Social Influence Psych Paper 1

Introduction to Livestreams for Psychology Revision

Starting today, the speaker will hold daily Patreon livestreams until the completion of paper two and will conduct a few sessions before paper three as well. The planned total duration of these livestreams is twenty hours. The sessions are open to all patrons at sign-up levels and above. Students interested in joining these revision sessions are encouraged to have pen and paper ready and to download the twenty twenty-two AS and A level pass papers available from the AQA website. The speaker has also combined and summarized content from their social influence videos into this revision video.
If any content presented here is unclear, students are directed to refer to the longer videos for comprehensive explanations. This video serves as a quick refresher for key points. Additionally, viewers are encouraged to utilize the Psych Boost App designed to test knowledge across topics in ALevel Psychology using flashcards. This app is available on both iOS and Android platforms and can be used for all of Paper One free of charge. For tutorial support videos addressing questions from all three papers as well as hundreds of additional resources, patrons can access over sixteen hours of material on the Patreon platform.

Conformity According to ASH and Kelman (1958)

Types of Conformity

  1. Compliance:

    • Definition: Temporary behavioral change where the individual publicly agrees with the group while privately holding dissenting opinions.
    • Associated Factors: Typically driven by Normative Social Influence (NSI), which is a desire to fit in and avoid rejection, resulting in superficial and transient behavior changes.

  2. Identification:

    • Definition: Behavior and private values of the individual modify only in the presence of a valued group.
    • Characteristics: This form of conformity reflects a more engaged connection to the group while still being superficial and subject to change when one is away from the group.

  3. Internalization:

    • Definition: A deep, permanent change in personal opinions and beliefs that align with those of the majority group.
    • Explanation: Driven by Informational Social Influence (ISI), where individuals look to the majority in uncertain situations, believing they possess more accurate information.

Ash's Study (1951)

The experiment conducted by Solomon Ash involved groups of eight to ten male college students who participated in a line judgment task, which was misleading as only one participant was genuine while the others were confederates (actors in league with the experimenter). In twelve critical trials, confederates purposely provided incorrect responses to understand whether the genuine participant would conform.

Results of the Ash Study

  • Overall conformity rate during critical trials was 32%.
  • 75% of participants conformed at least once, and 5% conformed on all twelve trials.

Influencing Factors

  1. Group Size: Ash varied the number of confederates from one to sixteen and noted:

    • 3% conformity with one confederate, 13% with two, 33% with three, and no significant increase beyond this number.
    • Finding: Suggests that smaller, unanimous groups exert strong social pressure.

  2. Unanimity:

    • When one confederate was instructed to provide the correct response, breaking group unanimity, the conformity rate decreased to 5.5%.
    • Finding: Social support influences conformity rates significantly.

  3. Task Difficulty:

    • Ash increased the ambiguity of the line lengths leading to increased uncertainty, which correspondingly raised conformity rates, supporting the ISI explanation.

Evaluations of Ash's Research

  • Ash's research supports the notion of NSI, particularly since 75% of participants conformed at least once despite the task having a clear correct answer.
  • When participants could privately record their answers, the conformity rate dropped to 12.5%.
  • Increasing task difficulty confirmed that when participants were more uncertain about the correct answer, they tended to rely on the decisions of others, serving as additional evidence for the ISI explanation.
  • A critique is that it can be challenging to distinguish the influences of NSI and ISI because self-reported reasons for conformity may not reflect true motivations.
  • As a laboratory experiment, Ash's study has robust internal validity due to careful control over procedures; all participants viewed the same stimuli and responded in a standardized manner.
  • Alternatively, Perrin and Spencer (1981) criticized Ash's findings for lacking temporal validity, suggesting that high conformity rates observed during the Cold War era may not be replicated in contemporary contexts.
  • In their own study with British students, Perrin and Spencer found conformity in just one of 396 trials.
  • A meta-analysis by Bond (1996) of 133 studies across 17 countries found varied rates of conformity, with higher adherence in collectivist cultures compared to individualistic societies.
  • Moreover, the experimental task lacked mundane realism—matching line lengths is overly simplistic and not reflective of real-life social interactions, which typically occur among acquaintances rather than strangers.

Social Roles and Obedience

Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment

The Stanford Prison Experiment conducted by Philip Zimbardo in 1971 involved participants who were 24 male students, selected for their psychological stability from a pool of volunteers. They were randomly assigned to the roles of guards and prisoners in a simulated prison environment.

Procedure

  • Prisoners were realistically arrested by local police, fingerprinted, stripped, deloused, and uniformed with numbers and rules to follow.
  • Guards were endowed with power through uniforms, clubs, and sunglasses to establish authority.
  • Zimbardo assumed dual roles of investigator and prison superintendent.

Findings

  • Participants swiftly adapted to their assigned roles; prisoners initially displayed resistance which deteriorated into stress signals.
  • The experiment was halted on day six due to ethical concerns regarding the participants' mental well-being.
  • The observed behaviors indicated that situational variables in prison contexts can significantly alter individual behavior, highlighting the degree of conformity to assigned social roles.

Evaluations of Zimbardo's Study

  • The initial design of the Stanford Prison Experiment was well-controlled, ensuring participant stability through psychological screening and random role assignment.
  • Although Zimbardo's study sheds light on how social roles influence behavior, critics like Reichslin and Haslam (2011) contended that participants do not inevitably conform strictly to assigned roles, questioning the absoluteness of the findings.
  • Zimbardo's dual role raised concerns over experimenter bias, suggesting his presence affected participants' behavior to align with expected outcomes.
  • The psychological harm experienced by participants and Zimbardo's decision to continue despite observing extreme distress underscore the necessity for stringent ethical considerations in research.

Explanations for Obedience: Milgram and Adorno

Milgram’s Study

Stanley Milgram's research focused on exploring the extent of obedience to authority figures under specific situational variables. The agentic state represents the mindset whereby individuals see themselves as agents of authority rather than as wholly responsible for their actions. This decontextualizes moral conflicts, positioning authority as primary accountable.

  • Agentic Shift: The transition from an autonomous state (personal responsibility) to an agentic state occurs in the presence of authority figures.

Procedure

  • The study involved 40 male volunteers recruited through newspaper advertisements, assigned the role of “teacher,” while confederates played the roles of “learner.”
  • The “learner” was attached to electrodes and instructed to receive electric shocks as punishment for wrong answers by the “teacher.” Shock levels ranged from 15 volts to 450 volts.
  • When the “learner” refused to continue at 300 volts or ceased to respond at 315 volts, the test concluded.

Findings

  • Significant distress was noted among participants; however, 100% administered shocks to 300 volts and 65% proceeded to the maximum level of 450 volts.

Influencing Factors

  1. Proximity:

    • In a variation where instructions were given over the phone, compliance dropped to 21% because participants felt less directly accountable to the “learner.”

  2. Location:

    • Shifting the experiment to a rundown office block reduced obedience to 47.6% due to a perceived lack of authority.

  3. Uniform:

    • When the authoritative symbol of the laboratory coat was replaced with casual clothing, obedience nearly halved to 20%.

Evaluations of Milgram's Research

  • Milgram's study supports his hypothesis regarding the agentic state; participants yielded responsibility to the authority figure (the experimenter) during distressing scenarios.
  • The experimenter in lab attire conferred legitimacy, which undoubtedly influenced participant behavior given the reputable setting of Yale University.
  • However, methodological critiques arose concerning the lack of realism and mundane validity in the task. Critics like Orn (1968) proposed that participants perceived the task as artificial, acting in line with demand characteristics instead of genuine obedience.
  • Ethically, Milgram's experiment faced backlash due to the emotional distress inflicted upon participants. Supporting evidence from Hofling (1966) demonstrated a real-world scenario where nurses exhibited high obedience levels to a physician's dangerous orders, further corroborating Milgram's findings.

Dispositional Explanations of Obedience

Authoritarian Personality

The authoritarian personality, as posited by Adorno, denotes a significant correlate to obedience observable during the World War Two era. The theory posits that early childhood experiences, particularly strict parenting and harsh discipline, lead to the development of this personality type.

  • Characters of an authoritarian personality include:
    • Respect for authority figures, hostility towards those perceived to hold lower social status, and a tendency to hold rigid stereotypes regarding different groups.

F-Scale

  • Adorno developed the F-Scale (Fascism Scale) to assess authoritarian personality characteristics across nine factors, including authoritarian submission and power/preoccupation fixation.

Evaluations of Authoritarian Personality

  • Evidence from Milgram's study where 35% exhibited defiance toward authority suggests that obedience is not solely attributable to personality traits.
  • The F-scale's presentation may lead to bias, as agreement to items may inflate scores artificially without truly reflecting personality characteristics. Furthermore, focusing on dispositional traits risks oversimplifying the depths of complex historical events like the Holocaust.

Resistance to Social Influence

Social Support

  • Exposure to others resisting social influence enhances individual confidence, decreasing the perceived obligation to conform or obey.
    • A disobedient model can diminish legitimacy perceived in authority figures, providing personal and observational evidence of consequences for noncompliance.
    • Contrarily, a nonconformist can create a viable alternative community, promoting resistance to majority behavior.

Evidence from Studies

  • In a variation of Milgram’s experiment, introducing two confederates who resisted commands significantly lowered the obedience rate to 10%.
  • Furthermore, a similar effect was seen in Ash’s study concerning breaking a group's unanimity where the introduction of a dissenting character drastically decreased conformity from 32% to 5.5%.

Locus of Control

  • Referring to individuals' perception regarding control over their behavior, locus of control exists along a continuum between high internal and high external orientations.
    • Internal locus of control individuals perceive personal responsibility; conversely, external locus individuals attribute outcomes to fate or powerful external agents, leading to perceived helplessness under social pressure.
  • According to Holland (1967), those with an internal locus of control were more likely (37%) to refuse to administer maximum shocks compared to 23% of those with an external locus of control.

Measurement Studies

  • Spectr (1983) conducted a study indicating that those with internal locus of control are typically more equipped to resist normative social influence, but exhibit similar levels of susceptibility toward informational social influence as external counterparts.

Minority Influence and Social Change

Mechanisms of Minority Influence

To successfully influence the majority, minorities must diverge from the majority’s beliefs or behaviors toward a transformative stance. Strategies that facilitate this include:

  1. Consistency:

    • Regular reiteration of core messages provides credible support for the minority's position, encompassing diachronic (same message over time) and synchronic (uniform message across the group) consistency.

  2. Commitment:

    • A willingness to suffer or demonstrate dedication reinforces the minority’s stance, influencing the majority's perception of the minority’s motivations demonstrating sincerity of beliefs (augmentation principle).

  3. Flexibility:

    • If the minority is inflexible or dogmatic, persuasive potential diminishes. Flexibility aids in portraying a reasonable alternative, balancing with consistency, ultimately moving majority opinions towards a minority position.

  4. Snowball Effect:

    • Initially gradual, the process of influencing opinions can rapidly accelerate as more of the majority adopts minority views.

Evaluations of Minority Influence

  • Moscovici (1969) demonstrated through a study using colored slides that consistent minority calls led to increased acceptance among a majority group, identifying 8% agreement against mere 1% for inconsistent minorities.
  • Nemeth (1986) illustrated how flexibility in negotiations (arguing for lower settlements) positively influenced a group in their compensation discussions, enhancing conformity towards minority perspectives.
  • Critiques pointed to laboratory research lacking realistic implications, as studies typically explore decision-making in artificial contexts lacking genuine consequences.

Conclusion on Social Change

  • Successful minority movements are characterized by consistency, commitment, and flexibility transitioning to societal acceptance through gradual processes (snowball effect).
  • Historical examples showcase how movements advocating for social justice leveraged commitment and unity effectively to yield significant change within society (e.g., civil rights and LGBTQ+ movements).
  • However, rigorous controlled experiments measuring social change face challenges in establishing clear cause and effect relationships, leaning instead on naturelle experimental techniques, case studies, and correlational assessments.

Final Remarks

  • The audience is encouraged to utilize the Psych Boost app for self-assessment on the social influence unit, with all topics in Paper One available for free access on iOS and Android platforms.
  • Additionally, the speaker expresses gratitude for support via Patreon that allows the development of free academic resources aimed at enhancing quality A-Level Psychology education.