Social Influence (AO1)

Internalisation 

• Deep conformity
• Person genuinely accepts the views of the majority

Identification 

• Medium conformity
• Person agrees with some aspects of the group
• will alter views and behaviour slightly as they want to be apart of the group

Compliance 

• Weak conformity
• Person goes along with majority but doesnt agree with anything

Informational Social Influence (ISI)

• Need to be right - Cognitive process
• Happens in situations that are infamiliar or when another individual is regarded as an expert 

Normative Social Influence (NSI) 

• Need to be liked - Emotional process 
• Happens in situations that are social and theres possibility for rejection 

Procedure 

• 123 male American undergradutes 
• 1 naive participant in group of 6-8 confederates (usually sat last or next to last)
• 18 trials - 12 'critical' trials with wrong answer 

Findings

• Participant said wrong answer 36.8% of the time
• 25% did not conform - 75% conformed at least once
• Conformed even when unambigious - NSI

Group size 

• 3 confederates = 31.8% but any more had little impact 
• Small majority not sufficent nor is extreme - need 3 for maximum conformity 

Unanimity 

• Confederates disagreed with the rest - wrong or right
• Conformity reduced 1/4 as it allowed independence - influence depends to extent of unanimous 

Task difficulty 

• Made standard and comparison lines more similar in length 
• Conformity increased - ISI
• Task was more ambigous so participants looked for guidance 

Procedure 

• Created makeshift prison in the basement of Stanford University 
• Students volunteered - 'emotionally stable' participants only
• Randomly assigned to role of the guard/prisoner - 'Fake arrest at home'
• Prisoners blindfolded/searched/deloused/uniform

Social roles divided 

Prisoners: Routine heavily regulated = 16 rules to follow - names were never used only the number they were issued with

Guards: Given uniform/shades/keys/handcuffs - given complete power over prisoners

Findings

• Stopped after 6 days - not the intended 14 days due to concern of the prisoners physical and psychological health
• Prisoners rebelled againts mainstream - punished by guards
• Guards punished even the smallest misdemeanour 
• Prisoners became depressed/anxious after rebellion 
• One prisoner went on a hunger strike - guards forced him to eat and placed him in tiny dark closet as punishment

Conclusions 

All conformed to social roles - They all acted as if in a prison and not in a psychological experiment 

Procedure 

• 40 male participnats - volunteered - 20-50 year olds - paid $4.50 straight away 
• Confederate Mr.Wallace always the learner - Participant always the teacher
• Another confederate as experimenter (lab coat)
• Learner strapped to chair with wired electrodes (seperate ajoining rooms)
• Teacher gave increasingly severe shock when answer given is wrong (not real shocks)
• Shocks started at 15 (labelled light shock) and then rose 30 levels to 450 volts (labelled danger-severe)
• At 300 volts - learner pounded on wall with no response
• No response after 315 volts = 'no answer is a wrong answer'

Prods

• Please continue
• Experiment requires you to continue
• It is absolutely essentail that you continue
• You have no other choice, you must go on

Findings

• No one stopped before 300 volts - 12.5% stopped at 300 volts - 65% continued to 450 volts
• Qualitative data collected - participants showed signs of extreme tension/sweat/stutter and 3 people had seizures 
• After debriefing - 84% glad to have participated
• Before the study - psychology students predicted that only 3% would go to 450 volts

Proxmity

• Teacher/learner same room = 40% obedience 
• Touch proximity - hand forced on plate = 30% obedience
• Instruction by phone = 20.5% - also gave weaker shocks or none at all

Location

• Replicated in run down building = 47.5% obedience
• Still high obedience but lower than baseline = due to less percieved authority

Uniform

• Confederate as 'member of the public' took over from experimenter = 20% obedience 

Agentic State 

• Acts for another - experiences high anxiety as they know they are doing wrong - can't disobey
• Autonomous state : free will
• Shift to agentic state is called agentic shift = occurs when there is a presence of authority 
• Binding factors : Why do they continue? Binding factors help ignore/minimise the effect of their action

Legitimacy of Authority

• Authority is legitimised when it is agreed on in society = we accept authority figure which gives them power over us
• Consequence of legitimacy of authority = gives those power to punish
• Individuals willing to give up independence to allow appropriate use of authority 
• Learn this behaviour from childhood - obey those in percieved authority 
• Destructive authority: legitimate authority becomes destructive e.g. Hitler - clearly demonstrated in Milgram's study where when prodded, they went against conscience 

Procedure

• 2000 middle-Class white Americans
• Measured their unconscious attitudes towards other racial groups through the f scale
• Examples of the f scale - 'obedience and respect towards authority is most important' and 'hardly anything lower than a person who does not feel great love and respect for their parents'

Findings

• People with an authoritarian personality identified with strong people and looked down on those who are weak
• Very conscious of their own and other status, showing great respect towards those higher 
• Cognitive style where there is no 'fuzziness' between categories = fixed distinct stereotypes 
• Strong positive correlation between authoritarian personality and prejudice 

Authoritarian Personality 

• Tend to be especially obedient to authority - extreme repect 
• Believe we need strong and powerful leaders to enforce traditional values - love of the country/family/religion
• No grey area = Its right or wrong - uncomfortable with uncertainty

Origin of the Authoritarian Personality 

• Formed in childhood = result of harsh parenting
• Extremely strict discipline
• Absolute loyalty
• Impossibly high standards
• Severe criticism of percieved failures
• Conditional love
• All creates resentment and hostility - displace on those they view as weaker (scapegoating)
• Example of a Psychodynamic approach 

Social Support 

• Conformity : Social support helps resist conformity - Asch - someone going against the majoirty enables individuals to be free to follow conscience - temporary, however 
• Obedience: Social support helps resit obedience - Milgram's variations -  obedience rate dropped from 65% to 10% when confederate teacher present and disobeying

Locus of Control (LOC)

• Rotter (1996): Concept concerned with internal and external control
• Internals = Things happen to them largely due to themselves e.g. didn't work hard enough 
• Externals = Things happen without their control e.g. teacher was rubbish/bad luck
• Its a continuum = high internal to high external. Low internal and external in the middle
• Resistence to social influence: People with internal LOC more likely to resist pressure to obey or conform - aware of their actions and are more confident/achievement orientated and less need for social approval 

Minority influences the belief/behaviour of the majority = most likely lead to internalisation 

Three main processes of minority influence ; 

• Consistency: Increases the amount of interest -Synchronic consistency = agreement in minority group & Diachronic consisteny = consistency over time
• Commitment: Extreme activities to draw attention  - extremity demonstrates commitment to the cause - Augumentation principle = Majority pays more attention and reconsiders views
• Flexability: Being consistent can be seen as rigid/demanding - off putting to majority - minority must adapt point of view and accept reasonable counter arguments 

The Process of Change

Majority switch to minority view point (convert)

More it happens = the faster the rate of conversion (snowball effect) 

1. Drawing attention through social proof = schools exclusive to whites

2. Consistency = Many marches with many people

3. Deeper processing of the issue = People realised how unjust it was

4. The augumentation principle = Many risked their lives 'freedom riders' - many beaten

5. The snowball effect = Gradual change - Martin Luther King jr. = Civil right 

6. Social cryptomnesia = People forget how change occured but know a change has happened 

Lessons from conformity research

• Importance of dissenters: Make social change more likely to occur - Asch
• Majority influence campaigns appeal to NSI by highlighting what other people are doing: Environmental and health campaigns increasingly exploit conformity process (NSI) e.g. "Bin it - others do" 

Lessons from obedience research 

• Importance of disobedient role models: Milgram - Confederate teacher refuses to give shocks - rates of obedience dropped
• Social change through gradual commitment: Zimbardo - when one small instruction is obeyed, becomes more difficult to resist bigger ones = drift people into new behaviours