Social Influence

• Social group- a group that interact and share things in common and a common identity
• Social norms- unwritten rules for how all members of a social group are expected to behave
• Social roles- behaviours and beliefs that are expected of a person with a particular position in a social group

Types of and Explanations for Conformity

• Normative Social Influence- Wanting to fit in with the majority and avoid rejection (temporary)
• Informational Social Influence- If correct behaviour is uncertain, look to the majority for guidance because they want to be correct (permanent)
• Compliance- Temporarily agree with group externally but internal opinions stay the same (NSI)
• Identification- Behaviour and private values change to fit a group or social role, stop when they no longer admire the role
• Internalisation- Personal opinions genuinely change to match the group (ISI)

:) Asch- When given an unambiguous line length test with confederates choosing the wrong answer, participants conformed on 32% of trials and when interviewed said they did to avoid rejection (NSI)

:) Jenness- Participants had to guess number of beans in a jar (ambiguous task), before and after discussion with a group, after was closer to the group guess (ISI) :( May have involved NSI- participants had to write a report at the end, could have thought group would read it :( Only applicable when ambiguous situation

:( Asch and Jenness both used lab experiments- lower ecological validity and risk of demand characteristics

:( Evidence that some people can resist social pressure more, e.g. locus of control

Asch’s Line Study

• Participants asked to take part in a “visual perception task” in a group with 7-9 confederates
• Given lines and asked to say which was the same length as another line in a group, confederates would answer wrong
• Participants answered wrong in 32% of trials, 0.04% in control with no confederates. 75% conformed at least once, 5% conformed every time.

Situational Variables

• Group size- a group with one confederate had 3% conformity, 13% with two, 33% with three, no increase after three
• Unanimity- If one confederate disagreed with the majority, conformity dropped to 5% (social support)
• Task difficulty- When the answer was ambiguous, conformity increased (ISI)

:) Rosander- Online confederates gave wrong answers to logic and general knowledge questions on Facebook and Twitter, 52.6% of participants conformed at least once, more conformity on harder questions

:( Lab experiment- lacked ecological validity, participants may have responded to demand characteristics

:( Only used American men- may have suffered from beta bias and lack generalisability to wider population

:( Ignores individual variables that affect conformity like locus of control

Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment

• Created a fake prison in the basement of Stanford University and chose 21 male students who were rated physically and mentally stable for participants, random selection of 10 guards and 11 prisoners
• Prisoners given realistic arrest by local police and given a prison uniform and a number to dehumanise them
• Guards had complete control and were given a uniform, clubs, handcuffs and sunglasses (avoid eye contact)
• Both groups conformed to social roles quickly, but after two days prisoners revolted against poor treatment by the guards
• Experiment cancelled after six days due to concerns for participants’ mental health
• Suggests environments have the situational power to change behaviour to conform to socially defined roles

:( Ethical issues- participants were not protected from harm , were not properly informed what would happen, and right to withdraw was not clear

:( Only used American male students - may have suffered from beta bias and lack generalisability to wider population

:( Zimbardo played the role of prison superintendent, may have caused investigator effects and loss of scientific objectivity

:( Artificial environment- participants may have not behaved how they would in the real world, low ecological validity

Explanations for Obedience

• Agentic state- state of mind in which the individual believes they don’t have responsibility for their actions as they are acting as the agent of an authority figure. This allows them to do things that they morally oppose
  • May experience moral strain but feel they are unable to resist the commands of the person in authority
  • Opposite of autonomous state, where actions are free from control
  • Agentic shift between agentic and autonomous state
• Legitimacy of authority- people accept that those who are higher up the social hierarchy should be obeyed, there is a sense of duty to them and these people have the right to punish/harm others, such as police
  • Learnt in childhood through socialisation processes in relationships such as parent/child, teacher/student
  • Accepted by most people that it is needed for society to function properly

:) Milgram- professor was higher in the social hierarchy due to education and respect for profession (LOA). Participants often agreed to continue with shocks after professor clarified that he was responsible for any harm done (Agency theory)

:( Ignores individual variables that can affect obedience like gender or mood. 35% of Milgram’s participants resisted the authority and refused to give the 450V shock

:( Agentic state has been used to attempt to justify war crimes, e.g. death camp Nazi Adolf Eichmann said he was “just following orders”

Milgram’s Shock Study

• 40 male volunteers, 20-50 years old, were told the study was on memory. Given the ‘teacher’ role in a rigged draw where a confederate was given the ‘learner’ role
• Told the learner was strapped in a chair in the next room with electrodes attacked, and teacher was supposed to deliver electric shocks of increasing intensity (15-450V) when learner answered incorrectly
• Recordings played of the learner in pain, after 300V they asked to stop, after 315V they stopped making noise (indicating unconsciousness or death)
• If the teacher resisted, the ‘professor’ encouraged them to continue, participants showed distress but obeyed
• 100% obeyed to 315V, 65% to full 450V

Situational Variables

• Proximity of victim- if learner was in the same room, obedience dropped to 40%. If learner held their hand on the shock plate, it dropped to 30%
• Proximity of authority figure- if professor was in another room giving orders through a phone, obedience dropped to 23%
• Location- in a run down office block instead of Yale University (lack of LOA), obedience dropped to 47%
• Uniform- professor in lab coat replaced with someone in normal clothes (lack of LOA), obedience dropped to 20%

:) Hofling- 21/22 real nurses obeyed a doctor’s phone call order to give double the maximum dose of an unfamiliar drug

:) Lab experiment- good control over extraneous variables e.g. exact instructions given by the professor, can establish a cause and effect relationship

:( Only used American male students - may have suffered from beta bias and lack generalisability to wider population

:( Ethical issues- caused psychological harm to participants, participants were deceived and couldn’t give informed consent, right to withdraw was not clear

Authoritarian Personality

• Adorno developed the F-scale (F for fascism) which was measured with questionnaires, questions revealed unconscious feelings towards minority groups
• People who scored highly on the F-scale showed high respect for people with higher social status, had fixed stereotypes for other groups, identified with ‘strong’ people, and disliked ‘weak’ people
• Suggested these people had personality shaped early in life by strict authoritarian parenting with harsh physical punishments
  • Anger from this experience was displaced onto others, mainly minority groups

:) Milgram- interviewed participants from his study, found a positive correlation between shocking to full 450V and a high score on the F-scale

:( Link between authoritarian personalities and following orders is correlational, could be a third factor such as poor education that affects both behaviours- cannot establish a cause and effect relationship

:( Ignores the effects of situational variables such as proximity, location and uniform

:( The original F-scale questionnaire lacked internal validity- all questions were written in one direction (response bias)

Explanations for Resistance to Social Influence

• Social support- seeing others resist social influence reduces pressure to obey or conform, increasing the individual’s confidence
  • Breaks unanimity and challenges the legitimacy of the authority figure
• Locus of control- scale of how much influence someone believes they have over their lives
  • Internal locus of control- believe that their actions control their lives, they have responsibility, and are less concerned with social approval. More likely to resist pressure to conform or obey
  • External locus of control- believe that their lives are controlled by external forces like other people, fate, or the government. Less likely to resist pressure to conform or obey

:) Asch- unanimity variation (social support) had conformity drop from 32% to 5%

:) Holland- replication of Milgram with assessment of LOC, 37% with internal LOC refused to shock to 450V while 23% with external LOC

:) 24% of people did not conform in Asch, 35% did not obey in Milgram and most guards were not aggressive in Zimbardo- suggests many people can resist social influence

Minority Influence

• Requires individuals to reject the behaviours/beliefs of the majority and be converted to the views of the minority
• Minority attempts to change views through ISI, so likely to result in internalisation
• Starts as a slow process, but as more majority convert the change speeds up (snowball effect)

Required Behaviours

• Consistency- the minority needs to demonstrate confidence in its view, if they repeat the same message over time the argument seems more powerful
• Commitment- if they are willing to suffer for their views, the majority is more likely to take them seriously (augmentation principle)
• Flexibility- if seen as dogmatic, they will not be persuasive. They need to appear to consider valid counter arguments and slightly compromise

:) Moscovici- participants were shown blue slides and told to judge the colour when in a group with a confederate minority that said they were green. If the confederates were consistent, participants agreed on 8% of trials compared to 1% if inconsistent :( Low realism :( Just used women so may lack generalisability

:) Nemeth- replicated Moscovici’s study with another condition where minority said “blue-green” for brighter slides (flexibility), conformity increased

:) Minority groups who have made change often show commitment through suffering e.g. Suffragettes’ hunger strikes and chaining themselves to railings

Social Change

• Starts with minorities converting a few people slowly, then as more people convert, the influence of the minority gets bigger and more people convert at a faster rate (snowball effect)
• Group membership- more likely to have opinion changed if in a subgroup with someone e.g. gender, age, sexuality
• Social cryptomnesia happens after social change, involves society forgetting how new social norms were adopted and who they came from

:) Implications for society and economy, such as using members of communities to drive social change on issues like discrimination

:) Environmental issues like climate change have developed due to better knowledge transmitted by ISI

:) Smoking in public places like pubs was common but changed very quickly due to legal changes and fines