Social influence

Conformity

Types of conformity

Conformity = individuals changing their attitudes, beliefs or behaviour in order to go along with the majority as a result of group pressure

Internalisation:

  • both publicly and privately changing behaviour/view to match that of the majority group

  • e.g. religion

Identification:

  • changing public and private beliefs/behaviour but only while in the presence of the group

Compliance:

  • publicly changing behaviour to match the majority group, whilst maintaining a different private view

Explanations for conformity

AO1

Normative social influence

  • conformity due to desire to fit in with the group

Informational social influence

  • conformity due to the desire to be right

  • often results in internalisation

AO3

+Jenness

  • asked participants individually to estimate how many jellybeans a glass jar contained (ambiguous task).

  • Then put the group in a room with the jar and asked them to provide a group estimate through discussion.

  • Participants then asked to estimate number on their own again to find whether their initial estimates had altered based on influence of majority.

  • Almost all changed their individual guesses to be closer to group estimate

  • = informational social influence

Asch

Method

  • lab experiment

  • a group of 8 male students shown 2 cards - 1 vertical line and 3 vertical lines of different length - had to call out which line was the same (answer always obvious)

  • all participants but 1 were confederates

  • confederates gave unanimous wrong answers on 12/18 trials

  • used 50 genuine participants

  • participants conformed to unanimous wrong answer on 37% of critical trials, 75% of participants conformed at least once

  • can be informational and normative social influence

Variables affecting conformity:

Size of group

  • conformity increases as size of group increases

  • larger groups exert more normative social influence

Lack of group unanimity

  • when group answer less unanimous, conformity decreased

  • Ash found the presence of 1 person also going against majority choice can decrease conformity by 80%

  • normative social influence

Difficulty of task

  • when correct answer more ambiguous and harder to judge which line is correct then conformity increased

  • informational influence increased

Answer in private

  • conformity decreased when participants allowed to answer in private

  • as less normative influence

AO3

+lab = controlled so cause and effect can be established

-lab experiment = demand characteristics

-ecological validity - artificial task

Zimbardo

Conformity to social roles = people learn how to behave in certain situations by observing the social roles of other and conforming to this behaviour

deindividuation = social process in which people, when place in a group situation, no longer act as individuals. They no longer behave in the same way that they would when alone and instead pass all responsibility for their behaviour to the group

Method:

  • 24 male student volunteers (final number 21 as 3 dropped out due to psychological issues)

  • controlled observation in realistic mock prison

  • participants either assigned prisoner or guard

  • guards worked in shifts and went home in between, prisoners arrested by real police and randomly allocated to cells

  • uniforms were given to both groups to deindividuate (sunglasses for guards, prisoners given numbers)

  • prisoners quickly became passive and guards became active

  • study was 6 days (meant to be 2 weeks)

  • people quickly conform to social roles even when against moral principles

  • situational factors were shown to be responsible for behaviour

AO3

-internal validity due to extraneous variables - one guard previously seen movie about prison guards and tried to copy the guards he had seen in the movie

-demand characteristics - zimbardo played dual role as both researcher and prison warden - therefore zimbardos behaviour may have affected results

+however, evidence that participants reacted to situation as though it was real - 90% of prisoners private conversations were on prison conditions and introduced themselves as numbers rather than names while guards talked about prison topics in free time

Obedience

Explanations for obedience

Dispositional explanation: Authoritarian personality

  • Adorno proposed this idea

  • collection of traits that are developed in an individual as a result of strict parenting which teaches child to obey authority blindly and respect hierarchy

  • measured on ‘fascist scale’ and responding with how much they agree with the question with questions such as all children should learn respect for authority etc.

Situational explanations for obedience:

  • Proximity

  • location

  • uniform

Investigated by milgram (below)

  • Agentic state

  • Legitimacy of authority

Agentic state:

  • Milgram stated that people have 2 states of behaviour in a social situation

    • autonomous state - people direct their own actions and take responsibility for those actions

    • agentic state - people allow others to direct their action and pass of responsibility for the consequences to the person giving the orders. 2 things must be in place for agentic state

      • person giving orders is a legitimate authority and qualified to direct behaviour

      • person believes that the authority will accept responsibility for consequences

AO3

+milgram lab coat = legitimate authority

+Hofling et al - field experiment of obedience - 22 nurses received phone call from ‘Dr Smith’ who instructed them to give twice maximum dose of drug on bottle. 21/22 nurses attempted to give medication even though they knew it would be harmful - following a legitimate authority figure - qualified to direct behaviour and will take responsibility

Legitimacy of authority:

  • focuses of context/setting and status of authority figure

  • someone obeyed because it is thought they have right to give the order

AO3

+milgrams uniform study

+Bickman - field experiment where he asked pedestrians to carry out small, inconvenient tasks . dressed in either milkmans uniform, guards uniform or suit and tie - participants were twice as likely to obey orders when in guards uniform. Milkman = 14%, uniform = 38%, suit = 19%

Milgram

Method:

  • volunteer sampling in newspaper

  • Yale university

  • 1 participants, 1 actor for each - 40 males in total

  • learner was always actor and teacher always participant

  • participant in a room with researcher (in a lab coat)

  • teacher asks questions to leaner and when wrong the teacher gives an electric shock

  • if teacher refused researcher could say 1 of 4 scripted phrases (e.g. please continue, experiment requires you to continue etc.)

  • 100% went to 300 volts, 65% went up to 450 volts

  • in advance of study, psychologists predicted that only 0.1% would go to 450 volts

  • shows that people are obedient to authority

Variation studies:

  • Proximity

    • learner in same room = obedience to 450 volts was 40% compared to 65%

    • leaner not seen or heard = obedience to 450 volts was 100%

    • researcher giving instructions over phone = 20% to 450 volts

  • Location

    • rundown office block = 48% compared to 65% at Yale

  • uniform

    • ordinary man not wearing lab coat = 20% to 450 volts compared to 65% with lab coat

AO3

-ecological validity - lack of mundane realism - wouldn’t happen in everyday life

+lab setting = controlled = cause and effect established

Resistance to social influence

Social support

defiance or non-conformity is more likely if others are seen to resist influence as it gives observer confidence to also resist

in conformity this breaks unanimity of group - reducing normative influence

in obedience the other resister acts as disobedient role model and challenges legitimacy of authority figure - if authority figure truly legitimate then others would not obey them

AO3

+milgram variation where 2 confederates were paired with the real participant and declared early on they would go no further - under these conditions 10% went to 450 volts - behaviour of confederates reduced legitimacy of authority

+fedlman and scheihe - college students asked to complete personal and embarassing questionairre in presence of other confederate students - in 1 conditions confederates completed questionairre and in other they refused - participant more likely to refuse in condition where others refused

+Asch - lack of unanimity decreasd conformity by 80% - NSI reduced

Locus of control

identified as personality dimension by Rotter

concerns the extent to which people perceive themselves as being in control of their own lives

internal LOC:

  • individual believes that their behaviour is guided by their personal decisions and efforts

  • tend to be less influenced by the opinions of other people

  • are more likely to take responsibility for their actions

  • report being happier and more independent

  • feel confident in the face of challenges

external LOC:

  • individual believes that their behaviour is guided by fate, luck or other external circumstances

  • tend to be influenced by the opinions of other people

  • don’t believe that they can change their situation through their own efforts

  • frequently feel hopeless or powerless in face of difficult situations

rotter believed that having an internal loc makes individuals more resistant to social influence with those seeing themselves in control of a situation more likely to perceive themselves as having a free choice so less likely to conform/obey

AO3

+Shute - exposed undergraduates to peers who expressed positive attitudes to drug taking - found that undergraduates with internal loc conformed less to expressing the same attitudes - supporting the idea that having internal loc increases resistance to conformity

-loc assessed using questionnaire scales - which may not be suited for examining social behaviour as they do not measure the participants actual behaviour - only their personal opinions of how they might behave which is open to social desirability bias and may not be valid

Minority influence

Conforming to minority influence requires internalisation via informational social influence

key attributes needed are commitment, consistency and flexibility:

commitment - minorities exert influence by showing dedication (making sacrifices) which gives the message credibility

consistency - where a person maintains a consistent position over time or where there is agreement among members of the minority group

flexibility - opposite of adopting a rigid position which could lead to the perception of minority being dogmatic and narrow minded

e.g. suffragettes

AO3

+moscovici et al

  • 32 groups of 6 female participants

  • presented with 36 blue slides differing in intensity of shade and are asked to say what colour the slides are - 2 participants are confederates

  • in condition 1 confederates always say slides are green

  • in condition 2 confederates say slides are green on 2/3

  • in condition 1 - 8% of majority agrees, in condition 2 - 1% agree

  • = consistency is vital for minority influence to occur

-/+ lab experiment (ecological and internal validity)

+nemeth et al

  • variation of moscovici but allowed participants to answer with a combination of colours (e.g. blue-green)

  • 3 conditions (answered in random way, green on 50% of trials and green blue on other 50%, green to all)

  • 21% of participants were influenced by minority in 2nd condition

  • = flexibility

Social change

social change occurs when minority view challenges majority view and is eventually accepted as the majority

social crypto amnesia

  • people have a memory that change occured but don’t remember how it happened

snowball effect

  • minority influence initially has relatively small effect but this then spreads more widely as more and more people consider issues being promoted

  • minority then becomes majority so people conform via NSI