Social influence - AS

?
  • Created by: Simba2604
  • Created on: 19-10-17 21:22

Social influence intro + Conformity

Social influence:

  • Social influence = process by which an individual's attitudes, beliefs or behaviours are modified by the presence or actions of others
  • some types of SI are obviou and others more subtle

Conformity:

  • conformity = type of social influence defined as a change in belief or behaviour in response to real or imagined social pressure ---> aka majority influence
  • 3 types ---> Compliance, Internalisation, Identification
1 of 25

Types of social influence

Normative influence:

  • the desire to be liked ---> conform to fit in and avoid social rejection
  • eg. person may feel pressured to smoke because their friends are also smoking
  • tends to lead to compliance as individual smokes even though they may dislike it, and so only smoked when friends are around (temporary)

Informative influence:

  • the desire to be right ---> conform when we believe majority has more expertise or knowledge about a task
  • eg. follow where others put their bags on the first day of school
  • tends to lead to internalisation as we begin to accept it as the right behaviour outwardly and privately
2 of 25

Types of conformity

Compliance:

  • where individual outwardly changes their mind to match a group's but privately maintaining own views ---> eg. laughing at a joke that they do not find funny to fit in
  • temporary conformity

Identification:

  • when individual conforms to the role that society expects them to play (the group we identify with eg. other teenagers)
  • does not have to be a change in private opinion

Internalisation:

  • where individual behaves/agrees with group's views and beliefs, though initially disagreeing
  • change in outward and private beliefs ---> eg. converting from atheist to jew
  • does not depend on presence of group and so is the deepest level of conformity
3 of 25

Research into conformity

Researcher = Asch (1951)

  • assessed whether a minority would conform to a majority even if majority was clearly wrong
  • sample = 123 male students
  • pps divided into groups of 7, but there was only one true pp and 6/7 were confederates
  • pps were presented with a standard line and 3 comparison lines then asked which one matched the standard line
  • confederates tole to give incorrect answer 12/18 trials
  • overall conformity rate = 37%
  • conformed at least once = 74%
  • conformed every time = 5%
  • never conformed = 25%
4 of 25

Asch's paradigm conclusion

Asch's paradigm conclusion

= some pps experienced NSI and felt compelled to accept the mistaken majority's norms/standards of behaviour to avoid social rejection and to "fit in"

= others may have experienced ISI as they may have doubted their own judgements, considering the views of the majority to be correct

= Asch concluded that a strong, large group can exert intense pressure to conform even more so if they are unanimous in their opinions

5 of 25

Asch's paradigm evaluation

- limited sample of college students therefore, results cannot be generalised to wider population where conformity may be less/more in people aged younger/older than this (population bias)

- further sampling issues arise regarding the study as college student were all male thus the sample was gender bias therefore the results cannot be applied to females (gender bias)

- study was conducted in the USA and so may only reflect the behaviour of other american individuals (cultural bias)

- was based on peoples’ perception of lines, this does not reflect the complexity of real life conformit (lacks eco valid)

- deception was involved as pps did not know true aim of study and therefore could not give proper consent (unethical)

- 1950s, USA was brainwashed and majority of people feared being labelled as a communist therefore, opposing the majority could have lead to a witch hunt on them (lack time valid)

6 of 25

Variations of Asch's study

Group size:

  • an individual is more likely to conform when in a larger group
  • eg. Asch altered no. of confederated in a group ---> conformity increased with extra pp
  • however, conformity didn't increase much after 4 confederates in a group (4 = optimum no.)

Task difficulty:

  • when an individual is uncertain they look to others for confirmation (informative influence)
  • the more difficult the task the greater the conformity
  • eg. Asch altered comparison lines and made more similar to standard line ---> conformity increased as it was harder to judge the correct answer

Unanimity:

  • individual more likely to conform when all members of group are agree n give same answer
  • therefore, when one other person in group gave a different answer conformity dropped
  • this is because the real pp gains confidence to speak their true mind
7 of 25

Conformity to social roles

Researcher = Zimbardo (1975)

  • investigated how readily pps would conform to social roles of guard and prisoner in role-playing exercise that simulated prison life
  • also wanted to find out if brutality often reported from prison was due to sadistic personalities of guards (dispositional f) or prison environment (situational f)
  • 24 male student volunteers were paid to take part in 2 week simulation
  • volunteers were assessed beforehand to be mentally stable and healthy individuals.
  • prison simulation was conducted in basement of Stanford university
  • pps then randomly allocated to roles of prisoner/guard
  • guards give uniforms, dark glasses and wooden batons
  • prisoners arrested at home, stripped of identity and addressed to by number not name
8 of 25

Zimbardo study conclusion/findings

= guards harrassed + humiliated the prisoners and conformed to their precieved roles

= prisoners rebelled after 2 days and so guards became more strict ---> but as prisoners became more submissive, guards became more aggressive and more assertive = demanded more obedience

= study had to be stopped as prisoners were clearly experiencing distress + many asked to be withdrawn ---> after 36hrs one released because of crying+rage fits

= zimbardo proposed that deindivualisation may explain behaviour of pps; especially the guards. This is a state when ppl bbecome so immersed in norms of group that you lose all sense of identity and personal responsibility

=  it would seem that the environment (situational factors) led them to adopt the brutal and aggressive behaviours they displayed

9 of 25

Explanations for prison behaviour

Possible reasons for behaviour:

  • prison was internalised by prisoners and guards, they started to believe in it
  • guards given glasses = acts as a mask therefore, eye contact was made impossible and responsibility removed
  • guards given uniform = symbol of authority and legitimises guards authority/power
  • guards given baton = weapon symbolises power (destructive)
  • guards unable to go home or leave and so prison became their life ---> extreme behaviour may have been a way to alleviate boredom
10 of 25

Strengths of Zimbardo's study

+ changed the way that prisons were run in US

  • eg ppl accused of crimes are no longer housed with prisoners before trial because of fear of acts of agression

+ specialist recruitment procedure and training for prison guards

+ lead to realisation of importance of ethical guidelines by trhe new ethical comittee

11 of 25

Weaknesses of Zimbardo's study

- experiment heavily critisized of breaking ethical guidelines (no protection from harm)

  • eg. 5 prisoners left experiment because of adverse reactions to physical + mental torment
  • eg. guards reported that they felt guilty + anxiety as a result of their actions

- pps knew they were being observed and so may have acted in a way that they believed was the role expected of them (DCs)

- behaviour of guards varied drastically, extremely sadistic to good guards ---> suggests  situational factors aren't only cause of conf to social roles + dispositional factors also play a role

- although there were some benefits to the rule of "no physical harm" during the experiment, this means that this simulated prison life cannot be taken as realistic because some unpleasant aspects of prison life were absent (lacks eco valid)

- zimbardo acted as prison warden and researcher and so produces a conflict of roles which meant he lost sight of the harm done to pps

- findings may only be applicable to individualist cultures and maybe diff in collectivist cultures

12 of 25

Obedience + Milgram

Obedience:

  • defined as complying with an order/instruction from another person to carry out an action
  • person is percieved to have legitimate power of authority over individual

Researcher = Milgram (1963)

  • wanted to see whether ordinary people would obey legitimate authority figure when instructed to harm another individual
  • pps were told that study focused around the role of punishment in learning
  • pps were allocated to roles (teacher + learner) but the genuine pp was always teacher
  • teacher's role was to administer a shock everytime the learner made a mistake
  • shocks started at 15V and rose in 15V increments to 450V (lethal) with each mistake
13 of 25

Milgram Obedience findings + conclusion

Findings:

  • all pps went to at least 300V shocks
  • 65% of pps were willing to administer lethal shocks (450V)
  • most pps found procedure stressful and wanted to stop, showing extreme signs of distress
  • although they dissented verbally, they continued to ober researcher who urged them to continue with standardised instructions or prods

Conclusion:

  • under certain circumstances, most people will obey orders that go against their conscience
  • when people occupy a subordinate position in a dominance hierachy, they become liable to lose feelings of empathy, conpassion and morality and are inclined towards blind obedience
  • atrocities such as those in ww2 can be largely explained in terms of pressure to obey a powerful authority
14 of 25

Evaluation of Milgram study

npf psychological harm as many pps felt immense guilt, stress and worry that they were harming another individual (ethical issues)

- pps did not feel the right to withdraw as they were told that they "MUST" continue when they protested (ethical guidlines broken again)

- pps all paid volunteers and so may have felt obliged + motivated to go further (lacks pop valid)

- study was a lab experiment therefore, an artificial environment was created which cannot be generalised to a real life setting as ppl do not usually recieve order to harm someone else on a daily basis (lacks eco valid)

- only used males in his study so the results cannot be generalised to females (gender bias)

+ milgram's work provides insight into why Nazi Germany complied to harsh treatment of Jews (real life application) ---> may prevent roccurence of harmful behaviour

+ lab study ---> standard proc was used therefore, ex can be replicated, creating similar results

15 of 25

Explanations for obedience

Agentic state:

  • theory suggests that ppl obey an authority figure when they believe the authority will remove responsibility for the consequences of their actions
  • eg. almost none were prepared to obey when reminded that they were fully responsible
  • eg. many pps resufing to obey did obey when experimenter said he would take responsibility

Agentic shift:

  • milgram believed that people usually behave in a autonomous state where they behave voluntarily and aware of the consequences of their actions
  • however, through agentic shift, people may see themselves as the "agent" of another person and hence, no longer responsible for their actions
16 of 25

Situational factors explaining obedience

Authority figure wearing uniform:

  • experimenter wore a lab coat (symbol of scientific experitse) which gave him a high status
  • experimenter also wore everyday clothes in other experiments
  • obedience decreased with everyday clothers ---> suggests uniform of authority figure can present them as a reliabe influence as they have a high status

Status of location:

  • original experiment was conducted at Yale (prestigious uni)
  • high status of uni gave study credibility and respect, thus making pps more likely to obey
  • when experiment conducted in run down offices obedience dropped by 47.5%

Proximity of Authority Figure:

  • in original experiment, experimebter was in the same room as pp
  • milgram suggested that if authority figure was distant, its easier to resist their orders
  • proved correct when experimenter gave orders via telephone and obiedience fell by 20.5%
  • some pps even cheated, missed out or gave less voltage than ordered to
17 of 25

Explanations for obedience2

Gradual commitment:

  • milgram found that once pps had commited themselves to giving low levels of shock, they found it harder to resist the demands of the experimenter to give gradual increases of shock
  • eg. easier to go 15V increments to 450V insteas of larger jumps eg. 15V to 300V

Buffers:

  • buffers are anything that protects an individual from having to confront their consequences
  • in milgram's study, teacher + learner were always in different rooms and so teacher was "buffered" from ever seeing the physical harm they were doing to the learner
  • eg. may also explain why gas chambers were so effective in ww2 as Nazi killers felt seperate physically from their victims
18 of 25

Personality factors effecting obedience

Authoritarian personality:

  • suggests that some people are more likely to obey than others due to their personality
  • ppl with an authoritarian personality have the tendency to be especially obedient to authority - showing extreme respect and submission to it
  • they also show contempt for those with inferior social status and conventional  attitudes towards race and gender - believe we need powerful leaders to enforce traditional values
  • authoritarian personalities are inflexible in their outlook - everything is right or wrong
19 of 25

Explanations for obedience3

Legitimacy of authority:

  • most societies structured in a hierachial way - ppl in certain positions hold authority over the rest
  • authority they wield is legitimate because it is agreed by society ---> most of us accept that authority figures have to be allowed to exercise social power over others because it allows society to function smoothly eg. barber can put razor near throat

Destructive authority:

  • problems arise when legitimate authority becomes destructive
  • eg. history has shown that powerful leaders can use their legitimate powers for destructive purposes and ordering ppl to behave in ways that are cruel, stupid and dangerous
  • destructive authority was shown in Milgrams's study when the experimenter used prods to make pps harm another individual
20 of 25

Resistance to social influence - Social support

Conformity:

  • social support can help ppl resist conformity as the pressure to conform is reduced if there are non-conforming peers ---> unanimity is broken
  • evidence from Asch's study where person not conforming doesn't have to be giving right answer but simply the fact that they are also dissenting enables person to be free to follow their own conscience ---> relates to ISI as individual is less likely to assume theyre wrong
  • Asch's research also shows that if non confroming person starts conforming again, so does naive ppt ---> relates to NSI as individual wishes to be socially accepted again

Obedience:

  • pressure to obey can be reduced if there's another person disobeying
  • supported by Milgram's variation where conformity dropped from 65% to 10% when there was a disobedient confederate
21 of 25

Resistance to social influence - LoC

Locus of control:

  • refers to how much control a person feels they have on their own behaviour
  • person can have either an internal or external LOC

High Internal LOC:

  • ppl with high internal LOC ---> percieve themselves as having great deal of personal control over behaviour and therefore, take responsibility for way they behave
  • eg. believe that doing well on an exam is because "I studied hard for it"
  • tend to be less conforming + less obedient n(more independant)

High External LOC:

  • ppl with high external LOC ---> percieve behaviours as being a result of external influences
  • eg. believe that doing wel on an exam is because "it was made easy"
  • tend to be correlated with poor school achievement
22 of 25

Minority influence

Minority influence:

  • occcurs when a small group (minority) influences the opinion of a much larger group (majority), this happens when the minority behaves in the following ways

Consistency:

  • being consistent and unchanging in a view is more likely to influence the majority
  • may be agreement between those in minority and/or consisteny over time
  • consistency of minority's view increases the amount of interest from others
  • makes others rethink their views ("maybe minority have a point?")

Commitment:

  • sometimes minorities engage in extreme activities to draw attention to  their views - important that these are some risk to minority behause it shows commitment to the cause
  • eg. suffragettes would refue to eat etc
  • majority group pay more atttention - augumentation principle
23 of 25

Minority influence2

Flexibility:

  • if consistent minority are seen as inflexible, rigid, uncompromising and dogmatic, they will be unlikely to change view of majority
  • minority need to be prepared to adapt point of view and accept reasobable and valid counter-arguments  - a balance between consistency + flexibility
24 of 25

Social change

Social change:

  • occurs when a whole society adopts a new belief or behavior which then becomes widely accepted as the "norm"
  • usually a result of minority influence
  • also links to independant nejavior behause minority resists pressure to conform/obey, they usually have an internal locus of control

Snowball effect:

  • it has been found that once minority begin to persuade people around them to their view, a snowball effect begins to happen
  • means that more and more people adipt minority view until eventually the minority becomes majority
  • at this point those with the old opinion convert to new one as a result of group pressures
  • eg. most people nowadays accept that being homosexual is normal
  • people may often not remember where opinion originated from - known as crypto amnesia
25 of 25

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Psychology resources:

See all Psychology resources »See all social influence resources »