Social Influence

?

Conformity: Types

Kelman (1958) suggested that there are three types of conformity;

Internalisation- When a person genuinly accepts the group norms, resulting in a private as well as public change of opinions/behaviours. Thus change is likely to be permanent necause attitudes have been internalised/become part of the way the person thinks. The change in opinions/behaviour persists even in the absence of other group members.

Identification- Conforming to the opinions/behaviours of aq group because we value something about it. We identify with the group and won't to be part of it, meaning we may publically change our opinions/behaviours to acheive this goal, even is privately we don't agree with everything the group stands for.

Compliance- 'Going along with other's' in public, but not privately. This results in only a superficial change, and means that a particular behaviour or opinion stops as soon as group pressures stop.

1 of 19

Explanations for Conformity

Deutsch and Gerard (1955) developed a two process theory, arguing that there are two main reasons people conform, based on two central needs; the need to be right (ISI) and the need to be liked (NSI).

Informational Social Influemce (ISI)- This centres around who has the better information- you or the rest of the group. Often we are uncertain of what is right or wrong, in terms of behaviours and beleifs, for example not being able to answer a question in class. If most of the class agrees on an answer, you are likely to conform with the feeling that they are likely to be correct. ISI is cognitive, as it involves what you think. ISI is most likely to happen in situations that are new to an individual, or situations with some a,biguity, so it's unclear what's right. It is also typical in a crisis situation, where descisions have to be made quickly, or when one member (or group) are seen as an expert.

Normative Social Influence (NSI)- This explanation for conformity centers around norms, so what is classed as 'normal' or 'typical' behaviour for a social group. Norms regulate the behaviour of groups and individual's, so we pay attention to them. People do not like to appeaqr foolishso, to gain social approval rather than be rejected, conform to social norms. Therefore NSI is emotional rather than cognitive. NSI is most likely to occur in situations with strangers, where you may feel concerned aboiut rejection, or in situations where we are most concerned about social approval from friends. It may be more pronounced in stressful situations, where people have a greater need for social support.

2 of 19

AO3- Explanations for conformity

Research Support ISI-Lucas et al (06) asked students to give answers to easy or more difficult mathematical questions, and there was greater conformity to incorrect answers when they were difficult. This was true for most students who rated their mathematical ability as poor. This supports ISI as people conform to situations where they don't know the answer, so need to be right.

Individual Differences in NSI-NSI does not effect everyones behaviour. For example, people who are kess concerbed with being liked are less affected. nAffiliarirs are described as people who have a greater need for 'affiliation-' a need to being in a relationship with others. McGhee and Teevan (1967) found students high in need of affiliation were for likely to conform.

ISI and NSI work together- Often both processes are involved rather than just NSI or just ISI, so it is not necessarily a two process model. For example, in Asch's experiment, conformity is reduced when there is one other dissenting participant, and this dissenter may reduce the power of NSI (providing social support) or the power of ISI (alternative source for information). This shows that it isn't always possible to be sure whether NSI or ISI work. This is the case in lab studies, but is even truer in real-life conformity outside the lab.

3 of 19

Obdeince- Situational variables

Milgram carried out a large number of variations of his study to see the effects of situational variables.

Proximity- In Milgram's original study, the teacher and learner were in adjoining room, but in the proximity variation they were in the same room. Obdeience dropped from 65% to 40%. In the 'touch proximity' variation, the teacher had to force the learner's hand onto an 'electroshock plate,' when they refused to answer a question. The obedience then dropped to a further 30%. In the remote insturction condition, the experimenter left the rom and gave instructions through telephone, and obedience then dropped to 20.5%, and pps frequently gave a weaker shock than ordered to.

Location- Milgram then conducted a location variation in a run down building rather than at Yale University. This gave the experimenter less authority, and obedience dropped to 47.5%.

Uniform- In the uniform variation, the origional experimenter dressed in a lab coat was replaced due to an inconveniance on the telephone, and was replaced by an ordinary member of the public (played by a confederate), dressed in every day clothes rather than a lab coat. Obedience dropped to it's lowest, of only 20%, suggesting that the authority of the experimeter was the most important factor effectring obedience.

4 of 19

AO3- Situational Variables

Research support- Bickman's 1974 field experiment in NYC had three confederates dress in three different outfits; a jacket and tie, a milkman's outfit, and a security guard's uniform. The confederates stood in the street and asked passers by to pick up litter or lend a coin for parking, and people were twice as likely to obey the 'security guard,' than the one dressed in a jacket and tie.

Lack of internal validity-Orne and Holland critisised Milgram's origional study in that many pps realised it was faked. It is even more likely in these variations that participants would have thought that, because of the extra manipluation, for example when the experiemnter was replaced by a 'member of the public.' Milgram himslef recognised that this situation was so contrived that some pps may have worked out the truth, therefore it is unclear whether the results are genuine due to the operation of obedience, or because the pps saw through the deception and acted accordingly.

Cross-cultural replications-Miranda et al (1981) found an obedience rate of over 90% amongst Spanish students, suggesting that Milgram;s conclusions about obedience are not limited to American males, but are valid accross cultuers and apply to females too. However, Smith and Bond (98) add that most replications have taken place in Western, developed societies (Spain/ Australia), that culturally are indifferent to the USA.

5 of 19

Obedience- Social-psychological factors

Agentic State- Milgram's interest in obedience began with the trial of Adolf Eichmann in 1961, who led the Nazi death camps, and his only defence was that he was obeying orders. Therefore, Milgram proposed that obedience to destructive authority occurs because a person does not take responsibility, and instead believe that they are acting for someone else (they are an agent- someone who acts for or in place of another. An agent tends to experience high anxiety (moral strain), but feels powerless to disobey.

Autonomous state- This is the opposite to agentic state, and means to be independent or free, so a person in this state behaves according to their own principles and therefore feels a sense of responsibility for their own actions. The shift from autonomy to agency is called the agentic shift, and Milgram suggested that this occurs when a person percieves another as a figure of authority, as they are in social heirachy.

Binding factors- Milgram questioned whjy the individual remains ion this agentic state, as many of his pps spoke as if they wanted to quit but seemed unable to do so. The answer to this is binding factors, which are aspects of the situation that allow the person to ignore or minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour and thus reduce the 'moral strain,' they are feeling.

6 of 19

AO3- Agentic State

Research Support- Blass and Schmitt (01) showed a film of Milgram's study to students and asked the, to identify who they felt was responsible for the harm to the learner (Mr Wallace). TYhe students blamed the experimenter rather than the pp, and also indicated that the responsibility was due to legitimate authority, and also due to expert authority (he was a scientist). Therefore they identified that legitimate authority is the cause of obedience.

Limited Explanation-The agentic shift does not explain why some of the participants did not obey, or explain the findings from Hofling et al's study (21/22 nurses obeyed an unjustified demand of a doctor). The agentic shift explanation predicts that, as the nurses handed over responsibility to the doctor, they should have shown levels of anxiety similar to Milgram;s pps, but that was not the case. This suggests that agentic shift can only account for some situations of obedience.

7 of 19

Obedience- Social Psychological factors- Legitimac

Legitimacy of Authority- An explanation for obedience which suggests that we are more likely to obey people who we percieve have authroity over us. This authority is justified (legitimate) by the individual's position of power within social heirachy.

One of the consequences of this legitimacy of authority is that some people are grantyed the power to punish others, so we are willing to oppress some of our independance and to hand control of our behaviour over to people we trust to exercise their authroty appropriately. We learn this authority from childhood socialisation in the home and during education.

Destructive authroity- This can occur when members with legitimate authroity have destrcutive plans that are likely to be obeyed by individuals lower in the social heirachy. For example, Hitler and Stalin, who order people to behave in cruel and callous was. This destructive authority is certainly evident in Milgram's study.

8 of 19

AO3- Legitimacy of Authroity

Cultural Differences-A strength of the legitimacy of authority explanation si that it's a useful account of cultural differences in obedience. Many studies show that countries differ in the degree to which people are traditionally obedient to authority. For example, Kilham and Mann (1974) replicated Milgram's procedure in Australia and found that only 16% of their participants went all the wayu to the top of the voltage scale. On the other hand, Mantell (1971) found a very different figure for German participants- 85%. This shows that in some cultures, authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimatr and entitles to demand obedience from individuals. This reflects the ways that different societies are structured, and how children are raised to perceive euthroity figures. Such supportive findings from cross cultural research increase the validity of the exaplanation. (Cultural Bias).

Real-life crimes of obedience- A strentgh of the LOA explanation is that it can help explain how obedience can lead to real-life war crimes. Kelman and Hamilton (1989) argue that the My Lai Massacre can be understood in terms of the power hierachy of the US army.

9 of 19

Obedience- Dispositional Explanations- Authoritari

Adorno et al (1950) wanted to understand the anti-semitism of the Holocaust, and they came to believe that a high level of obedience was basically a psychological disorder. Procedure- Adorno and his team investigated the causes of the obedient personality in a study of over 2000 m/c, white Americans, and theur unconscious attitudes towards ither racial groups. They developed seceral scales to investigate this, including the fascism scale (F-scale) which is still used to measure authoritarian personality (e.g 'obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtues children should leanr,' and 'there is hardly anything lower than a person who does not feel great love, gratitude and respect for his parent.) Findings- People with authoritarian learnings identified with 'strong' people and were generally contemptuous of the 'weak.' They were bvery conscious of their own and others' status, showing excessive respect and servility to those of higher status. Adorno et al also found that authoritarian people had a cognitive style where there was no fuzziness between categories of people, woth a fixed and distinctive stereotypes about other groups. There was a strong positive correlation between authoritarianism and prejudice.

Characteristics- Especially obedient to authority, extreme respect for authority and submissiveness to it. Also show contempt for people they perceive as having inferior social status, and have highly conventional attitudes towards sex, race and gender. They view society as 'going to the dogs,' and therefore beleive we need strong and powerful leaders to enforce traditional values. They are inflexible (no 'grey areas'), everything is either right or wrong and they are very uncomfortable with uncertainty.

Origins- Forms in childhood as a result of harsh parenting, including very strict discipline, an expectation of absoloute loyalty, high standards, severe critisicm and conditional love (depends on how the child behaves). Adorno argued that these create resentment and hostility in the child which can't be expressed to the parent due to fear of reprisals. Therefore these fears are displaced onto others who are perceived to be weaker (scapegoating).

10 of 19

AO3-Authoritarian Personality

Research support- Milgram and Elms confucted interviews with a small sample of fully obedient participants, who scored highly on the F scale. However, this link is merely a correlation between two measured variables, making it impossible to draw the conclusion that authoritarian personality causes obedience on the basis of this result. It may be that there is a 'third factor' involved, perhaps both obedience and authpriotarian personality are associated with a lower level of eductation, and are not direclty linked with eachother at all (Hyman and Sheatsley).

Limited explanation- With regards to pre-war Germany, millions of individuals displayed obedient, racist and anti-semitic behaviour, so it is difficult to assume that it can come down to all of these people's personalities being the same (authoritarian). Therefore, alternative explanations such as social identity may better explain obedience.

Political Bias- The F scale measures the tendancy towards an extreme form of right-wing ideology. Christie and Jahoda (1954) argued that this is a politically biased interpretation of authoritarian personality. They pointed out the reality of left-wing authoritarianism in the shape, for example, of Russian Bolshevism or Chinese Maoism. Extreme right and left wing ideologies have much in common- not the least of which is they both emphasise the importance of complete obedience to legitimate political authority.

11 of 19

Resistance to Social Influence- Social Support (Co

Conformity- Pressure to conform can be reduced with social support (other people who aren't conforming). For example, in Asch's research the person not conforming does not have to give the 'correct' answer,but simply the fact that someone else isn't following the majority is enough to support the naive participant, as the support acts as a 'model.' However, if the dissenting participant begins to conform again, Asch's research showed that the naive participant does too, thus the effects are not long lasting.

A03-

Research support- Allan and Levine (1971) found that conformity decreased when there was one dissenter in an Ashc-type study. This occured even if the dissenter wore thick glasses and said he had difficulty witrh his vision (so he clearly couldn't judge the lines). Therefore social support clearly releives the gruop pressure.

12 of 19

Resistance to Social Influence- Social Support (Ob

Obedience- The pressure to obey can be reduced if there is another person seen to disobey. In Milgram's variations, the rate of obedience dropped to 10%(!) when the genuine participant was joined by a disobedient confederate. The other person's disobedience acts as a model for the participant to copy, that frees hum to act from his own conscience.

A03

Research Support- Gamson et al (1982) found higher levels of resistance in their study than Milgram's, probably because the pps in Gamson's study were in groups (the groups had to produce evidence that would be used to help an oil company run a smear campaign). In Gamson's study, 29 of the 33 groups of pps (88%) rebelled, showing that peer support is linked to greater resistance.

13 of 19

Locus of Control- Rotter (1966)

Locus of control is a concept proposed by Rottor (1966) concerned with internal vs external control.

  • Internals belive that they are responsible for their own actions and what happens to them, so they are in control. For example, if passing an important test they would accept thjat they put the hard work in and visa verca.
  • People with External Locus's have a tendancy to believe that what happens to them is down to fate, or completely out of their control. For example, if they did well in an important test they may say they used an excellent testbook, or the q's were easy, and if they failed they may blame it on hard q's or bad luck.
  • Continuum- People differ in the way they explain their successes or failures, but it doesn't just come down to be external or internal. There is a continuum with high internal LOC at one end and high extrenal LOC at the other end of continuum, with low internal and low external lying in between. 
  • Resistance to Social Influence- People who have an internal LOC are more likely to resist social influence as they are deemed to have greater control over their actions, and take more responsibility for their actions and experiences. Therefore they are more likely to be able to base their decisions on their own beliefs, and resist the pressures of others.
  • People with a high internal LOC also tend to be more self-confident, achievement orientated, have higher intelligence and less desire for social approval (NSI)
14 of 19

AO3- Locus of Control

Research Support- Holland (1967) reoeated Milgram's baseline study and measured whether pps were internals or externals. He found that 37% of internals did not continue to the highest shock level, whereas only 23% of externals did not continue.

Contradictory Evidence- Twenge et al (2004) analysed data from American locus of control studies over a 40 year period (1960-2002). The data showed that, ove this time span, people have become more resistant to obedience but also ,ore external, but if resistance was linked to an internal LOC it would make sense for people to become more internal. This challenges the link between internal LOC and increasing resistant behaviour. However, it's possible that the results are due to a changing society where many things are out of personal control. 

Exaggerated role of LOC- Rogtter points out that LOC only comes into play in novel situations, and has very little influence over our behaviour in familiar situations where our previous experiences will always be more important. This point is often overlooked in discussions of LOC and resistance, and means that people who have conformed or obeyed in specific situations in the past are likely to do so again, even with a high internal LOC. 

15 of 19

Minority Influence

Minority influence refers to situations in which one person or a small group of people influences the beliefs and behaviours of the majority.This is different to conformity, in which the majority is influencing the minority. In both cases, the people being influenced may be one person, a small group of people or a large group of people. Minority influence is most likely to lead to internalisation, when both public behaviour and private beliefs are changed by the process. Moscovici first studied this process in his 'blue side, green side' study.

  • Consistancy- Consistancy in the minorities views increases the amount of interest from other people. This might be the agreement between people in the minority group (synchronic consistency- all saying same thing), and/or consistancy over time (diachronic consistency- all been saying same thing for long time now). Such consistancy makes people begin to question their own views ('they might have a point').
  • Commitment- Some minorities engage in quite extereme activities to draw attention to their views. These must be slightly risky to draw attention, as it demonstrates the commitment they have to the cause.This draws even more attention of the majority, known as the augmentation principle.
  • Flexibility- Nemeth (1986) argued that consistency is not the only important factor in minority influence, bevause it can be interpreted negatively. Being extremely consistent can be seen as rigid and unflexible. This can put the majority off, so isnted the minroty must adapt their views to suit themselves and the majority; there needs to be a balance.
  • Process of change- Hearing something new= deeper processing= snowball effect.
16 of 19

AO3- Minority Influence

Research support for consistency- Moscovici (1969) demonstrated minority influence in a study where a group of six people were asked to view a set of blue- coloured slides thast varied in intesnity then state whether the slides were blue or green. In each group there were two confederates who consistently said the slides were green on two-thirds of the trials. The participants gave the same wrong answer on 8.42% of the trials, 32% gave the same answer as the minority on at least one trial. A second group of pps was exposed to an inconsistent minority, and agreement fell to 1.24%. For a third control group there were no confederates, and all participants had to do was idetnify the colour of each slide. They got this wrong on just 0.25% of the trials. Wood et al (1994) carried out a meta-analysis of almost 100 similar studies and found that minorities who were seen as being consistent were most influential, suggestinf that consistency is a major factor in minority influence. 

Research for deeper processing- Martin et al (2003) gave pps a message supporting a particular viewpoint and measured their support. One group of pps then heard a minority group aggree with the initial view, while another group heard this from a majority group. Pps were finally exposed to a conflicting view and their attitudes were measured again. Martin et al found that people were less willing to change their opinions if they had listened to a minority group rather than if they were shared with a majority group.

Artifical task- Tasks such as identifying the colour of a slide are artificial, much like Asch's line judgement task. This doesn't mirror real life, in cases such as jury decision making. This lacks external validity.

17 of 19

Social Change

  • Drawing attention through social proof- In 1950's USA, black segragation applied accross America. The civil rights marches of this period drew attention to the issue by providing social proof of it.
  • Consistency- There were many marches with many people taking part, even being a minority of the USA population, the civil rights actionists displayed consitency of message amd intent.
  • Deeper processing- People began to realise the unjustice of the issue.
  • Augmentation principle- Individuals like the 'freedom riders' risked their lives by getting on buses in the south to challenge the fact that black people still had to sit seperately on buses. many were beaten and involved in mob violence. 
  • Snowball effect- MLK continued to press for changes that gradually got the attention of the US government. In 1964 the civil rights act was passed, prohibiting discrimination, representing a change from inority to majority.
  • Social cryptomnesia- social change came baout but people don't remember how.

Conformity research- Asch highlited the importance of a dissenting pp, which broke the power of the majority. Environmental and health compaigns also appeal to NSI, for example putting on bins 'bin it- others do.' Obedience research- Milgram demonstrates the importance of role models in the variation where a confederate teacher refused to give a shock and obedience dropped to 10%. Zimbardo suggested how obedience can be used to create social change through gradual commitment; once a small instruction is obeyed, it becomes much more difficult to resist a bigger one (drift to new behaviour).

18 of 19

AO3- Social Change

Research Support for Normagtive Influences- Nolan (2008) investigated whether social influence processes led to a redctuon in energy consumption in a community. They hung messages on the front doors of houses in San Diego every week for one month, making a message that most residents were trying to reduce their energy usage. As a control, some residents had a different message that just asked them to save energy but made no reference to other's behaviour. Nolan found significant decreases in energy usage in the first group.

Minority influence is only indirectly effective- Social changes happen slowly, for example it has taken decades for attitudes against drink driving and smoking to shift, so we have to question whether minorities really have much of an influeunce. Nemeth (86) argues that the effects of a minority influence are likely to be mostly indirect and delayed. they are indirectr because the majority is influenced on matters only realted to the influence at hand, not the central issue itself. They are delayed because the effects may not be seen for some time. Therefore minority influence may not explain social change because it shows that its effects are fragile and its role in social influence very limited.

Deeper processing- Moscovici argued that minority and majority influence involve different cognitive processes, that minority influence causes individuals to think more deeply about an issue that majority influence (conformity). Makcie (87) disagrees and presents evidence tghat it is majority influence that creates deeper processing if you do not share their views, as we like to beluve that other people share our views and think in the same way as us, so finding out that the majority thinks something different makes us question our views and forces us to think along the same lines as them.

19 of 19

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Psychology resources:

See all Psychology resources »See all Social Influence resources »