Social Psychology

Chapter 13: Social Influence

Overview of Social Influence

In this chapter, we will delve into social influence, especially examining three key concepts: conformity, compliance, and obedience. We will also explore three classic studies that investigate these phenomena—namely, the Asch Study, the Zimbardo Study (Stanford Prison Experiment), and the Milgram Experiment.

Instances of Social Influence

Reflect on personal experiences with conformity, compliance, or obedience in your life. Consider moments where you altered your behavior in response to social pressures or roles.

Definitions of Key Concepts

Conformity

  • Definition: Conformity is the act of matching attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors to group norms or expectations. It involves an internal change to align with group standards.

  • Examples: Adopting a friend’s opinion on a movie to avoid conflict or dressing a certain way to fit in with peers.

Compliance

  • Definition: Compliance occurs when individuals yield to requests or demands that are subtle or indirect. This might be initiated by a question rather than a command.

  • Example: Responding to someone asking, "Would you mind helping me with this?" rather than being ordered to do it.

Obedience

  • Definition: Obedience involves following direct commands or instructions from an authority figure. It often entails a stronger motivation than compliance.

  • Example: Following a supervisor's direct order at work without question.

Differences Among the Concepts

  • Strength of Influence: It is relevant to assess which of these influences you personally react to more strongly. Are you more inclined to conform, comply, or obey?

Social Roles

  • Definition: Social roles refer to the unwritten rules that govern how individuals are expected to behave in certain settings (e.g., as employees, students, friends).

  • Behavioral Change: Reflect on how your behavior adapts based on fulfilling different social roles and the societal implications of these expectations.

Stanford Prison Experiment

Phil Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment investigated how social roles impact behaviors:

  • Setup: Conducted in the basement of Stanford University, participants were randomly assigned to act either as prisoners or guards.

  • Results: The experiment had to be halted after just one week due to extreme behavioral changes. Prisoners began showing signs of depression, and guards exhibited abusive behaviors.

  • Ethics: This study faced significant ethical criticism for its lack of oversight and the psychological harm caused to participants.

  • Critiques: Some argue that participants were acting out their roles rather than genuinely embodying them, and thus the findings are not replicable due to ethical concerns.

  • Implication: The experiment illustrates how powerful social roles can be, as they can influence individuals to act against their morals.

Norms in Society

  • Definition: Norms are established standards of behavior within a society, which can be explicit (e.g., signs for behavior) or implicit (generally accepted behaviors).

  • Consequences of Violating Norms: Violations can lead to social disapproval and can often be observed as resistance resulting in negative responses from peers.

  • Example: Experimentally violating social norms (e.g., standing too close in a queue or acting oddly in public) can provide insight into society's reactions to deviance.

Pluralistic Ignorance

  • Definition: A social phenomenon where individuals in a group erroneously believe that others hold different beliefs or attitudes than themselves, despite behaving similarly.

  • Example: In an academic setting, if a student believes they are the only one confused by a lecture yet perceives classmates as understanding, resulting in silence about their confusion—a misinterpretation of the group’s actual knowledge.

The Asch Line Study

Solomon Asch’s study on conformity provides further empirical evidence:

  • Setup: Participants, unaware of the deception, were shown a standard line alongside three comparison lines and asked to identify the match. The group, composed of confederates, provided incorrect answers to test the real participant's response.

  • Findings:

    • About 75% of participants conformed to the wrong group answer at least once.

    • Group size, presence of dissenters, and anonymity influenced levels of conformity.

    • Informational influence (accepting group norms) and normative influence (desire for acceptance) were identified as causes for conforming behavior.

Milgram Experiment

Stanley Milgram’s study focused on obedience and authority:

  • Setup: Participants were instructed to administer electric shocks to a learner (actually a confederate) for incorrect answers.

  • Findings: 65% of participants continued to administer shocks up to the maximum voltage despite hearing cries of distress from the learner.

  • Ethical Concerns: The study is criticized for its potential psychological harm to participants, as it induced stress and conflict with personal ethics.

  • Variations Showcasing Impact on Obedience:

    • Close proximity of the learner decreased obedience; participants were less likely to continue shocking if they could see the learner.

    • Authority presence and attire increased obedience rates.

Understanding Group Behavior

Concept of Groups

  • Definition: A group is defined as two or more individuals that interact and have a common goal or identity.

  • Influence of Cohesion: Strong group cohesion often leads to more influence over individual behaviors.

Social Facilitation & Inhibition

  • Social Facilitation: The presence of others can improve performance on simple tasks through augmented arousal.

  • Social Inhibition: Conversely, performance may suffer on complex tasks when being observed, due to anxiety.

Social Loafing

  • Definition: Social loafing pertains to decreased effort by individuals in the context of group work compared to when they are working alone.

  • Example: A participant may be less motivated during a group project, assuming others will do the work.

  • Reducing Social Loafing: Individual accountability and emphasizing the importance of each member's contribution can help mitigate this phenomenon.

Deindividuation

  • Definition: Deindividuation refers to the loss of self-awareness and individual accountability in group settings, often leading to extreme behavior.

  • Causes: Arousal, anonymity, and diffusion of responsibility contribute to deindividuation.

  • Examples: Crowds or mobs can escalate violence and engage in behaviors individuals wouldn't typically endorse in isolation.

Group Decision Making

Risky Shift & Group Polarization

  • Risky Shift: Groups tend to make riskier decisions than individuals alone due to shared responsibility and social dynamics.

  • Group Polarization: Group discussions can amplify initial beliefs, leading to more extreme positions post-discussion.

Groupthink

  • Definition: Groupthink occurs when cohesive group dynamics prevent critical evaluation or dissent, resulting in flawed decisions.

  • Indicators: High cohesion, leadership pressure, and lack of outside input increase the risk of groupthink.

  • Combating Groupthink: Promoting open dialogue, dissenting opinions, and critical discussion can counteract groupthink tendencies.

Conclusion

These concepts and findings about social influence, group behavior, and decision-making emphasize the profound effects that social settings and group dynamics can have on individual actions and beliefs. Understanding these processes is crucial for recognizing both the potential for conforming and aberrant behavior in varied contexts.