Social Influence

?

Conformity

Social Influence - Social groups and interactions that influence our thoughts, feelings, actions, beliefs and perceptions. Social influences can take many forms, and can be seen in many types of confomity, obedience, resistance etc.

Conformity - A type of social influence where people give into group pressures, whether they're real or imagined. Conformity can result in a change in a person's behaviour, beliefs, or both.

In society, we conform to unwritten rules which we all know and follow (norms). If you're conforming, you're not breaking the norms of society.

When someone doesn't conform, they would get menacing looks or comments from other people which would make them feel embarrassed or humiliated. These reactions ensure that we conform.

Group Norms - The informal rules that groups adopt to regulate the group members' behaviour.

1 of 61

Types of Conformity

Internalisation - Occurs when there is a true change of private beliefs to match those of the group the individual is being influenced by. Therefore, the beliefs are norms of a group are internalised by an individual and becomes a part of their own beliefs.

Example: An individual may become vegan after living with a group of people who believe in vegan related principles. The individual may take on board and agree with these principles and change their beliefs, thus conforming to the group.

Identification - Occurs when an indiviual accepts the norms of a group both privately and publicly as he/she values the membership of the group. They will conform due to a social role they have within a certain social setting. Often this social role is shown by their social behaviour, but it doesn't always impact their views or opinions. These norms and values can shift as the individual/becomes part of different groups.

Example: A young teenager taking on the dress codes and beliefs of the Goth culture. Once he leaves college and goes to work, this is likely to change again.

Compliance - An publicy agreeing with a group, but privately disagreeing. 

Example: In a class debate an individual may agree with the majority, but hold a contrary point of view.

2 of 61

Dual-Process Dependency Model - Deutsch & Gerard (

Deutsch & Gerard (1955) explain conformity as a 'dual-process dependency model'. This model suggests that people conform because they depend on others for 2 distinct reasons: for social approval (normative influence) and for information/need to get things right (informational influence).

Normative Influence (the need to be accepted and to belong):

  • This leads to compliance and is shown in Asch's study.
  • An individual will make a decision according to the influence of the majority to feel accepted.
  • They will act according to the majority's behaviour as they don't want to be left out, or go against the norm.
  • From Asch's study, they may go with the majority as they fear that they'll feel uncomfortable and be in the minority if they don't conform.
  • It occurs because of a basic need to be accepted and the need to belong.

Example: Dressing according to current fashion trends in order to fit in.

3 of 61

Dual-Process Dependency Model - Deutsch & Gerard (

Informational Influence (the need to get it right and to gain information):

  • This leads to internalisation and is shown in Sherif's study.
  • An individual may be in a situation where they are not sure of the correct answer or response, so look at the majority opinion, believe it to be correct, and make a decision according to the majority.
  • The individual internalises the majority opinion, and believes that the information is right.

Example: Not knowing who to vote for in a general election, so voting accoring to the majority opinion.

4 of 61

Dual-Process Dependency Model - Evaluation

DPD Model - Evaluation:

-) Criticised for implying that normative and informational influence are seperate and independent.

  • Insko et al (1983) have shown that the two types of influence can interact and work together to increase conformity.
  • Example: An individual goes along with what she believes in an incorrect answer given by the class.
    • This could be due to normative influence; she doesn't want to be rejected by the group or appear different.
    • It could also be from information influence; she may begin to doubt her answer, as so many different people have a different one.
  • The 2 influences will act together to make the individual even more likely to conform.

-) Criticised for not recognising the importance of belonging to a group. 

  • Many studies show that conformity to group norms can last for many years, even if the group has since split.
5 of 61

Internalisation Study - Sherif (1936)

(Movement of Light Experiment)

Question - Would each individual's judgements become more similar when making estimates as groups?

Measured - Individual and group judgements in an ambiguous situation. 

Method:

  • In dark rooms, a stationary point of light can appear to move.
  • Participants were first asked to estimate how far the light had moved as individuals, then again as a member of a group.

Findings as Individual:

  • A personal norm is established which guided their judgement on how far the light had moved.
  • Each individual had their own estimate based on personal experience.
6 of 61

Internalisation Study - Sherif (1936) (CONT.)

(Movement of Light Experiment, cont.):

Findings as Groups:

  • Each group formed their own new and unique estimate, different to the judgement of each individual at the start.

Rohrer et at (1954) used Sherif's method and found that group answers formed in the experiment lasted up to year after it had taken place, even though the groups no longer existed.

Conclusion: Sherif's study can therefore be said to demonstrate a type of conformity called internalisation. This means that all members of the group believed and accepted that the group answer was correct; they internalised the answer so that it became part of their individual belief systems.

7 of 61

Identification Study - Zimbardo (1971)

(Prison Experiment)

Question - Is the brutality often found in American jails down to certain personality traits of the guards, or the role to which they are assigned?

Participants: 24 volunteer male students.

State of Mental & Physical Health of Participants: The most stable were selected (those with no violent or anti-social tendencies).

Allocation of Roles: Random allocation to either a 'prisoner' or 'guard' was given.

Guard Clothing: Dressed in uniforms and given night sticks.

Prisoner Clothing: Dressed in smocks and referred to by number.

Guard Instructions: Keep prisoners under control without using physical violence.

Guard Behaviour: Escalating punishments, including humiliation, sleep deprivation and even force feeding.

Duration of Experiment: Cut short to 6 days (out of proposed 2 weeks) due to thier behaviour.

8 of 61

Identification Study - Zimbardo (1971) (CONT.)

(Prison Experiment, cont.):

Findings:

  • Those assigned as guards abused their power and were violent, despite being selected for their stability and knowing it was only an experiment.

Conclusion: Zimbardo's study can therefore be said to demonstrate a type of conformity called identification. The participants took on their roles and changed their behaviour to fit that of their role. However, their social behaviour changed to that of before the experiment once the study was ended and the roles ceased to exist.

9 of 61

Identification Study - Zimbardo (1971) - Evaluatio

(Prison Experiment) 

Evaluation:

Why did such behaviour occur?

  • From the strong 'prisoner' and 'guard' stereotypes that we learn from the media, both in real life situations and in fiction.
  • From the environmental situation (the mock prison) fuelling behaviour.

Ethics:

-) Savin (1973) claims that the benefits resulting from the experiment do not outweigh the distress caused to the participants.

+) Zimbardo defends this by saying all participants were told exactly what would happen and they all signed consent forms. They were given a thorough debriefing, and he was certain that the distress felt in the experiment didn't go beyond the mock prison to affect the participant's real lives.

10 of 61

Replication of Prison Experiment - Haslam & Reiche

Haslam & Reicher (2002) replicated Zimbardo's experiment, and it was shown on British TV as a programme called 'The Experimenter'.

Outcomes:

  • Guards were uncomfortable about exercising power; they never developed any group identity. 
  • Prisoners were unhappy about the inequalities they faced. They supported each other, shared a social identity and challenged the guard's authority.
  • Eventually, a commune of ex-guards and ex-prisoners was established, but broke down as some of the members of the group wished to return to a more tyrannical regime. At this point the study was ended.

These outcomes may have been because social roles and the was authority was viewed changed between the 1970's and 2000's. Haslam & Reicher (2006) believe the study proved that a shared social identity doesn't always lead to negative outcomes. Zimbardo (2006) points out that participants in this study were tougher and more streetwise than the participants in his original study. Also, participants had microphones and were aware they were being filmed, unlike the original study, which could have affected their behaviour.

11 of 61

Compliance Conformity Study - Asch (1951)

(Perception of Length of Line Experiment)

Question - Is there a difference between 'true' conformity and compliance?

Participants: 123 male students, including confederates.

Method:

  • Participants put into groups of between 7 and 9 people and seated around a table.
  • They were asked to match the length of a line on 1 card to a choice of 3 lines on a 2nd card.
  • There were 18 trials for each group.
  • In 12 out of 18 of the trials, confederates were used to give obviously wrong answers.
  • Naive participants were seated second to last around the table so they'd head the wrong answer repeatedly before giving their own.

Findings:

  • The naive participants gave the same incorrect answer as the group in 37% of the trials.
  • 5% conformed to the group in every single trial.
12 of 61

Compliance Conformity Study - Asch (1951) (CONT.)

(Perception Of Line Length Experiment, cont.):

Findings (cont.):

  • 25% remained independent depsite considerable group pressure to conform.
  • During the experiment, some participants began to appear self-conscious and stressed.

Why did the participants conform?

  • Some said they doubted their own perception.
  • Others said they didn't want to stand out from the group.

Conclusion: Asch's study can therefore be said to demonstrate a type of conformity called compliance. The participants went along and agreed with the rest of the groups answer because they wanted to be accepted and didn't want to appear foolish or stand out.  However, they privately disagreed with the group, as their answers were clearly wrong, but kept their opinions to themselves.

Also, some of the participants showed 'true conformity', where the participants actually began to doubt their own perception as a result of the group pressure.

13 of 61

Compliance Conformity Study - Asch (1951) - Evalua

(Perception of Line Length Experiment) - Evaluation:

Ethics:

-) Deception was used as the true nature of the experiment was not revealed to the participants.

-) Fully informed consent was therefore not possible.

-) There was some stress caused to participants in the study.

Methodological Issues:

+)  This type of lab experiment isolates a particular aspect of behaviour for a study.

-) The group and tasks were artificial and lack ecological validity.

14 of 61

Factors Affecting Conformity in Asch's Study

A Non-Unanimous Majority: When 2 other participant gave the correct answer, conformity dropped to 5%, This shows the effect of having social support.

Size of the Majority: When the majority consisted of 2 people, conformity dropped to 12.8%. With a majority of 3+, 32% conformed.

Losing a Partner: When the naive participants had a 'partner' who originally gave the correct answer but then conformed to the group, conformity levels were 28.5%.

Gaining a PartnerWhen one of the confederates switched to giving the correct answer half way through, conformity levels were 8.7%.

Nature of the Task: Conformity increased as the task was made more and more difficult (by making the line lengths more similar).

Mode of Response: Conformity dropped to low levels when naive participants were allowed to write down their answers instead of shouting them out.

15 of 61

Other Factors that can Affect Conformity

Size of the Group: Larger the group = More likely to conform.

Social Support: Supported response = Less likely to conform, compared to if the response was unanimous.

Difficulty of the Task: Individuals uncertain of answer = More likely to conform.

Privacy: Able to make choices/decisions in private = Less likely to conform.

Status of the Group: Higher group status = More likely to conform.

Age: Younger individual = More likely to conform than older individuals due to factors such as life experience and confidence.

16 of 61

Replications of Asch's Study - Imagined Pressure

Imagined Pressure Study - Crutchfield (1995):

Method:

  • Crutchfield (1995) replicated Asch's experiment, but instead sat participants in booths so that they couldn't see each other.
  • They could only see the other people's responses on a control panel in front of them.

Findings:

  • Despite having no face-to-face contact, conformity rates were still 30%.
  • Crutchfield (1995) also found that conformity increased as the task was made more difficult, just like in Asch's study.

Conclusion: Therefore, this study shows that imagined pressure from a group is enough to get people to conform.

17 of 61

Replications of Asch's Study - Historical Context

Asch's research was seen by some to be a reflection of American society in the 1950's.

Nicholson et al (1985) replicated Asch's experiment under the same conditions and found lower levels of conformity. This may be down to changes in American society, or other factors such as individual diffrences in the participants used.

Despite the differences in Asch's and Nicholson's findings, most psychologists agree with this statement from Aronson (1999):

"Decades of research indicate that conformity for normative reasons can occur simply because we do not want to risk social disapproval, even from complete strangers that we will never see again."

18 of 61

Replications of Asch's Study - Cultural Context

Asch's experiment has been replicated in 13 different countries outside of the USA, where confority rates varied considerably.

Reasons for these variations include things such as minor changes in experimental design, but the main reason is from cultural differences.

Individualist Cultures = Less likely to conform.

Collectivist Cultures =  More likely to conform.

Therefore, culture is an important variable affecting human behaviour.

19 of 61

Replications of Asch's Study - Gender Differences

Both Asch and Crutchfield used male participants in their studies, which revealed nothing about conformity in women.

For many years it was assumed that women were more conforming than men, but research into gender differences in conformity has found this to be false.

Eagly & Carli (1981):

  • Found that male researchers were more likely to find higher levels of confromity in women than female researcher.
  • This may be due to male researchers using tasks which are more familiar to male participants.
20 of 61

Replications of Asch's Study - Gender Differences

Gender Conformity Study - Sistrunk & McDavid (1971):

Method:

  • Male and female participants were asked to identify various objects whilst being under group pressure to give the wrong answer, and so to conform.
  • Some participants were given traditionally male items to identify (e.g. a wrench).
  • Others were given traditionally female items to identify (e.g. different types of needlework).
  • Others were given 'neutral' items to identify (e.g. rock stars/celebrities).

Findings:

  • Conformity for women was highest on male items.
  • Conformity for men was highest on female items.
  • Conformity levels were similar for both genders for 'neutral' items.

Conclusion: This study therefore indicates that there are no significant differences in conformity behaviour between men and women.

21 of 61

Social Identity Theory - Tajfel & Turner (1979)

Social Identity Theory - Claims that apart from the level of 'self' or personal identity, an individual has multiple social identities.

Social Identity - The individual's self-concept derived from percieved membership of social groups. It is the 'us' associated with any internalised group membership.

Meta-Contrast Principle - The tendency to maximise percieved differences. In other words, people's sense of who they are is defined in terms of 'we' rather than 'I'.

The Social Identity Theory suggests that group membership creates in-group-self-categorisation. This self-categorisation can be seein in the findings of Tajfel & Turner's Minimal Group Studies (1986).

22 of 61

Social Identity Theory - Tajfel & Turner (1979) (

Minimal Group Studies - Tajfel & Turner (1986):

Findings:

  • The act of an individual categorising themselves as group members was enough to lead them to display in-group favouritism.
  • Once the individual thinks they belong to a group, they will try to achieve positive self-esteem by starting to percieve strong similarities between themself and other group members.
  • The individual will also begin to see large differences between their own group and other similar groups.

Social groups provide us with norms or rules which regulate the behaviour of the group's members. The members will conform to these norms whilst with the group, and also refer to them and abide by them even when other group members aren't present.

Example: This behaviour is often seen in rival football supporters.

23 of 61

Social Identity Theory - Evaluation

Evaluation:

+) Has had a considerable impact on social psychology. It's tested in a wide range of fields and settings, including: prejudice, steroetyping, negotiation and language use.

+) Can be used to explain ways that people deal with social and organisational change.

+) Can also be used to explain the findings of Rohrer's follow up to a Sherif type study, where participants conformed to group norms for up to one year after the study had ended.

+) Has support from Asch-type studies, in which participants are allowed to write down responses,  rather than shouting them out (removing normative influence). In such cases, conformity is dependent on the nature of the group.

+) Hogg & Turner (1987) gave support by saying: "If the confederates are percieved as belonging to the naive participants 'in-group', conformity is higher than if they are percieved as belonging to the 'out-group'".

24 of 61

Obedience

Obedience - A form of social influence that causes an individual to comply with a direct order given by another individual who is usually regarded as an authority figure, e.g. a teacher.

Authority is heirarchically based, so from a young age we are taught to obey authority figures such as our parents, then teachers, then the police etc.

Obedience is necessary for society to be able to function. Acts of disobedience would soon lead to a breakdown in society.

For decades, social psychologists have been trying to answer the questions of:

Question - What about when someone is asked to carry out an order which violates his own sense of justice or moral code, e.g. murder? What makes ordinary people commit such atrocities?

25 of 61

Research into Obedience - Milgram (1963)

(Electrocution Experiment):

Milgram (1963) was interested in the 'situational determinants' of obedience.

Situational Determinants - Cues which arise from the situation a person is in, giving them hints as to how they should behave.

Question - What factors could make a person obey an authority figure to the point of harming/killing another human being?

Participants: A range of 40 male participants from different occupations and backgrounds. They'd all responded to an advert for paid research into 'punishment and learning'.

Method:

  • Participants arrived at a lab in Yale University and each introduced to another participant, who were confederates. 
  • The 'experimenter' explained they'd be randomly given the role of a 'teacher' or 'learner. It was rigged so all participants were 'teachers' and all confederates were 'learners.
  • The 'learner' had to recall a series of words, but would get an electric shock starting at 15V and increasing each time if he got the answer wrong.
26 of 61

Research into Obedience - Milgram (1963) (CONT.)

(Electrocution Experiment, cont.)

Method (cont.):

  • The 'learner' was given a small shock at the start and had electrodes strapped to them to make it look real, then were taken to a seperate room where 'teachers' could hear but not see them.
  • The 'learner' gave predetermined answers; 3 wrong for every 1 right.
  • As the shocks increased in voltage, the pre-recorded screams got worse.
  • At 180V the 'learner' complained of a weak heart.
  • At 300V he banged on the door, demanding to be let out.
  • At 315V he refused to answer.

Milgram's 4 'Prompts': When the 'teacher' became reluctant or refused to continue, he was given 4 prompts from the 'experimenter'. If one was not obeyed, he'd state the next prompt and so on:

  • 1st - "Please continue."
  • 2nd - "The experiment requires you to continue."
  • 3rd- "It is absolutely essential that you continue, teacher."
  • 4th- "You have no other choice but to continue."
27 of 61

Research into Obedience - Milgram (1963) (CONT. 2

(Electrocution Experiment, cont. 2):

Initial Prediction: Milgram and the psychiatrists he consulted predicted that only 2.6% of the participants would give the strong shock of even 240V.

Findings:

  • Many participants showed extreme agitation (including sweating, shaking and having nervous laughing fits) and many argued with the 'experimenter', but they usually continued to obey.
  • All 40 participants went to 300V.
  • 65% gave the maximum shock of 450V.
  • 35% disobeyed and wouldn't give the maximum shock of 450V. 
28 of 61

Variations of Situational Variables - Milgram

Milgram performed 18 variatons of his study with 636 participants to explore the relevance of the situational variables that led to obedience. 

Situational Variables - Factors in an environment that can be deliberatley changed/altered to affect the results of a study.

Original Experiment: Learner pounds on wall at 300V, after 300V he stops and given no further answers.                                                              

Obendience rate (% cont to 450V) - 65%

Change of Location: Experiment was moved to a down-town office rather than a prestigious university.                                                           

Obedience rate (% cont to 450V) - 47.5%

Proximity: The teacher and the learner are in the same room instead of in seperate ones.

Obedience rate (% cont. to 450V) - 40%

29 of 61

Variations of Situational Variables - Milgram (CO

Authority Figure is Distant: The experimenter leaves the room and gives orders by telephone instead of being in the same room.                         

Obedience (cont. to 450V) - 20.5%

Two Peers Rebel: The teacher is paired with 2 other actor teachers. One refuses to go past 150V, and the other leaves at 210V.                                 

Obedience (cont. to 450V) - 10%

Peer Administers Shock: The naive participant reads the word pairs while an actor teacher presses the shock buttons.                                                 

Obedience (cont. to 450V) - 92.5%

Touch Proximity: The teacher is made to force the learners hands down onto the shock place when he refuses to continue.                                       

Obedience rate (% cont. to 450V) - 30%

Conclusion: These variations show that obedience levels in the lab can be manipulated by changing situational variables. 

30 of 61

Research into Obedience - Milgram (1963) - Evaluat

(Electrocution Experiment)

Evaluation:

Methodological Issues:

-) Orne & Holland criticised Milgram's study for lacking both internal and external validity:

  • Internal Validity: Participants gave into demand characteristics of the situation. They could not have possibly thought that the shocks were real. They realised what was going on and played along with it to please the experimenter.
  • External Validity: Milgram's lab and deception was unlike anything seen in real life. Participants would never behave like that in a real life study.
31 of 61

Research into Obedience - Milgram (1963) - Evaluat

(Electrocution Experiment)

Evaluation (cont.)

Ethics - Criticisms from Diana Baumrind Defence from Milgram:

-) Deception (criticism) - Different to what was advertised. Nothing in the experiment was real.

+) Deception (defense) - Wouldn't have worked without it. Important findings were made.

-) Lack of Informed Consent (criticism) - Couldn't give as weren't aware of true nature.

+) Lack of Informed Consent (defense) - Got presumptive consent.

-) Psychological Harm to Participants (criticism) - Some were caused extreme distress.

+) Psychological Harm to Participants (defense) - He couldn't have known it'd happen, gave debrief & offered counselling.

-) Right to Withdraw (criticism) - Told they could leave, but prompts made it hard.

+) Right to Withdraw (defense) - They were free to leave and 1/3 actually did before the end.

32 of 61

Further Criticism & Support of Milgram's Study

-) The Conversion of Morals - John Darley (1992):

  • Darley believed that evil is lying dormant in all of us. Innocent people can be turned into torturers by taking part in the kind of activities used in Milgram's experiment.
  • Thinks that as people get used to committing such acts, they're asked to carry out more and worse ones, until they're able to torture others without empathy or remorse.
  • Believes that by taking part in Milgram's experiment, his participants could have undergone a process that morally altered them and started them on the 'road to evil'.

+) Milgram's Response to Darley's Claim (1992):

  • He arranged a psychiatrist to interview a sample of participants for psychological damage, and none was detected.

+) The response to Milgram's work resulted in the creation of written codes of conduct and strict ethical guidelines which must be followed when carrying out psychological research. This has helped to improve the quality and standard of sebsequent psychological research.

33 of 61

Further Criticism & Support of Milgram's Study (C

-) The Obedience Alibi - David Mandel (1998):

  • Mandel argues that Migram claiming that the actions committed during the war are due to 'following orders' is misleading and oversimplified. It ignors factors which may motivate that person's action, such as personal gain.
  • He analysed behaviour of those who killed and tortured Jews in WW2 and found that: 1) Perpertrators would often torture and kill without supervision of their superiors, 2) They weren't affected by seeing the pain and suffering of their victims, 3) They were often willing to continue, even when offered the chance to quit.

+) Milgram's Response to Mandel's Claim (1998):

  • He agreed that his study couldn't provide an explanation for the Nazi's behviour towards Jews in WW2. He said that we must be 'cautious in generalising'.

+) Supporters argue that Milgram's work has the potential to give us all a healthy sense of scepticism, so that we don't bluntly obey authority, and is therefore of the highest moral significance.

34 of 61

Why do People Obey?

In Milgram's original experiment, not everyone obeyed the 'experimenter'; 35% of people stopped before reaching the maximum shock of 450V.

Question - Does this mean that some people are naturally more obedient than others? Or are some people not susceptible to situational determinants of obedience?

A number of explanations have been put forward to explain why people obey, and can be divided into 'situational factors' and 'personality factors'.

35 of 61

Situational Factors - Legitimate Authority

1) Legitimate Authority:

  • People tend to obey authority figures whose role is defined by society as they're seen as 'legitimate' and therefore people believe that they know what they're doing.
  • Being in a legitimate position of authority gives an individual the right to tell others what to do.
  • In Milgram's study, the setting of Yale University & the experimenter in a lab could would have made it look more legitimate and put trust in participants, making them more likely to obey.
  • In a variation of Milgram's study, when the experiment was moved to a less prestigious down-town office, obedience fell.

The problem is, we're so conditioned to obey and trust authority that we often accept a person's credentials based on very little information.

36 of 61

Situational Factors - Gradual Commitment

2) Gradual Commitment:

  • An important feature in Milgram's experiment was the gradual nature in which participants were prompted into giving higher and higher levels of shock.
  • This is called the 'foot-in-the-door' effect.
  • Once people have complied with a small request (e.g. giving a 15V shock), it's difficult for them to refuse a subsequent similar request.
  • This comes from a desire to appear consistent.
37 of 61

Situational Factors - Contractual Obligation

3) Contractual Oblication:

  • There is a feeling of contractural obligation that keeps participants in the study.
  • Having agreed to take part and having accepted the role, people feel bound to continue or they'll change their views of themselves and see themselves as someone who quits or gives up.
38 of 61

Situational Factors - The Agentic State

4) The Agentic State:

Milgram explained that his participant's responses suggested that we operate on one of two levels in a social situation: either autonomous or agentic.

  • Autonomous - Behaving independently and knowing of the consequences of our actions and being responsible for them (e.g. giving another human painful shocks of increasing intensity)
  • Agentic - Acting as agents of others, and therefore not being responsible for our actions. Allowing youself to be directed by others and passing on the responsability to another by claiming to 'follow orders'.

We undergo an 'agentic shift' in some circumstances as we've been trained to 'do as we're told' by authority figures. When we obey, we become 'agents' of authority. Milgram's study was set up to look scientific and technical so participants would trust that the experimenter knew better than them, and therefore shift anto an agentic state where they acted without question.

Because of how we're raised, refusing to obey has high costs, such as appearing rude/arrogant, which we're taught is socially unacceptable. This is shown in Milgram's study, as participants showed distress when they didn't want to continue, and thier protests were always very polite.

39 of 61

Situational Factors - Buffers

5) Buffers:

Buffer - Any aspect of a situation that protects people from having to confront the consequences of their actions.

  • Buffers are shown in Milgram's original experiment, where the victim was kept seperate from the participant so that they couldn't see each other, with obedience reaching 65%, compared to the touch proximity condition, where it fell to 30%.

Example: In war, it's easier for a person to launch a missile by pressing a button in a control room if they can't see the devastation it causes.

40 of 61

Personality Factors - The Authoritarian Personalit

1) The Authoritarian Personality & The F Scale - Adorno (1950):

Authoritarian Personality - A persoanlity characterised by extreme obedience to, and dependence on, a powerful leader or parental figure.

  • Adorno (1950) believed an 'authoritarian personality' was developed in early childhood as a result of being raised by strict parents, which resulted in the individual's personality type.
  • He believed people with this personality were often hostile to authoirty, but extremely obedient to people in positions of power.
  • These people would often project their feelings of hostility toward their parents onto other, safer targets (often a group of a different religion or race).

As a result of his research, Adorno designed multiple scales desgined to measure various personality characteristics:

  • His most famous is the F (fascism) Scale, which measures the authoritarian personality.
  • He suggested that some deep-rooted personality traits showed that some people were highly prejudicial.
  • He used case studies (e.g. Nazi's), psychometric testing (the F Scale) and clinical interviews to support his theory.
41 of 61

Personality Factors - The Authoritarian Personalit

1) The Authoritarian Personality & The F Scale - Adorno (1950) (cont.):

Findings:

From his research, he found that those with an authoritarian personality showed:

  • Hostility to those they considered to be or inferior status.
  • Obedience to those they considered to be of a higher status.
  • Conservative and traditional views.

These individuals were more likely to develop an 'us and them' mind-set. This, according to Adorno, could be traced back to a strict childhood upbringing and authoritarian parents, and not being able to express their frustration/hostility towards their parents. This frustration/hostility later exhibited itself through appression towards those considered as weaker.

42 of 61

Obedience & Atrocities

Extreme obedience to authority is sometimes used as an explanation for genocide or the massacre of civilians during the war.

Smith & Mackie (2000) and Cardwell (2001) say obedience alone can't explain these atrocities and there are other important factors to be considered when explaining such acts.

3 main factors have been identified:

  • 1) The Context of Inter-Group Hostility - Social Identity Theory argues that people see themselves as members of groups maximise differences between their own group and other groups. Many obedience atrocities have taken place within a strong inter-group hostility.
  • 2) The Importance of Self-Justification - People who carry out atrocities often convince themselves that their victims deserved their fate (blaming the victim). The perpetrator is then able to continue to view themselves as decent and moral, despite their actions. 
  • 3) The Role of Motivational Factors - Cardwell (2001) argued that Milgram's research ignores the role of motivational factors in extreme obedience. He argued that personal gain was an important motivational factor in Nazi Germany, were jewellery, gold teeth and even hair was stolen from the dead.
43 of 61

Resistance

In studies of both conformity and obedience, there were always participants who refused to go along with the group, or refused to continue obeying the malicious authority figure.

This raises the questions of:

Question - What was it about these people that allowed them to demonstrate imdependent behaviour and stand up for what they believe in?

Or, as Milgram would put it - Why didn't they slip from an autonomous state into an agentic state?

44 of 61

Individual Factors - The need to be an Individual

1) The need to be an Individual:

In some people, the desire to be 'their own person' and to be seen as an individual outweighs the need to conform.

In Western cutlures particularly, some people feel uncomfortable if they appear to be 'like everyone else'.

Snyder & Fromkin (1980):

  • They 'de-individuated' a group of studenty by telling them that their beliefs and attitudes were indentical to those of 10,000 others.
  • They 'individuated' a second group by telling them that their attitudes and beliefs were different.
  • In a later Asch type experiment, the 'de-individuated' students were less likely to conform.
  • The researchers believe that this was because they were trying to re-assert their individual identities.
45 of 61

Individual Factors - The need to Remain in Control

2) The need to Remain in Control:

Most people feel that they have freedom of choice and can control their own environment. This need, however, is stronger in some people than others, depending on their personality and past experiences.

Burger (1992) found that people with a high need for control are more likely to resist to conformity pressures than those who have a lower need.

Daubman (1993) investigated Burger's findings. He tested participants in two groups: those who scored highly on a 'need for control' scale, and those who scored nearer the bottom.

Method:

  • Participants worked in pairs to solve puzzles.
  • At the end of the task, all participants were told they were average at solving puzzles and that their partner had done better.
  • They were then given hints and tips for how to do better next time.
46 of 61

Individual Factors - The need to Remain in Control

2) The need to Remain in Control (cont.):

Findings:

  • Those with a high scole on the 'need for control' scale often became irritated and angered by the feedback.
  • There with a low score welcomed the feedback and were greatful to recieve it.

Conclusion: These findings support the idea that attempts to influence are seen as threats to personal freedom of those who need a high level of personal control.

47 of 61

Individual Factors - Locus of Control

3) Locus of Control:

Elms & Milgram (1966) found that disobedient participants scored highly on a social responsibility scale and had a high internal locus of control.

Locus of Control - Juilan Rotter (1966): 

Locus of Control is considered to be an important aspect of personality. It refert to a person's perception about the underlying causes of events in their life. It is a continuum, so people can have a mix of internal/external loci, or be at either end of the spectrum.

Locus of Control - The degree to which people believe that they have control over the outcome of events in their lives, as opposed to external forces beyond their control. It's considered to be an important aspect of personality.

Internal Locus of Control - Where an individual believes that their behaviour is guided by their personal decisions and efforts.

External Locus of Control - Where an individual believes that their behaviour is guided by fate, luck, or other external circumstances.

48 of 61

Individual Factors - Locus of Control (CONT.)

3) Locus of Control (cont.):

Locus of Control Research Studies:

Avtgis (1988) - Meta-analysis: Found that those with an external locus of control were more likely to conform. Found a positive correlation between external locus of control (ELC) and conformity; there were higher conformity rates in externals.

Holland (1967): Found no such relationship between external locus of control (ECL) and obedience.

Blass (1991): Re-analysed Holland's data and found that those with an internal locus of control (ILC) were more resistant to pressures to obey (obeyed less than ELC). This was especially true if they felt they were being manipulated by the experimenter.

Conclusion: Many studies find links between 'internals' and the ability to resist both conformity and obedience pressures. However, many studies show no such relationship.

49 of 61

Individual Factors - Moral Reasoning

4) Moral Reasoning:

Moral Reasoning - A thinking process with the objective of determining whether an idea is right or wrong.

Kohlberg (1969) was a colleague of Milgram who studied moral development.

  • He found that those participants using a more advanced level of moral reasoning were more able to resist the experimenters prompts and subsequently showed higher levels of disobedience.

However, other research has found that a higher level of moral reasoning doesn't always lead to disobedience. 

Some people may hold certain principles, but the power of the situation may overwhelm them.

50 of 61

Situational Factors - Gaining Social Support

1) Gaining Social Support:

In variations of Asch's original experiment, he changed situational variables to look at the factors affecting conformity. 

When the naive participant gained a partner (one of the confederates switched to giving the correct answers half way through), conformity dropped to 8.7%.

This appears the best way to resist conformity; the social support provided by an ally acts as a buffer against the pressures to conform.

51 of 61

Situational Factors - Prior Commitment

2) Prior Commitment:

Once we've made a commitment to a decision, it's very difficult to change our minds.

Reversing a previous decision may make us look foolish or indecisive, which are undesirable traits.

  • In a variation of Asch's study, he asked naive participants to give their judgements before the other confederates, who gave a unanimous wrong answer.
  • Asch then gave the naive participant the opportunity to change their minds; not a single one did.

This shows the power of prior commitment.

52 of 61

What makes an Effective Dissenter?

Dissenter - Someone who does not conform or obey.

David Levy (1990) set up a filmed reconstruction of the Milgram experiment. His aim was to find out what characteristics an effective dissenter should have.

  • His film showed the participant either politely refusing to carry on, or being rude to the experimenter (calling him a jerk) and storming out.
  • People who watched the film preferred the polite dissenter.
  • This implies that it's acceptable to disobey as long as the social conventions of courtesy and respect are followed.
53 of 61

Minority Influence - Group Behaviours

Minority groups use a variety of methods to get themselves heard, such as demonstrations, campaigns, and protest marches to address issues. Research has shown that minorities can influence the majority view as long as they adopt an appropriate style of behaviour.

Moscovici (1985) claims that to influence a majority, minority groups must:

  • Be consistent in their views and never waiver from them.
  • Avoid dogmatism (they must be willing to listen to other people's views).
  • Use moderate language, e.g. "alternatives to animal testing", rather than "death to animal torturers".

Hogg & Vaughn (1998) state that minorities must be seen to:

  • Be acting out of principle rather than self-interest.
  • Have made sacrifices for their cause.
  • Be similar to the majority in terms of class, age and gender.
  • Advocate views which are in line with the current spirit of the times, e.g. views in line with saving the environment are popular at the moment. Therefore, minorities holding views consistent with this idea will have more power.
54 of 61

Minority Influence - Consistency

1) Consistency:

  • This is the most important factor in minority influence.
  • It makes the minority appear confident and assured and can lead to the majority taking the minority view more seriously.
  • A consistent minority disrupts established norms, creating uncertainty and doubt.
55 of 61

Minority Influence - The Snowball Effect - Van Ave

2) The Snowball Effect - Van Avermaet (1996):

  • Once a few members of the majority begin to move to the minority position, others quickly follow.

Clark (1998,1999) demonstrated this by simulating the jury situation from the film '12 Angry Men'.

  • He found that participants were influenced by the number of defectors to the minority position.
  • However, this was only true up to the 'ceiling of influence', as 7 jurors changing their mind had no more influence than 4.
56 of 61

Minority Influence - Group Membership - Hogg & Vau

3) Group Membership - Hogg & Vaughn (1998):

  • We are most likely to be influenced by a minority we percieve as belonging to our 'in-group'.
  • As with The Social Identity Theory, we are more likely to conform to members of our own group.
57 of 61

Minority Influence - Social Cryptomnesia - Mugny &

4) Social Cryptomnesia - Mugny & Perez (1991):

  • This suggests that minority groups exert their influence through a process known as social cryptomnesia.
  • The ideas of a minority may be too radical when first aired, but as time goes by the rest of society 'catches up' with them and they're eventually accepted.
  • However, this idea and the source of the idea become dissociated so that no one is really sure where the idea came from in the first place.

Example: The idea that the Earth is round. This idea was preposterous at the time, but is now so well accpeted today that there is no one who still believed that the Earth is flat. However, although many different astronomers and mathematicians have been credited, no one is really sure who made the initial discovery.

  • This is useful as it means that the idea can be taken into mainstream thinking without having to adopt the negative identity of the source (at the time people who thought the Earth was round were labelled as mad).
  • It also explains why minority views often take a long time to be accepted by mainstream society.
58 of 61

Minority Influence Study - Moscovici et al (1969)

(Perception of Coloured Slides Experiment):

Consistency is the most important factor in minority influence. Moscovici et al (1969) carried out an experiment to see if a consisent minority could influence a majority.

Question - Could a consistent minority influence a majority in a perception task?

Method:

  • He selected groups of 6, containing 4 naive participants and 2 confederates.
  • The groups were shown 36 slides of different shades of blue and asked to name the colour.

Results:

  • In one condition, the confederates consistently said all 36 slides were green.
  • Just over 8% of the participants agreed that the slides were green.
  • In the second condition, the confederates said 24 of the 36 slides were green.
  • Only 1.26% of the participants agreed that these slides were green.

Conclusion: This study therefore suggests that consistent minorities are more effective at influencing the majority.

59 of 61

Minority Influence Study - Moscovici et al (1969)

Evaluation:

-) The study has been criticised for lacking ecological validity, since the participants were aware that they were being studied, and the task is unlike any required in real life.

60 of 61

Minority Influence Study - Evaluation

Evaluation:

-) Most research on minority influence is based on lab experiments, which don't adequately respresent the conditions under which real minorities operate.

+) Sampson believes that we should not ignore lab findings on minority influence, but thinks we need to see the broader social contexts in which minorities operate.

-) Sampson (1991) says: "Most minorities have a lower social status than the majority, and we've seen many historical examples of how majorities are able to crush minorities who express a different view."

-) In the real world, it's unlikely that minorities succeed simply from being consistent, flexible, or willing to compromise. More often their success results from massive protests such as the civil rights demonstrations by African Americans in the 1950's and the uprisings in Eastern Europe which overthrew the communist rule in 1989.

61 of 61

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Psychology resources:

See all Psychology resources »See all Social Influence resources »