SOCIAL INFLUENCE
CONFORMITY- when an individuals behavior/ beliefs are influenced by a larger group of people.
Types of conformity:
→ Compliance- publicly going along with the majority include to gain approval but privately disagreeing. Behavior will stop when surrounding pressure stops.
→ Internalization- public and private acceptance of majority influence which will lead to permanent change of beliefs.
Explanations for conformity:
→ Normative social influence
Individual must be alive they are under Surveliance.
Conformity to majority influence which public but don’t necessarily internalize this view.
Humans have a fine mental need for companionship and fear censure and rejection.
→ Informational social influence
Individuals make objective tests against realist, if not possible, they rely on opinions of others.
More likely to occur if the situation is ambiguous/ experts are involved.
Individuals change public and private behaviors and attitudes.
Variables affecting conformity:
→ Situational variable- features of the environment that may affect the findings of the study eg. noise, temperature.
→ Individual variable- personal characteristics that may affect the findings of the study eg. age, gender.
ASCH:
Aim: to what extent social pressure could influence a person to conform.
Procedure:
Tested on group size, unanimity and task difficulty.
123 US undergraduates were tested on.
Took turns to read out which of the three lines matched the same length and the original line.
Real participant was seated second to last.
Confederates deliberately read out wrong answers.
Arch was interested if whether the real participant would stick with what was correct or conform the avoid judgment.
Findings:
Out of the 12 critical trials, average conformity rate was 33%
¼ never conformed.
1/20 conformed to all 12 trials.
OBEDIENCE- form of SI which an individual follows a direct order, surly from a figure of authority who has the power to punish.
Situational factors affecting obedience:
→ Location
Studies were conducted at in a psychology lab at Yale university.
Some participants remarked that the location gave them confidence.
Milgram then moved the study to a random office in Bridgeport.
Obedience rates dropped slightly but not significantly.
48% delivering the 450v max shock level.
→ Proximity
Teacher and learner seated in the same room.
Obedience levels fell 40% as teacher was now able to experience the learners anguish more directly.
→ Power of uniform
Bushman carried out a study were a female researcher either dressed up as police officer, business executive or a begger and stopped people on the street and told them to give change to a male researcher
for an expired parking ticket.
As a police officer, 72% obeyed.
As a business executive, 48% obeyed.
As a begger, 52% obeyed.
MILGRAM:
Aim: uncover why/ if people would act against morality and see if they will obey to someone who acts like they have authority over them.
Procedure:
40 participants in a series of conditions
Participants were told to a study of how punishment affects learning and had to shock the confederate for each wrong answer (shock voltage increased with each question).
Shocks were fake, 65% gave maximum shock despite confederates protests.
Findings:
12.5% stopped at 300v whereas 65% continued to the highest level of 450v.
Milgram observed sweating, trembling, groaning and biting lips from the participants.
AGENTIC STATE- obedient individual attributes responsibility to someone else (particularly a figure of authority).
Agentic shift: moving from an autonomous state (individual sees themselves as an agent for carrying out someone else’s wishes).
Agentic state: a person see themselves as an agent for carrying out someone else’s wishes.
Actions performed under the agentic state are from participants perspective, virtually guilt free and however inhumane they may be (not their responsibility).
Once the individual had moved to the agentic state, the evaluative concern is no longer relevant.
Strengths:
Real life- soldiers in nazi Germany said they were just following orders.
People don’t want to be rude/ get into trouble.
Weaknesses:
Real life- some nazis chose willingly.
People with more personal responsibilities tend to resist orders.
LEGITIMACY OF AUTHORITY- people are more likely to obey when they perceive the authorities figure as a having a legitimate right to give orders which come from social hierarchy.
In Milgrams obedience study, participants obeyed the experimenter because he was seen as an authoritative figure; wore a lab coat (symbol of science/ knowledge) and went to Yale university (prestigious setting).
When experiment moved to a random office in Bridgeport, obedience levels dropped- shows perceived legitimacy influences obedience.
People may obey orders to harm others if they believe the authoritative figure is justified/ accepted by society.
Strengths:
Supported by Milgrams variations.
Explains atrocities (wars, genocides).
Weaknesses:
Legitimacy is learned, not universal.
Doesn’t explain why some disobey when authority seems legitimate.
DISPOSITIONAL EXPLANATION OF OBEDIENCE- behavior that highlights an individuals personality. The behavior is caused by internal characteristics.
AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY- distinct personality pattern characterized by submission to authority and hostility towards others perceived as different/ inferior.
Characteristics:
→ Aggression towards others
→ Submission to an authoritive figure
→ Stereotyping
→ Projection
ADORNO:
Aim: To see whether people with an authoritarian personality are more likely to obey.
Procedure:
Studied 2000+ middle class, white, Americans and their unconscious attitudes towards minority ethnic groups using the f-scale.
Findings:
Individuals who scored high on the f-scale were very conscious of status and showed extreme respect, defense and servility to those of higher status.
Adorno found a strong correlation between authoritarianism and prejudice.
Individuals who scored high on the f-scale had faced and distinctive stereotypes.
EXPLANATIONS FOR RESISTANCE TO SOCIAL INFLUENCE
Locus of control: internals believe they are responsible fr their own actions/ what happens to them. Externals believe it is a matter of luck.
→ Continuum- people are neither internal nor external.
→ Resistance to SI- people with internal LOC are more likely to resist pressure to conform due to that they take more responsibility and are more self confident.
Social support: presence of people who resist pressure to conform can help others do the same (act as a role model)
→ Conformity- pressure is reduced if there are others who aren’t conforming (Asch’s research).
→ Obedience- pressure is reduced if there is another person to disobey (Milgrams research).
MOSCROVICI:
Aim: see whether consistency affects SI.
Procedure:
Groups of 6 participants (4 real, 2 confederates).
Shown 36 slides of different shades of blue and asked to name the color of each slide.
Findings:
In the Consistent condition, confederates described all 36 slides as green→ 8% of real participants adopted this answer.
In the Inconsistent condition, confederates described 24/36 slides as green→ 1.25% of real participants adopted this answer.
TYPES OF MINORITY INFLUENCE- a minority persuades others to adopt their beliefs, attitudes and behaviors.
→ leads to internalization (example of SI).
Consistency- minority influence is most effective if the majority keeps the same beliefs.
→ effective because it draws attention to to the minority view.
Commitment- minority influence is most powerful I the minority demonstrate dedication to their position.
→ effective because it shows the majority is not doing it out of self interest.
Flexibility- relentless consistency can be counter-productive if seen by majority as unreasonable.
→effective if minority accepts possibility of a compromise.