Social Influence

Conformity= yielding to group pressure 

Compliance
Conform publically but not privately to be accepted in a group e.g saying favourite football team is the same as everyone else. It's temporary.

Identification
Conform publically and privately because membership is desireable. But temporary, when left the group it stops.

Internalisation
Strongest form of conformity. Public and Private e.g converting to a religion

NORMATIVE SOCIAL INFLUENCE (NSI)
desire to be liked by a group because we are a social species. Must be under watch of a group for it to occur. A type of compliance (public not private) e.g favourite singer as everyone else. INFORMATIONAL SOCIAL INFLUENCE (ISI)
desire to be correct so observe other peoples behaviour.  A type of internalisation (public and private) e.g looking at others for what type of cutlery to use.

+ Research evidence- Jenness' jellybean study. Asked ppts to make a guess of how many jellybeans in a jar. Ambiguous= unclear. Then discuss as a whole group the amount and make another estimate. Finally make a second single estimate. Found second estimate closer to groups estimate, suggesting ISI as desire to be correct. - lacks mundane realism, artificial.

+ Research evidence- Asch. Unambiguous= very clear & easy. 123 male volunteers. Each with 7-9 confederates. Asked which line matched the stimulus line length. Ppt always answered last. Found 32% conformity with 12 trials answered wrong, suggesting NSI don't want to be 'odd one out' also ISI because want to be correct. - androcentric (male based) may affect results as women conform more.

- Doesn't take into account situational variables e.g task difficulty, harder = more conformity

Size of group
The larger to majority the higher the conformity BUT becomes a point conformity stops. 
Asch found 1 confederate= conformity is low
4-5= peaked conformity
15+= no effect

Task difficulty
The harder the task the higher the conformity. Harder answers means people look at others for help. Asch found this to be correct.

Unanimity
When a group is not unanimous it allows people to not conform.
Asch found with 1 dissenter conformity dropped from 32% to 5.5%

Other variables
Gender- women tend to conform more due to oxytocin causing nurturing
Mood- people conform more if they're in a good mood. Co-operation
Culture- collectivist cultures work together so more conformity than individualist

Individuals learn to conform by looking at social roles. It involves identification (not as strong as internalisation)
Hypothesis:
The Dispositional Hypothesis- people conform due to internal characteristicsThe Situational Hypothesis- people conform due to the situation. External influence

ZIMBARDO
-Testing extent to which people conform to social roles (prisoner and guard)
-75 male university students, randomly allocated either prisoner or guard. Prisoners were arrested at their homes taken to the police station given numbered smocks and shackles (to dehumanise) and guards given sunglasses (to prevent eye-contact). Zimbardo was head guard.
-Found within hours the guards began abusing the prisoners. 36 hours 1 prisoner left due to crying fits. 3 more left after. 
-Was meant to run for 14 days but ended after 6 due to Zimbardos wife ending it.
-Suggests the situational hypothesis as no one showed violence before the study.

- study was a failure, it didn't help with prison conditions
- androcentric (male based)
- volunteers, so highly motivated

Obedience= complying with the demands of an authority figure

Milgrams Study
- to test the 'Germans are different' hypothesis after WW2 Nazi behaviour. Dispositional vs Situational
- 40 American male volunteers
- told either a 'teacher' or 'learner' But always teacher.
- If learner answered wrong they would have to give an electric shock from 15V to 450V.
- If ppts wanted to stop they were forced to continue by authorative figure in white lab coat.
- found 65% gave 450V
- All gave 300V
- Suggests situational hypothesis as most people obeyed the figure

+ It became a paradigm for obedience studies
- Volunteer study so highly motivated
- androcentric (all male)
- ethical issues. Psychological harm (sweating, stuttering), deception, lack of right to withdraw (forced to carry on)

Dispositional- The agentic state
Agency theory (Milgram)= we are socialised from a young age to learn obedience to keep a stable society.
Autonomous= responsible for actions.
Agentic state= passing the blame onto an authoritarian figure, so they don't feel responsible. e.g Nazis following orders.

+ Research. Milgram altered study so orders given over phone and obedience declined. to 20.5%

Situational- Legitimacy of authority
People have to percieve the authority figure is legitimate in order for odedience to occur. 
In Milgrams study people were seen to be following orders properly by pressing the buttons properly, therefore obeying the legitimate figure.

Proximity
Closer the proximity the lower the obedience.
Same room= 40%
Hand on hand= 30%

Location
The more legitimate the location the higher the obedience>
Milgrams original study conducted at Yale University.
When conducted in a run down office block conformity= 47.5%

Uniforms
Wearing uniforms changes perception of legitimacy of authority. 
Bickman carried out research with Milkman (14%= lowest),  Security guard (38% obedience= highest) and civilian. 

Dispositional explanantion for obedience:
Authoritarian personality

• right-wing conservative views
• high levels of obedience
• produced in childhood by strong authoritarian figure e.g parent

Measured using the F-scale (questionnaire 30 questions about personality)

+ Research support. Elms and Milgram. Found in Milgrams electric shock experiment those who were obedient were more authoritarian on the F-scale. So link between this and obedience.

- F-scale has response bias, as worded in a biased confirming way. 

- not all authoritarian personalities score highly on all.

Social Support
Others in social situations who don't conform/ obey allow resistance to social influence. Acting as moral support. 
+ Asch found when there was a dissenter from the start, conformity dropped from 32% to 5.5%
The sooner someone dissents the quicker someone disobeys/ doesn't conform. 

Locus of Control (LoC)
High internal LoC= in control of lifes outcomes
High external LoC= things occur due to fate.

+ Research. Avtgis found people with high internal LoC were less likely to conform than high external LoC. 

- LoC doesn't take into account those who may be both

Other factors:
Systematic processing- (time to think) less likely to obey if more time

Rejecting group norms. It brings about social change.

Conversion- the new belief being accepted publically and privately
Social Cryptoamnesia 'snowball effect'- people forget the belief was previously a minority view due to gained popularity. 

Consitency and Commitment
If beliefs are unchanging it shows minority are committed causing people to re-examine beliefs.
e.g Moscovici. Groups 4 participants and 2 confederates. 36 blue slides. Consistent condition- confederates always answered green. Inconsistent- 24 green, 12 blue. Found 8.2% agreement in consistent and 1.25% in inconsistent. SO consistent minorities influence more.
- only female ppts as 'more interested in colours' not generalisable to males. 

Flexibility
If minorities are flexible they will be persuasive as co-operative. 
e.g Nemeth. Participants asked to decide compensation for ski lift accident. When confederate refused to change amount no influence. BUT when compromised to higher amount it was effective.
- lacks ecological validity. Wouldn't be asked to do this in real life

Shifts in peoples beliefs changing a society. Minority influence as driving force.

Can be positive - womens rights
Or negative- mass extermination of an ethnic group, the Nazis.

Sometimes Compliance as individuals hold public not private views. such as people who say they aren't racist but makes comments when not in public. 

This occurs through social cryptoamnesia and the snowball effect, so not disruptive to societies.