Social Influence

Conformity is the process of yielding to majority influence, David Myers (1999) "a change in behaviour or belief as a result of real or imagined group pressure", e.g. young people start smoking, because their friends do.

Types of Conformity

Compliance - (superficial type), The individual conforms publically to the beliefs/behaviours shown by others, but privately disagrees. (e.g. give a positive review of a film they didn't find that good because others said it was good). 

Identification - (deeper type), An individual genuinely adjust their behaviour to the behaviour of the group because membership to that group is desirable. This is temporary, and genuinely stops when the person leaves the group. (e.g. when at work, not as loud).

Internalisation - (deepest level), The views of the group are internalised, taken on at a deep and permanent level. (e.g. student becomes a vegetarian while flat mates are, and continues this throughout their life). 

One reason why people conform is due to normative social influence; 

This suggests that we conform because we want to be liked by others, and want them to approve of us and accept us, usually called compliance. This is becaise we need to be accepted by others as we want to be liked/ respected and we find rejection painful. 

An example of this is teenagers smoking because they want to fit in with their friends. 

Evaluation

• Schultz - Hotel guests who were told 75% of the guests re used their towels, reduced their own towel use by 25% = suggesting people change their behaviour (re-using towels) to conform to a group norm (that others re-use their towels). 
• Linkenbach + Perlains - teens exposed to the message that moost people their age didn't smoke, were less likely to develop the habit = suggesting teens conform to the norms of their peer groups.
• Reductionist - other factors ignored that affect conformity; group size, personal ethics, and religious beliefs. 

Another reason why we conform is informational social influence;

This is where we look how others behave and feel in situations which are often new to us, and behave/feel as they do. Particulary when we encounter an experience for the first time. We look to others for guidence, as we have a basic need to be confident that our ideas and beliefs are correct (a need for certainty). 

For example, at a restaurant with a numer of different sized knifes and forks, if not sure they will wait and watch what other people use first, so they avoid doing the wrong thing and avoid embarrassment 

Evaluation

• Wittenbrink + Henly - exposed to a majority view of negative beliefs about african americans, later reported back more negative beliefs = in an unsure situation, conform to majority
• Felin - fed fake audience reactions to a political debate, changed their views to the audience = showing a genuine change of belief when seek information.
• Reductionist - other factors ignored (religious/ personal ethics/ group size). 

Asch - Comparison of Lines Study: investigating normative social influence (unambigous task)

• Experiment on 7-9 people
• One genuine participant, and others confederates.
• Showed them 2 cards, asking the participants to identify which of the comparison lines was the same as the standard line.
• This was repeated 17 times (18 trials), and on every trial the correct answer was obvious, but Asch instructed his participants to give the wrong answer
• The genuine participant wa last (or but one) to answers
• Found - Participants gave the same wrong answer as the confederates, third of the trials and 75% conformed at least once (25% never).

Asch concluded - as the answers were obviously incorrect, showing that participants were obviously conforming to others in the group.

Group Size - group size increases, so does conformity, but if it increases above 3, no further impact.

• 1P and 1C = conformity 3%
• 1P and 2C = conformity 13%
• 1P and 3C = conformity 33%

Unanimity (agreement) - If the majority of the gorup are not unanimous (don't all agree), conformity drops considerably.

• 1C vs 1/2 other C = conformity drops to 5.5%
• 1C vs 2C = conformity drops to 9%

Task Difficulty- conformity increases as task difficulty increases

• when Asch made the difference between line lengths more difficult to see, conformity increased

Lab experiment - control over other variables, cause and effect can be established = Asch could show that the presence of the group caused participants to comply

Lacks ecological validity - artificial groups, among strangers = in real life, with friends/ people we know, so may act differently

Didn't get informed consent - else conformity couldn't have been studied, else they would have known what was going to happen. Other participants reported feeling uncomfortable = not protecting them from psychological harm (embarrassment)

Males - Jenness found females are more conforming = Asch's study shows beta bias, may not be applied to females, as they behave differently, which has been ignored here

Group size - 7-9 too small = limits our knowledge about the effect on group sizes much larger than this, e.g. with 15 people, they may get suspicious of it being set up.

Social roles, associated with patterns of expected behaviours which people may adopt

Zimbardo - Stanford Prison Study: investigating how many people will conform to a social role

• 75 male students responded to an advert to take part in a prison simulation for 14 days, paid 15 dollars a day.21 were selected to take part in the basement of Stanford University, which was converted into a prison
• Students were randomly allocated roles of the prisoner or the guard, and prisoners where arrested at home, issued a uniform and taken to their prison cells.
• Guards were issued guard uniforms and were told when to report for duty
• Found - Prisoners and Guards quickly settled into their roles, prisoners initially rebelled but were overthrown, guards increasingly became more sadistic and taunting, prisoners became more passive and many of them experiences sever psychological distress (one released after 36 hours), experiment was stopped after 6 days.

Conclusion - Prison situation and the social roles caused individuals to conform to behaviour, which they have modelled their behaviour on social roles of prisoners/guards from the media.

Not all guards behaved brutally - didn't all conform = can't be generalised to everyone, other factors need to be considered.

Demand characteristics - as it's a mock prison experiment, assumed there was an expectation to behave a certain way = behaviour isn't realistic

Unethical - protection from harm guideline = prisoners suffered humillation, degradation, dehumanisation. Against BPS guidelines.

Hoped it lead to an improvement of prison conditions (USA) - however prison conditions are worse now = suggesting that the cost of carrying out the study (socially sensitive), was not worth anything in society

Unnecessary - didn't need to study the effects of prisons in this artificial way, effects of real prisons could have been investigated by conducting research in real prisons = therefor ethical issues could have been avoided, findings may have been different and may have helped the real world.

Carrying out the demands or instructions of an authority figure (has greater power in this particular situation)

Milgram - Research Study into Obedience: Nazi's second world war, carried out behaviours they knew was morally wrong.

• 40 male volunteers, at Yale university
• Met the experiment (wearing a lab coat) and a man who they believed was another participant (actually an confederate).
• Experimenter explained the study was about learning through punishment and would 'randomly' select who would take on the role of learner/teacher (confederate always got learner)
• Teacher would be required to teach a series of word pairs, if learner gave the incorrect word pairs then they were punished with an electric shock, going up in 15volts everytime (max 450)
• The teacher saw a sample, to prove this was real, and during the experiment confederates complained about a weak heart, screamed and eventually became silent, however no real shocks were given.
• If an participant didn't want to carry on, experimenters would try and make them continue.

Results - 100% of P = at least 300V, 65% P = 450V, last shock at least 4 times, when P's verbally protested = carried on due to prods from the experimenter. P's both verbal/physical signs of distress throughout the experiment and reported the situations was very stressful during post-experiment debriefing.

Concluding - 'Germans are different' hypothesis is not supported,  as 'ordinary' people showed that they have high levels of obedience by authority figures, even against their morals.

• Evaluation - (Orne = Holland) Lacks ecological validity - lab based, wouldn't happen in real life = can't learn from Milgram's research. Also lacks experimental (internal) validity - participants may have 'only been going along with the act', pleasing the experimenter = not a valid measure of obedience. anxious behaviours could be due to demand characteristics
• Ethical Issues - high levels of distress, and decieved about the true nature of the experiment = could cause long term psychological harn, stess of knowing they could kill
• Repeated in other countries (Italy, Australia, UK, Jordan and Spain) - Similar results were found = highly reliable (repeated)
• Hofling - Field experiment on nurses in a real hospital, finding high levels of obedience of Nurses willing to break rules (administer medication from Doctor) = high ecological validity and still found same results as Milgram

Situational - Milgram's Agency Theory: people operate on two levels

• Autonomous Individuals - behaving voluntarily, aware of the consequences of their actions. Agentic Level - seeing themselves as the agents of others and not responsible for their actions
• Consequence from moving to the agentic level (agentic shift), individuals attribute their actions to the person in authority, Milgram argued people mindlessly accept orders of the person seen as responsible in the situation. = people are more likely to obey an authority figure (don't see themeselves as responsible)

Evaluation

• Milgrams study - Participants asked the question who will take responsibility thism and experimenter said himself, and continued giving shocks = suggesting they saw the experimenter in control (shifted from autonomous to agentic level)
• Blass + Schmitt - P's saw video footage of original experiment, and most said the experimenter was to blame = authority figure of agent as responsible
• Not all Milgram's P's obeyed the experimenter (35% didn't continue to shock) = other factors, personality, play a role, not simply the situation (environmental determinism).

Legitimacy of Authority

Obey because they are required to carry out an instruction from an individual perceived as having the authority to give the order, (a school pupol more likely to obey an instruction from the head teacher than another pupil, headteacher = authority, pupil is not).

Evaluation

• Bickman - researchers dress up in various outfits (New York), ask people to provide money for a parking meter. More people obeyed when they were dressed as guards, than when dressed as a civilian. = Suggests we obey someone if we see them as having legitimate authority
• Tanow (aeroplane disasters) - found in accidents where the crew were responsible for the crash, few peole questioned the pilot's decisions, even if they were risky. = shows willingless to obey the individual percieved to have the most authority.
• Reductionist - not this simple, someone may have authority in on situation but not another, and how much authority they have  = over simplistic, doesn't consider other factors that may influence

Proximity - Obedience increases when the learner is further away, and decreases when the learner is moved nearer. = Physical distance is important.

• Evidence - Milgram's variations, teacher and learner in the same room, obedience dropped to 40%. Teacher had to force the learners hand onto an electric shock plate, obedience dropped to 30%.

Location - If an environment is percieved as legitimate (Yale) obedience is high. if it's not obedience will be lower = location is an important factor.

• Evidence - Milgram's variations, when he performed his experiment in a run down office nearby town, obedience dropped to 47.5%

Uniform - Make people believe that someone has power and the right to deliver orders. Lab coat worn in Milgram's experiment may have given the experiment legitamate authority.

• Evidence - Bickman's study, dressed in guard uniform/ civilian clothes, more people will obey - parking meter.

The Authoritarian Personality - Individuals are born with personality traits that make them more willing to obey.

• Measured by a questionnaire (f-scale), more rigid thinkers, see the world in black and white and enforced strict obediece to social rules/ authority figures.
• People who had strict parents who physically punished them for breaking rules
• Believe the rules appy to everyone and that obedience/ respect for someone is the most important virtues a child can learn.

Evaluation

• Altemeyer - strong +ve correlation between having a right wing authoritarian personalities and the level of shock given in an experiment = shows these people are more likely to obey orders.
• Elms and Milgram - measures P's authoritarianism on a questionnaire. People who scored highly saw the authority figure in Milgram's study more admirable, and were more obedient = showing a clear link between authoritarian personality and obedience.
• Authoritarianism not necessarily a personality trait which is fixed - Chan found high authoritarian personalities when interviewing refugees from the Chinese revoloution = situational factor resulting from a communist culture (not disposition)

Some people are able to resist the pressure to conform and obey, these two explanations are Locus of Control and Social Support.

Locus of Control - where an individual percieves the control to be (themselves or being controlled)

• Internal Locus of Control - They are in control of their own circumstances. These have a certain confidence and security, a positive outlook and no real need for external approval (less likely to conform and obey/ can resist)
• External Locus of Control - Individual may attribute events that occur to external forces beyond their control (luck, fate, God). These are usually less confident, more nervous and insecure (more likely to comform and obey/ struggle to resist).

Evalutation

• Spector - 157 undergraduate students, found students external locus of control, more likely to conform due to normative social influence = showing internal can resist conformity.
• Avtgis - +ve correlation beteen external LC, and being easily persuaded = Internal - resist persuasion
• Stewart - Chinese diabetic patients, found a weak correlation between obeying doctors orders and their locus of control = more complex than LC - reductionist

Social Support

• When we see others in a situation where they resist conformity/ disobey, it becomes easier fo us to do the same.
• Due to these 'dissenters' provide moral support, represent a form of social support, someone else who will share the disapproval of the group or authority figure, also making us question why we shouldn't obey.

Evaluation

• Allen + Levine - task involving visual judements, even if the dissenter wore thick glasses and admitted to having sight problems, conformity reduced = dissenters help people resist
• Variation of Milgram's experiment - when 2 confederates refused to giving shocks, obedience rate of P's dropped to 10% = seeing others disobey encourages disobedience, as participants were encouraged to disobey by seeing others disobeying.
• Variation of Asch's experiment - included an confederate who answered correctly, the P's conformity rate dropped under 10% = others avoiding conformity, feel more confident going against the majority.

Minority Influence brings about the opposite of majority influence, this is social change. One person, or a small number of people can influence society or large groups of people to change thier views, leading to social change by sticking to 3 main factors; consistency, flexibility and commitment.

Consistency - most important, so if an individual is confident in their knowledge, putting forwards a clear and consistent viewpoint which opposes a majority view, meaning they are more likely to influence others to oppose the majority as well.

• Moscovici - investigating whether a consistent minority could influence the majority to give an incorrect answer in a perception test.
• 6 P's at a time, estimating 36 slides of a projector - different shades of blue
• 2/6 = confederates who were instucted to call all 36 slides green (consistent viewpoint), and 24 green, 12 blue (inconsistent viewpoint).
• Findings - consistent = 8.4% of the trials P's calling slide green (32% at least once), inconsistent = 1.4% of the trials P's calling green.
• Concluding - minority with a consistent viewpoint has more of an influence on the majority

Flexibility - They must consider other viewpoints and opinions, and change their views based on these. If they are flexible, others see them as a reasonable person, and will be more likely to join them.

• Nemeth - to see if flexibility increases minority influence
• Mock injury, groups of 3P's and 1C
• Had to decide on the compensation to give a victim (ski lift accident)
• Condition 1 - Consistent Minority (C), argued for a very low amount, and refused to change position
• Condition 2 - Consistent Minority (C), compromised and moved some way towards the majority position
• Results - 1) no effect, 2)Majority compromised and changed their view.
• Concluding - Minority = has more power to change the majorities view if they are flexible, rather than rigid and immovable

Commitment - Difficult to dismiss a minority if they are absolutely committed to their position, even in the face of a hostile majority. Commitment may be seen as admirable and may persuade members of the majority to take them seriously, or even convert to their point of view.

• Xie - Investigate commitment as a factor affecting minority influence
• Individuals were free to chat with another person across a social network on a range of topics
• Results - Even when only 10% of those taking part had a committed alternative point of view to the majority, they were able to persuade the majority to change their view.

Concluded - Demonstrates that the minority has more power to change the majorities view if they are committed to a particular alternative viewpoint.

Minority Influence - Moscovici, if an individual is exposed to a persuasive argument, under certain conditions their views may be converted to the minority viewpoing (suffragettes, persuade the majority to give women the right to vote).

1) Drawing Attention to an Issue - drawing the majority's attention to the issue, highlighting why they have different views.

2) Cognitive Conflict - minority creating an argument of conflict focing the majority to think deeply about the issue.

3) Consistency of Position - minority argue their view consistency, never changing their opinion.

4) The Augmentation Principle - minority appears willing to suffer for their views, they are taken more seriously

5) The Snowball Effect - As more people change their views, they will convinve others.

Majority Influence - Perkins and Berkowitz, if people percieve something to be the norm, they alter their behaviour to fit that norm (university student thinks that heavy drinking is the norm, likely to drink more).

Social Norm Interventions

• Identify a wide spread of mis- perception (Uni students drink heavily)
• Employ perception correction strategies (media campaigns/ leaflets, to re-educate people that heavy drinking is not the norm)

Montana USA - reduce drinking and driving, age 21-24. Group had been over-represented in the statistics. Survey found that 92% of this age group believed their peers drank and drove, and corrected by the media message that 4/5 don't. The correction lead to norm change. 

Martin et al - 48 British Uni students, supportive of voluntary euthanasia, exposed to 6 arguments against and 6 for. Half were told they were the minority view, and the others the majority. When the minority this made them think more deeply, creating cognitive conflict. = Minorities can bring social change, consider their views more deeply.

Greenpeace (1970's organisation) - started as a small group of people in Canada, attracting ridicule and legal action. Over time through consistency, attention and augmentation became a majority. = princliples of minority influence, can lead to social change in real life situations.

Nemeth - social norm change is vital, challenges the established norms

Burgoon - deviant/ unexpected behaviours of minority, lead to much deeper analysis and consideration from the majority. = supports cognitive conflict element of the process, as unexpected nature of the deviant behavious led to deeper analysis. 

Deviant - won't always cause people to follow you, not always able to change social norms = society can't always be manipulated into change, no matter what processes, other factors (free will)