Social Influence

Conformity

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

Specification

  • Types of Conformity - Internalisation and Compliance

  • Explanations for Conformity - Informational Social Influence (ISI) & Normative Social Influence

  • Variables affecting Conformity - Group size, Unanimity & task difficulty, investigated by Asch

Types of Conformity

Internalisation

  • Privately and publicly agreeing

  • Permanent change - attitudes are internalised

  • When the person believes the opinion is correct

  • This opinion persists even in the absence of other group members

Compliance

  • Privately disagreeing, publicly agreeing

  • Superficial change - attitudes are used to prevent social rejection

  • Includes ‘simply going along with others

  • Opinion or behaviour stops as soon as group pressure stops

Explanations for Conformity

The two-process theory (Morton Deutsch and Harold Gerard, 1955) posits two main reasons people conform, based on two central human needs: the desire to be right (ISI) and the desire to be liked (NSI).

Informative Social Influence (ISI)

The desire to be right

Conforming to a group when you are uncertain.

Happens in situations that are high in unanimity, high in task difficulty and low in social pressure.

Internalisation

Supporting Study - Jenness’ Jelly Bean (1931)

AIM: To investigate the effects of group discussion on the accuracy of a person's judgment

Method

  1. Asked participants to estimate the number of beans contained in a jar (estimate 1)

  2. Then, participants were made to discuss their estimates in groups (estimate 2)

  3. Participants were asked again, alone, after the group discussion (estimate 3)

  4. Findings:

    1. Estimates 3 and 2 (group estimate), indicating that their final estimate was affected by the group

  5. Conclusion:

    1. The ISI theory has validity.

    2. ISI is more likely in situations that are high in uncertainty and task difficulty and have low social pressure

  6. Evaluation:

    1.     Lacks ecological validity: artificial situation, doesn’t account for non-ambiguous situations

      1. Lab study: control over all extraneous variables, easier to identify the cause and effect relationship

    2. Social desirability bias: participants may have felt pressured to stay consistent with the group estimate due to fear of social rejection, overall reflecting NSI over ISI

      1. Private setting - meant to reduce social pressure/influence.

Normative Social Influence (NSI)

The desire to be liked

Conforming to a group to avoid social rejection

Happens in situations that are high in social pressure, low in unanimity, and low in task difficulty.

Supporting Study - Asch’s Line Study (1951)

AIM: To investigate whether people would conform to something obviously wrong

  1. Group Size - 7-9 people, 6-8 were confederates, only 1 real participant

  2. Unanimity - confederates all gave the same, wrong answer

  3. Task difficulty - control group = 720 trials, 3 mistakes in total, error rate=0.4% - this means that the there was extremely low task difficulty

  4. Dispositional Variables - not tested

Method

  1. Groups were asked to judge the length of lines 18 times on 18 trials

  2. The majority of the groups were composed of confederates (actors), who had to give the wrong answer 12/18 times

  3. Findings:

    1. 75% of participants conformed on at least one trial

    2. Overall conformity rate = 36.8%

    3. Always conformed = 5%

  4. Conclusion:

    1. The NSI theory has validity

    2. NSI is more likely in situations that are high in social pressure and low in uncertainty and task difficulty.

  5. Evaluation:

    1. Lacks ecological validity: artificial situation, cannot apply irl

      1. Lab study: control over all extraneous variables, easier to identify the cause and effect relationship

    2. Demand Characteristics: participants may have realised what was happening, and pretended to conform

      1. Post-study interview: the majority admitted they conformed to avoid social rejection, whilst others said they couldn’t see properly or that they wanted to be correct.

    3. Lacks population validity: 123 white, american, men.

Limitations

  1. Doesn’t account for dispositional variables, and how some people resist NSI and ISI - meaning the explanations cannot be generalised to everyone.

  2. IRL, it is more likely that NSI and ISI work in conjunction rather than separately, and both contribute equally to conformity.

Variables affecting Conformity

Situational variables

  1. Group Size

    1. Increased Group Size = Increased Rate of Conformity (to an extent)

  2. Unanimity

    1. Increased Unanimity = Increased Rate of Conformity

  3. Task Difficulty

    1. Increased Task Difficulty = Increased Rate of Conformity

      1. These are situational variables

Dispositional variables

  1. Personal Characteristics (mh, gender, age)

  1. Increased/Decreased Rate of Conformity

    1. These are dispositional variables

Supporting Study - Asch’s Additional Experiments

  1. Dissenter introduced - a confederate who disagrees with the majority

    1. Conformity rate dropped from 36.8% to 5.5%

      1. Decreased unanimity = Decreased conformity

  2. Different group sizes

    1. 1 confederate = 3% rate of conformity

    2. 2 confederates = 13% rate of conformity

    3. 3+ confederates = 32% rate of conformity

      1. Increased group size = increased rate of conformity (to an extent)

  3. Lines were made more similar in size

    1. Increased task difficulty = increased rate of conformity

Obedience

To follow the direct orders of someone with authority

Authority - to have the right/power to give orders

Social Hierarchy - a social group with an uneven power balance

Specification

  • Explanations of Obedience - agentic state & legitimacy of authority (situational) & authoritarian personality (dispositional)

  • Variables affecting Obedience - proximity to victim/authority figure, location & uniform, investigated by Milgram (situational variables)

Explanations for Obedience

Legitimacy of Authority

From a young age, we have learnt to view those with more authority as more legitimate. This is because we have grown up in a social hierarchy.

Because of this, we learn not to disobey or question the decisions of an authority figure.

Agency Theory

When someone is told to do something that they believe is wrong, they experience moral strain: the need to obey the authority vs. the consequences.

When obeying a persons orders, in order to reduce moral strain, a person experiences an agentic shift. The person no longer feels responsible for their actions, as they have shifted the responsibility onto the authority figure.

Autonomous state = person feels responsible for all actions and decisions made

Agentic state = person shifts responsibility onto the authority figure, no longer feeling responsible for their actions or decisions

Autonomous state + moral strain → Agentic shift → Agentic state

The Authoritarian Personality

A personality type that causes people to be more likely to obey

  • Respect for authoritative figures

  • No respect for people lower than them in the social hierarchy

  • Love for rules and conformity

  • Aggressive, strict and rigid

Caused by:

Overstrict parenting = lack of freedom → scapegoating (expressing frustration toward an innocent party, with less power.

The F-scale

A test that identifies if you have an authoritatian personality type, F = facism.

This test was devised for and given to Nazi officers, leading to the discovery that most high-ranking officials had scored highly on the test, therefore meaning that they displayed the traits of an authoritarian personality.

Variables affecting Obedience

Situational Variables

  1. Proximity of Authority Figure

    1. Increased proximity = increased rate of obedience

  2. Proximity of Victim

    1. Increased proximity = decreased rate of obedience

  3. Location

    1. More prestige/influence = increased rate of obedience

  4. Uniform

    1. More official = increased rate of obedience

Supporting Study - The Milgram Experiment

AIM: To investigate if there was something different about Germans that made them very obedient

  1. Proximity of authority figure - experimenter (authority) was in the room with the teacher

  2. Proximity of victim - the teacher could not see the victim, only hear them through a speaker

  3. Location - Yale University

  4. Uniform - Experimenter wore a lab coat

  1. Participants were invited to participate in a study about ‘learning and memory’ - deception

  2. Participants were told that their roles were random - deception. The participant was paired with a confederate and the participant would always be the teacher, and the confederate the learner.

  3. Teacher was made to ‘shock’ the learner every time a question was wrong. Voltage increased per shock, from 15V to 450V (deadly)

    1. The learner would ask to go home, and their reaction to the ‘shock’ was audible.

    2. 300V = refusal to answer questions, 315V = screamed loudly, 350V = no noise.

  4. Findings:

    1. 100% went to 300V

    2. 65% went to 450V

    3. Participants displayed signs of distress; swearing, sweating and even a seizure

  5. Conclusion:

    1. There was nothing specific about Germans that made them more obedient.

    2. This study supports both explanations of

  6. Evaluation:

    1. Lacked ecological validity - artificial situation, cannot account for behaviour IRL

      1. Lab study - control over all extraneous variables, easier to identify the cause and effect relationship

    2. Demand characteristics - participants could have realised that the shocks were fake, and as a result, faked their results

      1. There were signs of moral strain, swearing, sweating and even a seizure.

    3. Lacked population validity - not generalisable, 123 young, white, American men.

    4. Unethical   

      1. Psychological Harm - distress, sweating & a seizure

        1. Only 2% of all participants regretted participating

      2. Deception - participants did not know what the experiment was about and could not give informed consent

        1. Participants were debriefed after the study, because if they had been told before, the study wouldn’t work

      3. Right to withdraw was unclear - the experimenter had been given prompts that made it seem like withdrawal was not possible

        1. 35% of participants withdrew

Supporting Study - Milgram’s Additional Experiments

  1. Decreased Proximity to the authority figure - experimenter talked to the teacher over the phone

    1. Obedience dropped from 65% to 23%

    2. Decreased Proximity to the authority figure = decreased rate of obedience

  2. Increased Proximity to the victim - the teacher could see the learner

    1. Obedience dropped from 65% to 40%

    2. Increased proximity to the victim = decreased rate of obedience

  3. Location - Yale → rundown office

    1. Obedience dropped from 65% to 47.5%

    2. Less official/prestigious location = decreased rate of obedience

  4. Uniform - experimenter wearing a lab coat → normal clothes

    1. Obedience dropped from 65% to 20%

    2. Less official/prestigious uniform = decreased rate of obedience

Social Influence

Specification

  • Explanations of resistance to social influence - social support & locus of control

  • Minority Influence - consistency, commitment and flexibility

Explanations of resistance to social influence

Resistance to social influence occurs when an individual decides:

  • not to conform to the majority

  • not to obey the orders of an authority figure

Social Support

Situational explanation

If someone else in the same situation resists conformity/obedience, this constitutes social support, which allows an individual to follow their conscience and go against the group/authority.

Support

  • Both Asch and Milgram’s additional experiments showed that when at least 1 person resists conformity/obedience, resistance to social influence grew greater.

  • Hofling’s 1966 Study

    • A doctor (who had been given a recognisable name) telephoned 18 different nurses, and asked each nurse to administer a non-lethal dose of Valium to a patient

    • Nurses were able to discuss the doctor’s orders with other nurses

    • Only 2/18 nurses immediately followed the doctor’s order

      • Conclusion: Social support is a key factor in resisting social influence, as the nurses were able to discuss the order first.

Locus of control

Dispositional explanation

Can be measured using a questionnaire made by Rotter

Selected Attributes of Human Resources Diversity Predicting Locus of Control from a Management Perspective

Internal Locus of Control

  • More control over your life

  • Decisions decide fate

  • More likely to disobey

External Locus of Control

  • Less control over your life

  • Fate has already been decided; you cannot change it

  • More likely to obey

Support

  • Holland (1967)

    • A repeated version of Milgram’s experiment found that 37% of participants who refused to continue to 450V had a high internal LOC

      • Conclusion: There is validity in the LOC theory

Minority Influence

When a small group of people or an individual (the minority) changes the attitudes/behaviours/beliefs of the majority

It’s more likely to lead to internalisation rather than compliance, as it is more meaningful.

Conversion

Conversion = a form of internalisation

  1. Conflict - created to draw attention to their cause

  2. Understanding - people try to understand their actions and reasoning

  3. Validity - internalisaed a minorities attitudes and converted

Processes that Strengthen Minority Influence

  1. Consistency - messages are always the same and are constantly repeated.

  2. Commitment - sacrifices are made = draws attention.

  3. Flexibility - welcoming discussion and compromise.

Supporting Study - The Moscovici Experiment (consistency)

AIM: To investigate whether a minority could influence a majority in a task where the answer was clear

192 female participants

Groups of 6, 2 confederates

Method

  1. Participants were shown 36 blue slides & were asked to judge the colour of the slides

  2. There were 2 conditions of the experiment

    1. Consistent Condition: The confederates said that all the slides were green

    2. Inconsistent Condition: the confederates said the slides were green 24 times, and said they were blue 12 times.

  3. Findings:

    1. Consistent condition = 8.2% agreed with the minority

    2. Inconsistent condition = 1.25% agreed with the minority

  4. Conclusion:

    1. People are more likely to agree with a consistent minority

  5. Evaluation:

    1. Lacks ecological validity - an artificial situation that cannot represent behaviours in real-life situations

      1. Lab Study - control over extraneous variables, the cause and effect relationship can be easily determined

    2. Unethical - participants were deceived, and couldn’t give informed consent

      1. Small deception - unlikely to cause distress

    3. Lacks population validity - not generalisable, as it was only women.

Supporting Study - Nemeth’s Experiment on Flexibility

AIM: To investigate the effects of flexibility

Method

  1. 3 conditions were tested

    1. Consistent Condition: Confederates said all the slides were green

    2. Inconsistent Condition: said some slides were green and others were blue

    3. Flexible Condition: said dark slides = green, lighter slides = blue-green

  2. Findings:

    1. Conformity was highest in the flexible condition

  3. Conclusion:

    1. People are more likely to agree with a flexible minority