social influence

PROCEDURE

confederates deliberately gave wrong answers to see if ppt would conform

FINDINGS

naive ppts conformed on 36.8% of trials

25% never conformed

VARIATIONS

conformity increased up to group size of 4

dissenter reduced conformity

conformity increased when task was harder

A CHILD OF ITS TIME

perrin and spencer found less conformity in 1980 than 1950s

ARTIFICIAL SITUATION AND TASK

demand characteristics meant ppts just played along with trivial tasks

LIMITED APPLICATION OF FINDINGS 

asch's research only conducted on american men

EXTRA

findings onlyapply to certain situations

ethical issues

STANFORD PRISON EXPERIMENT

PROCEDURE

mock prison with students randomly assigned as guards or prisoners

FINDINGS 

guards became increasingly brutal, prisoners increasingly withdrawn and depressed

CONCLUSIONS

ppts conformed to their roles as guards or prisoners

CONTROL

random assignment to roles increased internal validity

LACK OF REALISM

ppts were play-acting their roles according to media-deprived stereotypes

DISPOSITIONAL INFLUENCE

only one-third of guards were brutal so conclusions were exaggerated

EXTRA

lack of research support

ethical issues

TYPES OF CONFORMITY

INTERNALISATION

private and public acceptance of group norms

IDENTIFICATION

change behaviour to be part of a group we identify with

COMPLIANCE

go along with group publically but no private change

EXPLANATIONS OF CONFORMITY

INFORMATIONAL SOCIAL INFLUENCE (ISI)

conforms to be right

assumes other know better

NORMATIVE SOCIAL INFLUENCE (NSI)

conforms to be liked or accepted by a group

EVALUATION

RESEARCH SUPPORT FOR ISI

more conformity to incorrect mahs answers when they were difficult, predicted by ISI

INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN NSI

nAffilators want to be liked more

ISI AND NSI WORK TOGETHER

dissenter may reduce power of ISI and NSI

EXTRA

individual differences in NSI

research support for NSI

PROCEDURE

ppts gave fake electric shocks to a learner in obedience to instructions from the experimentor

FINDINGS

65% gave highest shock of 450v

100% gave shocks up to 300v

many showed signs of anxiety

LOW-INTERNAL VALIDITY

ppts realised shocks were fake

but replication with real shocks got similar results

GOOD EXTERNAL VALIDITY

findings generalise to other situations such as hospital wards

SUPPORTING REPLICATION

game of death found 80% gave maximum shock, plus similar behaviour to migrams ppts

EXTRA

an alternative explanation- social idenity theory

ethical issues

PROXIMITY

obedience decreased to 40% when teacher could hear learner, and up to 30% in touch proximity condition

LOCATION

obedience dereased to 47.5% when study moved to run-down office block

UNIFORM

obedience decreased to 20% when members of the public was the experimentor

RESEARCH SUPPORT

bickmna showed power of unifrom in field experiment

LACK OF INTERAL VALIDITY

some of milgrams procedures contrived, so not genuine obedience (orne and holland)

CROSS-CULTRAL REPLICATION

cross-cultural findings support milgram

but almost all studies in similar cultures to USA so not very generalisable

EXTRA

control of variables in milgrams variations

the obedience alibi

AGENTIC STATE

AGENTIC STATE

acting as agent of another

AUTONOMOUS STATE

free to act according to conscience

switching between the two- agentic shift

BINDING FACTORS

allow individual to ignore the damaging effects of their obedient behaviour

RESEARCH SUPPORT

blass and schmitt found that people do blame the legitamate authority for the ppts behaviour

A LIMITED EXPLANATION

cannot explain why some of milgrams ppts disobeyed or the lack of moral strain in hofling et al's nurses.

LEGITIMACY OF AUTHORITY

created by hierarchal nature of society

DESTRUCTIVE AUTHORITY

problems aries e.g. hitler

CULTURAL DIFFERENCES

explains obedience in different cultures because reflects different social hierarchies

EXTRA

the obedience alibi revisited

real life crimes of obedience

THE AUTHORITIVE PERSONALITY

PROCEDURE

adorno et al. used F-scale to study unconsciencious attitudes towards other racial groups

FINDINGS

people with authoritarian personalities identify with the strong and have fixed cognitive style

AUTHOITARIAN CHARACTERISTICS

extreme respect for authority and obediene to it

ORIGIN OF THE AUTHORITARIAN PROXIMITY

harsh parenting creates hostility that cannot be explained against parents so is displaced

RESEARCH SUPPORT 

some of milgrams obedient ppts had authoritarian personalities (elms)

LIMITED EXPLANATION

cant explain increase in obedience across a whole culture

POLITICAL BIAS

equates authoritarian personality with right-wing ideology and ignores extreme left-wing autoritarianism

EXTRA

methodological problems

correlation, not causation

SOCIAL SUPPORT

CONFORMITY

reduced by presence of dissenters from the group

OBEDIENCE

decreases in presence of disobedient peers who act as a model to follow

EVALUATION

RESEARCH SUPPORT

adam and levine. conformity decreases when one person dissents even if they are not credible

REASEARCH SUPPORT

gamson et al. obedience drops when disobedient role models are present.

LOCUS OF CONTROL

LOCUS OF CONTROL

LOC is sense of what directs events in our lives (rutter)

CONTINUUM

high internal at one end and high external at the other 

RESISTANCE TO SOCIAL INFLUENCE

people with high internal LOC are more able to resist pressures to conform or obey.

LOCUS OF CONTROL- EVALUATION

RESEARCH SUPPORT

interals less likely to fully obey in milgram  type procedure (holland)

CONTRADICTORY RESEARCH

people have become more external and more disobedient recently (twenge et al.)

hard for LOC to explain

EXTRA

limited role of locus of control

CONSISTENCY 

if the minority is consistent this attracts the attachment of the majority over time

COMMITMENT

augementation principle- personal sacrifices show commitment and attract attention

FLEXIBILITY

minority more convincing if they accept same counter-arguements

THE PROCESS OF CHANGE

abover factors make majority think more deeply about the issue

snowball effect- minority view gathers momentum until it becomes majority influence.

RESEARCH SUPPORT FOR CONSISTENCY

moscovici's blue green slides and wood et al's. meta analysis

RESEARCH SUPPORT FOR DEPTH OF THOUGHT

minority views have longer effect because they are deeply processed (martin et al)

ARTIFICIAL TASKS

tasks often trivial so tell us little about real life influence

EXTRA

research support for internalisations

limited real world application

SOCIAL CHANGE

THE SPECIAL ROLE OF MINORITY INFLUENCE

minority influence is powerful force for innovation and social change

example- civil rights movement in the USA

LESSONS FROM CONFORMITY RESEARCH

normative social influence can lead to social change by drawing attention to what majority is doing

LESSONS FROM OBEDIENCE RESEARCH

disobedient role models

gradual commitment is how obedience can lead to change

RESEARCH SUPPORT

NSI valid explanation of social change, e.g reducing energy consumption (nolan et al)

ONLY INDIRECTLY EFFECTIVE

effects of minority influence are limted because they are indirect and appear later (nemeth)

ROLE OF DEEPER PROCESSING

it is majority views that are processed more deeply than minority views, challenging central feature of minority influence

EXTRA

barriers to social change

methodological issues