hole’)
The study ended after 6 days rather than the intended 14

Conclusions

shows that social roles have a strong influence on individuals behaviour
Guards became brutal and prisoners became submissive

Application

Jean Orlando
Selected staff at a psychiatric ward to play the role of patients
After 2 days they began experiencing symptoms of psychological disturbance
The study was ended early because some ‘patients’ were losing their sense of self-identity

Evaluation

Control over key variables

by randomly assigning people to their role, it rules out individual personality differences. So the results were due to the role itself not the person
This increased the internal validity, so we can be confident drawing conclusions

Lack of realism

Banuazizi and Movahedi argued that participants were play acting. They performed based on stereotypes
One of the guards admitted he based his role of a character from ‘cold hand Luke’
However McDermott argued they did believe it was real. 90% of conversations were about prison life. One prisoner explained how he thought the prison was real, but was run by psychologists instead of the government. This suggests high internal validity

Exaggerates the power of roles

overstate the effects of social roles and minimised the influence of dispositional factors (e.g personality)
For example only 1/3 of the guards behaved in a brutal way. They rest were able to resist situational pressures to conform to brutal roles

Alternative explanation

Reicher and Haslam used social identity theory to explain this behaviour. Suggesting that the guards had to actively identify with their roles to act as they did

1.4 OBEDIENCE

Obedience = a form of social influence in which an individual follows a direct order. The person issuing the order is usually a figure of authority, who has the power to punish

Milgrams research

Baseline procedure

40 American men (volunteers)
Thought they were taking part in a study for memory
Each volunteer was introduced to ‘another participant’ at the lab (which was actually a confederate)
The drew lots to see who would be the teacher and who would be the learner, but the draw was fixed so that the participant was always the teacher
The learner was strapped to a chair and wired up to electrodes, the real particpant was given a small shock to experience for themselves
The learner had to remember and recall words, if they were wrong the teacher would deliver a shock (fake) that increased in intensity
At 300V the learner pounded on the wall and then gave no response, at 315V he pounded again, then remained silent for the rest of the procedure

Used 4 ‘prods’ to order the experiment to continue

Please continue
The experiment requires that you continue
It is absolutely essential that you continue
You have no other choice, you must go on

Baseline findings

every participant delivered the shocks up to 300V
12.5% stopped at 300V
65% continued to the highest level of 450V
Qualitative data included — observations like sweat, tremble, stutter, biting their lips and digging fingernails into their hands

Predictions

14 psychology students said no more than 3% of the participants would continue to 450V
Showing that findings were unexpected

All participants were debriefed and assured that their behaviour was entirely normal. Also a follow up questionnaire showed that 84% were glad to have participated

Conclusion

milgram concluded that German people are not different. The American partipants were willing to obey orders even when they might harm another person
Suspected there were other factors that encouraged obedience so he conducted further studies

Application

Hofling — arranged for an unknown doctor to order 22 nurses to administer an overdose of a drug, this was done over the phone. 95% of nurses obeyed before being stopped.
Rank and Jacobson — replicated this but made it more applicable to real life. The drug was known by the nurses, instructions were given in person, they knew the doctor and had time to discuss with each other. Only 2 out of 18 nurses obeyed.

Evaluation

research support

Hofling found 95% of nurses obeyed to instructions given to them by a doctor
Also a french documentary was made. The Particpants in the ‘game’ were asked to give electric shocks to other participants (who were actors). 80% delivered the maximum shock.

Low internal validity

75% of participants said they believed the shocks were genuine. However martin Orne and Charles Holland argued the partipants were ‘play acting’, so may have been responding to demand characteristics
Counterpoint — however Sheridan and king replicated this procedure with real shocks being administered to a puppy. 54% of the men and 100% of the women gave the ‘fatal shock’

Alternative interpretations

milgrams experiment may be showing social identity theory
Haslam found that milgrams participant obeyed until they were given the 4th prod. ‘You have no other choice, you must go on’. So they were only obeying when they identified with the scientific aims of the research.

Ethical issues

participants were deceived as they thought the allocation of roles was random, they thought the shocks were real and they thought it was a memory test. But this was dealt with by debriefing participants
Diana Baumrind suggests that deception in psychological studies can have serious consequences for participants and researchers

1.5 OBEDIENCE: SITUATIONAL VARIABLES

Situational variables = features of the immediate physical and social environment which may influence a persons behaviour

Milgram carried out a large number of variations to consider the situational variables. He investigated proximity, uniform and location

Proximity

baseline study — the teacher could hear the learner but not see him
proximity variation — the teacher and learner were in the same room. Obedience rate dropped from 65% to 40%
Touch proximity variation — the teacher had to force the learners hand onto an electroshock plate. Obedience dropped to 30%
Remote instruction variation — the experimenter left the room and gave instructions by telephone. Obedience dropped to 20.5% and they frequently pretended to give shocks
Explanation — decreased proximity allows people to psychologically distance themselves from the consequences of their actions

Uniform

Baseline study — the experimenter wore a grey lab coat as a symbol of authority
Variation — experimenter was called away and had his role taken over by an ‘ordinary member of the public’ (a confederate) who was wearing everyday clothes. Obedience dropped to 20%
Explanation — uniforms encourage obedience because they are widely recognised symbols of authority, so we accept their authority as legitimate and obey

Location

Baseline study — conducted the study at Yale university
Variation — conducted the study in a run down office block. Obedience dropped to 47.5%
Explanation — the prestigious university gave Milgrams study legitimacy and authority, so assume the experimenter shared this legitimacy. Participants were still obedient because they perceived the ‘scientific’ nature of the procedure

Evaluation

Research support

Bickman had 3 confederate dress in different outfits. A jacket and tie, a milkman and a security guard
They asked passers by to perform certain tasks
Found people were 2x more likely to obey the security guard than the suit and tie

Cross cultural replications

Meeus ordered Dutch participants to say stressful things in an interview to someone (a confederate)
Found 90% of participants obeyed
When the person giving the orders was not present, obedience decreased further (showing proximity)
however, Bond and Smith would argue it lacks cross cultural validity. As most replications are done in countries that are culturally similar to the US

The danger of the situational perspective

Mandel argues that this offers an excuse for evil behaviour, suggesting that people are victims of situational pressures beyond their control
Simply implying that Nazis were ‘simply obeying orders’

1.6 OBEDIENCE: DISPOSITIONAL EXPLANATIONS

Key terms

Dispositional explanation — any explanation of behaviour that highlights the importance of the individuals personality.

Authoritarian personality — a type of personality that is especially susceptible to obeying people in authority. Thought to be submissive to those of higher status and dismissive of inferiors

Authoritarian personality

— Adorno wanted to understand the holocaust, concluded that obedience is due to the individual rather than the situation —

Authoritarian personality and obedience

Adorno argued people with authoritarian personality are submissive to authority and are dismissive of those who are inferior
View society as weaker than it once was, so we need strong and powerful leaders to enforce traditional values.
So they are more likely to obey orders

Origins of the authoritarian personality

Adorno believed this forms in childhood, mostly as a result to harsh parenting. Parents who give conditional love and have high standards
Argued that this creates resentment and hostility, but the child cannot express this so their fears are displaced onto others who they perceive as weaker (scapegoating)

Adorno’s research

Procedure

studied more than 2000 middle class white Americans and their unconscious attitudes towards ethnic groups.
Developed the f-scale (potential-for-fascism scale), for example ‘obedience and respect for authority are the most important things a child can learn’ agreed —> disagree

Findings

people who scored high on the f-scale (authoritarian) identified with strong people are were more dismissive of the weak
They were conscious of status and showed more respect to those of higher status
Also found they had a different cognitive style (way of perceiving others). They had more distinct and fixed stereotypes
Found a strong positive correlation between authoritarianism and prejudice

Evaluation

Research support

Milgram and Elms interviewed a small sample of people who had participated in the original obedience studies and had been obedient
Completed the f-scale and found they scored higher than a comparison group of disobedience participants
Counterpoint — however there were a number of characteristics that were usual for authoritarians, e.g did not experience harsh punishment in childhood, did not glorify their fathers and didn’t have hostile attitudes towards their mothers

Limited explanation

cannot explain obedient behaviour for a whole countries population
It is highly unlikely that most people in Germany had authoritarian personality
An alternate view is the social identity theory. The German people identified with the anti-Semitic nazi state and scapegoated Jews

Political bias

the f-scale only measures the tendency towards an extreme form of right-wing ideology
Christie and Jahoda argued the f-scale only criticises the far right, they point out that left wing authoritarianism is the Russian Bolshevism, which is also harmful
So it does not account for obedience across the whole political spectrum

Flawed evidence

Greenstein suggests the f-scale is a very flawed scale, for example it is possible to get a high score just by selecting ‘agree’ answers.
This means its easy to have a response bias which leads to incorrect results

1.7 RESISTANCE TO SOCIAL INFLUENCE

Key terms

Resistance to social influence = the ability to withstand the social pressure to conform with the majority or to obey authority

Social support = the presence of people who resist pressures to conform or obey can help others to do the same. Act as models to show that resistance is possible

Locus of control = the sense we have about what directs events in our lives. Internals believe they are in control, externals believe in luck/fate and external forces

Social support

Resisting conforming

the pressure to conform can be resisted if there are other people who are not conforming
Asch found that conformity decreased when the confederate didn’t conform
Act as a model for independent behaviour

Resisting obedience

the pressure to obey can be resisted if there are other people who are not obeying
Milgrams found that obedience decreased when a ‘teacher’ confederate was disobedient
Act as a model for independent behaviour

Evaluation

Real world research support

Albrecht evaluated teen Fresh Start USA, an 8 week programme to help pregnant adolescents to resist the pressure to smoke
They had social support through a mentor or buddy. This who had a buddy were significant less likely to smoke than the control group

Research support for dissenting peers

Gamson asked participants to produce evidence that would help an oil company run a smear campaign
Found high levels of resistance because participants were in groups

Social support

Allen and Levine found that social support does not always help (in a similar task to Asch)
Found that when the dissenter had poor eyesight and thick glasses, resistance was only 36%

Locus of control (rotter)

The LOC continuum

people are not just one or the other, its a scale

Resistance to social influence

those with a high internal locus of control are more able to resist pressures to conform or obey. As they take more personal responsibly and base decisions on their own beliefs
Those with a high internal locus of control are also more confident, more achievement orientated and have higher intelligence
This leads to greater resistance to social influence, also characteristics of leaders who need less social approval

Evaluation

Research support

Holland repeated milgrams study and measured whether participants were internals or externals
Found the internals showed higher resistance

Contradictory research

Twenge analysed locusts of control studied from over 40 years, found that people become more resistant to obedience and more external
We would expect people to be more internal if they are more resistant, suggests that its not a valid explanation

Limited role

Rotter suggests that LOC is not the most important factor in determining whether someone resists social influence
It depends of the situation, only affects behaviour in new situations. In old situations you behave in the same way as before.

1.8 MINORITY INFLUENCE

Key terms

Minority influence — a form of social influence in which the minority of people persuade others to adopt their beliefs, attitudes or behaviours. Leads to internalisation or conversion, change in public and private behaviours

Moscovici

demonstrated minority influence in a study
A group of 6 people were asked to a set of 36 blue-coloured slides that varied in intensity
Asked to state whether the slide was blue or green
Each group had 2 confederates who consistently said green. Participants also said green on 8.42% of trials
A second group did the same but the confederates said green 24 times and blue 12 times (inconsistent). Participants said green in 1.25% of cases
Without confederates they said green on 0.25% of the trials

Consistency

minority influence is most effective if the minority keeps the same beliefs, both over time (diachronic consistency) and between all the individuals (synchronic consistency)
Effective because it draws attention to the minority views

Commitment

minority influence is more effective if the minority demonstrates dedication to their position, e.g by making personal sacrifices
This is effective because it shows the minority is not acting out of self-interest and shows they really believe in what they’re saying. Causing more people to pay attention (augmentation principle)

Flexibility

minority influence is more effective if the minority show flexibility by accepting the possibility of compromise
relentless consistency can be seen as unbending and unreasonable (Nameth)

Explaining the process of change

consistency, commitment and flexibility help people think about the minorities cause
Hearing something new makes you think more deeply about it (especially if it follows the criteria above)
This deeper processing leads to conversion from the majority position to the minority position
The more this happens, the faster the rate of conversion (snowball effect). Gradually the minority view becomes the majority view and change has occurred

Evaluation

Research support for consistency

moscovici showed that a consistent minority opinion had a greater effect on changing the view of others
Wendy wood carried out a met analysis of 100 similar studies and found that minorities who were consistent were most influential

Research support for deeper processing

Martin presented a message supporting a particular viewpoint
One group heard a minority group agree with the view
Another group heard a majority group agree with the view
The participants were then exposed to a conflicting view. Found people were less willing to change their opinions if they’d listened to a minority group. Shows their message had been more deeply processed
Counterpoint — in real world situations the majority and minority are much more complicated. E.g the majority have more status and power. So doesn’t apply to real world situations

Artificial tasks

moscovicis ‘identifying the colour’ task is artificial and lacks the importance of the beliefs of minorities in real life
E.g minorities are in jury-decision making and political complaining, where the results are very important.
So lacks external validity

Power of minority influence

Moscovicis study found that agreement with the minority was only 8%, suggesting that minority influence is rare and not very useful
But when the participants wrote down their answers, they were more likely to agree with the minority. Suggests there are other factors at play

1.9 SOCIAL INFLUENCE AND SOCIAL CHANGE

Key terms

Social influence — the process by which individuals and groups change each others attitudes and behaviours. Includes conformity, obedience and minority influence

Social change — occurs when whole societies adopt new attitudes, beliefs and ways of doing things

Lessons from minority influence research

— steps in how minority social influence creates social change —

Drawing attention
Consistency
Deeper processing
Augmentation principle (personal risk indicates strong belief and reinforces their message)
The snowball effect
Social cryptomnesia (people have a memory that change has occurred but don’t remember how it happened)

Lessons from conformity research

Asch found that when one confederate gave a different answer, it broke the power of the majority, encouraging others to do the same. This has the potential to lead to social change
Also exploiting conformity through normative social influence. Encouraging others to do something by saying that others are/ that its the norm (‘bin it - others do’)

Lessons from obedience research

Milgram - in a variation where a confederate teacher refused to give the shocks, the rate of obedience of genuine participants dropped
Zimbardo - suggests obedience can be used to create social change through the process of gradual commitment. Once a small instruction is obeyed, it becomes more difficult to resist a bigger one. People ‘drift’ into a new kind of behaviour

Evaluation

Research support for normative influences

Nolan. Hung messages on peoples doors about saving energy. Found the messages that referenced other people’s behaviour had significant decreases in energy usage
Shows its a valid explanation
Counterpoint — however Foxcroft reviewed 70 studies where normative social influence was used to reduce student alcohol use. Only found a small reduction in drinking quality. So it does not always produce long-term social change

Minority influence explains change

Nameth claims social change is due to the type of thinking minorities inspire, as it leads to broad and divergent thinking which leads to better decisions and more creative solutions
This is why dissenting minorities are values, they stimulate new ideas and open minds in a way majorities cannot

Role of deeper processing

deeper processing may not play a role in how minorities bring about social change.
Jackie suggests that deeper processing only occurs when majority influences have different views, this is because we want to share others views and think in the same ways
So we are forced to think about their arguments and reasoning

Barriers to social change

Bashir found that participants are less likely to be environmentally friendly because they did not want to be associated with the stereotypical and minority ‘environmentalists’
So there are barriers to minorities causing social change, such as negative stereotypes