Social Influence

Types

• Compliance- going along with others in public, but not changing opinions/behaviours in private- change is temporary, superficial. E.G laughing at a joke you don't find funny because everyone else is.
• Identification- Changing opinions/behaviours in public to fit with a group you value/identify with- change is temporary. E.G. wearing certain clothes because a group wears them.
• Internalisation- Private and public acceptance of a group's norms causing the change in opinion/behaviour- public change and most likely permanent (attitudes become part of how a person thinks).

Explanations

• ISI- change due to belief others have better information/ more likely to be correct. occurs in new/ ambiguous situations or in a crisis. Cognitive process of people wanting to be right. Most likely leads to internalisation.
• NSI- change to fit in with social norms and to gain social approval. Occurs in social/stressful /new situations (where norms are unknown in new situations). Emotional process as people fear rejection. Most likely leads to compliance (superficial)

Research Support for ISI

P- There is research support for ISI

E- Lucas et al (2006) when asking students mathematic questions found greater conformity to incorrect answer when questions were harder

T- Shows people conform in situations where they feel they don't know the answer, which supports ISI.

Research Support for NSI

P- There is research support for NSI

E- Asch (1951) found participants conformed to incorrect answers just because other people did, and said they id this as they felt self-conscious giving the correct asnwer and feared disapproval.

T- Shows people conform to fit in with a group out of fear of rejection even if they do not agree, which supports NSI.

Individual Differences in NSI

P- Some research shows NSI affects people's behaviour in different ways.

E- Those less concenred about being rejected by a social group are less likely to be affected by NSI (nAffiliators), shown by a high school study where those in need of affiliation were more likely to conform.

T- Sows desire to be liked affects conformity in different individuals, so there are individual differences in the way people respond

ISI and NSI Work Together

P- Deutsch and Gerrard's two-process model states behaviour is either ISI or NSI, but most times both are involved

E- Asch(1951) the use of a dissenter may have reduced NSI as they provide social support, and reduced ISI as they are an alternate source of information.

T- Therefore cannot be sure if ISI or NSI is at work, so there is doubt that the two processes operate independantly.

Procedures

• 123 Male American Participants placed in a group with 7 or 8 confeferates matching a standard line with one of three comparison lines based on line length
• Confederates purposely gave wrong answer to see if participant would conform.

Findings

• Overall conformity rate was 37%
• 75% of participants conformed at least once.

Variations

• Group size- found when group was at 3 confederates conformity rose to 31.8%, adding more made little difference. Suggests small majority has little influence but to influence someone no more than 3 needed.
• Unanimity- use of a dissenting confederate (giving either correct answer or the other wrong one) reduced conformity by a quarter as enabled participant to behave independently. Suggests influence may depend on the group being unanimous.
• Task difficulty- Made it more difficult by having the comparision lines more similiar in length, causing conformity to increase, suggests ISI plays greater role when situationb is more ambiguous and look to others for guidance.

P-A Child of its Time

E- Perrin and Spencer (1980) repeated the sutdy and found only 1 student in 396 trials with engineering students in the UK conformed (possibly due to them feeling more confident with measuring lines than Asch's sample) . Also, 1950's America was a more conformist society due to the cold war at the time

T- suggests Asch effect is not consistent across situations, so not a fudamental feature of human behaviour.

P-Artificial Situation and Task

E- The task was trivial and the groups used did not ressemble real-life so participants had no reason not to conform, so may have followed the demands of the situation (demand characterisitics). 

T- Findings don't generalise to everyday situations, so don't show conformity as seen in real-life.

P- Limited application of findings

E- Only American males were used in the study, but other research suggests women may be more conformist. Also, America has an individualist culture but conformity maty be higher in more conformist cultures such as in China.

T- findings dont show true extent of conformity as they dont take geder and cultural differences into account.

The Stanford Prison Experiment- Procedures

• 24 most physically and mentally stable male students from a volunteer sample (advertised the study) randomly assigned to role of prisoner or guard (coin toss).
• Guards given uniform (mirrored sunglasses, baton) 
• Prisoners stripped of identity and referred to by numbers.

Findings

• Prisoners rebelled after 2 days but guards stopped it with fire extinguishers
• Prisoners became obedient and guards acted harsher- headcounts, punishing small misdemeanours, playing prisoners against each other.
• Prisoners became subdued and depressed, study abondoned after 6 days rather than 14.

Conclusion

Participants conformed to their roles as guards or prisoners, situation has the power to influence behaviour.

P- The study had control over participant variables

E- The selection of only emotionally stable participants and random allocation of roles ruled out individual differences as an explanation of the findings

T- Increases external validity of the study, so there is more confidence in the conclusions.

P- Ethical Issues

E- Zimbardo's dual roles as researcher and superintendant meant he responded more to the running of the prison rather than his responsibilities towards the participants. E.G. denying one participant his right to withdraw, speaking ot him as a prisoner rather than a participant.

T- the experiment goes against the BPS code of ethics

P- Role of dispositional influences minimised by Zimbardo

E- Only a third of the guards acted brutally, where as others reinstated priviledges and offered prisoners cigarettes.

T- Suggest conclusions were exaggerated and behaviour was down to personality factors rather than the situation.

Procedures

• 40 male participants from a volunteer sample (responded to newspaper advert with $4.00 payment).
• Participants (teacher) were then instructed to give a confederate learner (Mr Wallace) an electric shock whenever he got a question worng under the supervision of a confederate experimenter, starting from 15 volts to 450 volts.
• Learner pounded on the wall at 300 volts
• Experimenter gave cues to prompt participant to carry on when they wanted to stop.

Findings

• 65% gave full 450v shock
• 100% gave 300v shock
• Many showed signs of extreme anxiety (sweat, lip biting) when giving the shocks.

P- Low internal validity

E- was argued that participants knew the shocks werent real and therefore had no reason not to obey, therefore the research didnt investigate what it intended

However- 51.8% fully belived shocks were real (found out in debrief) which suggests effects seen in study were real.

P- Good external validity

E- Participants were selected from across the population, and argued the lab environment relfected authority relationships in real life. Also, his fiondings were supported by Hofling et al. (with 21/22 nurses obeying).

T- Findings can be generalised to other situations and tell us about obedience in real life.

P- Supporting replication

E- The "Game of Death" TV programme in France had participants belive they were being paid to give electric shocks to an unconscious man. 81% gave 460v shock and showed the same symptoms of anxiety as in Milgram's study.

T- Supports Milgram's findings and conclusions of his study showing they were not a one-off occurence

Proximity

Obedience decreased from 65% to 40% when teacher could hear but not see the learner in the same room, and to 30% when teacher had to force learner's hand onto electric shock plate. -teacher can see the effect of their actions on the learner (conscious)

Location

Obedience decreased to 47.5% when study moved from prestigious Yale university to run-down office block. -researcher has less authority in this setting.

Uniform

Obedience decreased to 20% when experimenter was replaced by a member of the public. -member of the public not viewed as an authority figure

P- Research support for the effect of uniform on obedience

E- Bickman's field work on the streets of New York City with confederates dressed in 3 different unifroms showed 74% obeyed the security guard while only 10% obeyed the confederate in a jacket and tie

T- Supports the conclusion that people are more likely to obey a person in uniform as uniforms conver authority.

P- There was a high level of control in Milgram's study

E- Systematically altered one varialbe at a time to observe its effect on obedience.

T-Milgram could be sure it was the variable being changed that brought about the change in results, as the method meant results could show cause and effect by the IV bringing about the change in the DV.

P- Cross-cultural replications

E- findings of Milgram's variables have been replicated in other cultures, with a study in Spain showing 90% obedience in students in 1980. However, replications have been carried out in developed western societies that are similiar to the USA 

T- findings may not be able to be generalised everywhere so they lack external validity.

People act as an "agent" for others and carry out orders witohut feeling personally responsible. This is because they pass on responsibility to the authority figure and no longer act as an individual. 

People shift from being in an autonomous state to an agentic state and kept there by binding factors

*Binding factors- aspects that allow the person to minimise or ignore the damamging effect of there behaviour, reduce any moral strain they feel

The amount of social power held by an authority figure.

We obey either becuasewe trust someone OR  they have the power to punish us.

The authority is legitimate as it is agreed by society so that society can function properly

Legitimate authority is accepted from childhood, with children obeying parents, teachers and other adults.

Destructive Authority

When legitimate authority becomes destructive

E.G. Hitler used his authority to order people to act in cruel and dangerous ways (in a destructive way).

AKA the slippery slope

In Milgram's study, the participant became more and more committed making it harder for them to stop . If they had to give the 450v first, they probably wouldn't have as there was no build up to it.

Investigated by Adorno

Procedures

• Measured using the F-scale, measuring unconscious attitudes to other racial groups.
• Sample of 2000 white, middle-class Americans was used

Findings

• A high score on the F-scale= high level of obedience
• High scorers identified with strong authority figures, were conscious of status, and showed excessive respect and servility to those of higher status
• Positive Correlation between prejudice and authritarianism

Characterisitics

• See no "grey-areas" between categories of people
• Submissive to authority
• Respect authority figures
• Conventional attitudes towards sex/race/gender
• Contempt for those of lower class/social status

Origins

• Harsh Parenting- criticism, strict discipline, conditional love, expecrtation of absolute loyalty
• Leads to buld up of resentment and hostility
• Then displaced onto those perceived as weaker

P- Acquiescence bias

E- Easy to score highly on F-scale as each of its items is worded in the same direction. Also, participants may have just agreed with every statement.

T- The scale is not nessecarily measuring the authoritarianism of an individual, just their tendency to agree with everything.

P- Research Support

E- Milgrim and Elms study interviewed fully obedient participant that had a high score on F-scale, found correlation between obedience and authoritarian personality.

T- Shows there is an association between obedience and a high score on the F-scale

P- Correlation not causation

E- Correlation betwen authoritarianism and prejudice does not show that one causes the other

T- Adorno couldn't claim harsh parenting causes authoritarianism.

Conformity

• If others who dont conform are present, conformity is reduced
• E.g. Conformity in Asch(1951) when a dissenter was present 
• Research support- Allen and Levine (1971) found decrease in conformity when there was a dissenter, even when the dissenter said he has difficulty with vision and wore thick glasses.
• Allows people to behave indepedently- idea that resistance occurs when someone is free from group pressure.

Obedience

• Pressure to obey is reduced if someone else is disobedient.
• E.g. Milgram- obedience fell to 10% when participant was joined by disobedient confederate.
• Shows that peer support is linked to greater resistance.

Locus of Control- Rotter (1966)

• Concept concerned with internal vs external control
• Measured on a scale- continuum
• High internal locus of control- feel actions are their own choice and responsibility
• High external locus of control- see actions as result from factors outside of their control e.g. luck/fate

Resistance to social influence

High internal LOC= more likely to resist pressure to conform/obey, as if they take responsibility for their own actions and decisions they are more likely to base them on their own beliefs

Also, high LOC tend to be more self-confident, achievement orientated, higher IQ and less need for social approval- personality traits leading to greater resistance to social influence.

P- Research support

E- replication of Milgram's baseline study looking at whether participants were external or internal, 37% internals did not continue to highest shock level vs only 23% of externals not continuing.

T- People with internal LOC showed greater resistance to authority, showing LOC can explain resistance to social influnce.

P- Contradictory research

E- meta-analysis of American obedience studies over 40 years show people with external LOC have become more resistant to obedience (against hwat would be expected).

T- challenges the link between internal LOC and resistance to social influence.

P- Limited role of LOC

E- Rotter suggested LOC only comes into play in new situations, and has little influence over behaviour in familiar situations.

T- People are likely to conform or obey despite their LOC if they have done so in certain situations in the past.

Social Change- When society as a whole adapts a new belief/way of behaving that then becomes widely accepted as the norm. This change occurs gradually.

Minority Influence

• Type of social influence where individuals reject established majority group norms, one person or a small group influences the behaviours of the majority- likely to lead to internalisation.
• Requires Consistency, commitment and flexibility.

Consistency

Minority must be consistent in their position, maintain thier belief over time.

Any dissent within the minority will weaken its position.

Consistency is harder for the majority to ignore, and makes people rethink their own views.

Commitment

Minority influence is morepowerful if theminority showsdedication to their position, e.g. mkaing personal sacrifices. This shows the minority is not acting out of self interest and demonstratescommitment- people pay even more attention, augmentation principle.

Flexiblility

Relentless consistency can be counterproductive- minority may be seen as dogmatic, unreasonalbe and inflexible.

If the minority show flexibility by accepting a possible compromise it may be more effective.

The Snowball Effect

Increasing numbers of people switch to the minority's view over time- convert.

The more this happens the faster the rate of conversion becomes, thius is the snowball effect.

Eventually the minority view beomes the majority view and social change occurs.

P- Research support for consistency

E-Moscovici's study-8.42% gave the same wrong answer in the consistent trial, but fell to 1.25% with the inconsistent minority. Meta-analysis of similiar studies showed consistent minorities were more influencial

T- Shows that a consistent minority position has a greater effect on other people than an inconsistent one.

P- Artificial Tasks

E- Moscovici and other minority influence research uses artificial tasks, so people had no reson to resist the minority influence

T- Makes findings difficult to apply to real-life situations and lack external validity.

P- Support for Internalisation

E- Variation of Moscovici's study where participants wrote answers down showed private agreementwith minority was greater- majority changing their views privately

T- Showed views were being accepted internally, leading to internalisation and that participants were reluctant to share this view publicly out of fear of seeming radical/weird.

Drawing attention- Social proof of beleifs and demonstrating this to the majority, e.g. civil rights marches in 1950's America

Consistency- The same message beong spread by the minority 

Deeper processing- This attention meant that many that accepted the status quo began to think about its unjustness- beginning of internalisation.

Augmentation principle- Incidents where individuals risked their lives for their movement- personal sacrifice.

Snowball effect- Movement gainig momentum, more people being converted and converting people themselves until eventually minority becomes majority

Social cryptoamnesia- Memory that change has occurred but no memory of how it happened or the events that brought the change about.