Social influence Psychology

Deutsch and Gerard (1955)

Normative Social Influence: We agree with the opinion of the majority as we want to be accepted - This may lead to compliance

The desire to be liked

Informational Social Influence: We agree with the opinion of the majority as we want to be correct - This may lead to internalisation.

The desire to be right.

Asch continued his research into the following factors:

Group size: 3 confederates giving the wrong answer conformity rose to 32% but with more it did not change ---> A small minority is not sufficient enough to exert conformity but the group doesn't need to be especially large.

Task difficulty: Asch made the line perception more difficult and conformity increased ---> we tend to conform when we are unsure.

Unaminity: Asch added another naive individual and added another confederate who would sometimes give the right answer and found that this reduced conformity ---> unaniminity makes an individual more independent.

Informed consent:

When a participants agreement is not obtained before the start of the experiment - It could be considered insulting or demeaning and they may find it difficult to withdraw later on once they have agreed.

Deception:

Participants are deliberately mislead about the aims of the research - It may result in stress or other types of damage to the participants but it is necessary in some studies to prevent the issue of demand characteristics.

Protection from harm:

When participants are exposed to the risk of psychologically damage in the long or short term - it could be morally unacceptable and put the study under scrutiny from the BPS.

Zimbardo (1963)

• The participants were not protected from harm during the experiment as the prisoners were put in stressful and damaging conditions.
• One prisoner even had to be pulled out after one day due to the impacts.
• Zimbardo abused his role as researcher by making himself prison super intendent and not allowing some participants to withdraw.

Asch (1951)

• There was a lack of informed consent as they were told the experiment was to do with visual perception.
• They were deceived about the aim of the research and the confederates.
• They may have felt foolish and angry which could have caused them psychological damage due to the uncomfortable situation.

• Male students signed up to take part in the psychological research.
• They were 'arrested' - and taken to a fake prison in the university then split into prisoners and guards.
• Prisoners: They were stripped and dressed in a smock before being sent to the cells - they were not allowed to leave.
• Guards: They were dressed in khaki uniforms, with whistles, a club and sunglasses - they were on shift work and were not given proper training.
• The guards took on their roles and were cruel and abusive to the prisoners as they identified with their roles.
• The prisoners grew distressed and fatigued, planned rebellions and one individual was dismissed after one day due to the psychological stress.
• The experiment was ended after 6 days instead of 14.
• Zimbardo was the prisons super intendent.
• Conclusion: The prisoners and especially the guards conformed to their ideas of the social roles and acted as if they were in a prison and not an experiment.

(-) Ethical issues: Zimbardo refused to let prisoners leave, abused his role as research head, the individuals were not debriefed and somem experienced high levels of stress.

(-) The setting is too artificial: Banuazizi and Mohavedi said that the participants were play acting and therefore it isn't a measure of real life behaviour.

(+) Lab study - There is a high degree of control over variables - The researchers were able to pick the participants they wanted to rule out participant variations. They were also not debriefed so they were not impacted by demand characteristics - High internal validity.

(+) Real life application: Hofling et al (1966) carried out an experiment in the hospital. They arranged for a nurse (participant) working alone on a night shift to receive a call from an unknown doctor telling her to administer Z patient with 20 mg of an unknown drug - 21/22 nurses did it.

It was breaking several rules:

• Twice the maximum dose.
• It was not on the ward stocklist.
• Acting without a signed order.
• Telephone instruction from an unknown doctor.

Why did they do it? - They saw the doctor as a legitimate authority figure.

Autonomous state: A person feels responsible for their own actions as they are behaving on their own principles.

Agentic state: A person is acting for someone else (an agent). They know what they are doing is wrong but they feel powerless to disobey.

Agentic shift: Autonomousy to Agency - The person perceives someone else as a greater power due to their position in the social heirachy.

Legitimate authority figures: They are allowed to exert power to allow society to function properly. We are willing to give up some of our independence to them e.g police men, parents.

Other variables :

• Uniform
• Proximity
• Location

He wanted to investigate the cause of obedient personalities.

• 2000 white middle class Americans.
• Tested them on numerous scales e.g F - scale to measure authoritarian personalities.
• Authoritarian personalities identified with strong people who saw the weak as inferior. They also had fixed stereotypes of people in the other groups.

Authoritarian characteristics - obedient to authority, inflexible outloook, linked to prejudice.

The origins of this - Formed in early childhood due to harsh parenting (strict discipline and conditional love). These feelings are displaced onto others who are seen to be weaker.

Research support: Milgram conducted interviews with a small sample of participants who had scored highly on the F-scale. There was merely a correlation between authoritarian personalities and obedience - It is impossible to come to the conclusion that they are linked.

Political bias: It is a politically biased interpretation of authoritarian personalities as right wing and left wing ideoligies have much in common. - Therefore Adorno's study is not specific as it can account for behaviour across the whole political spectrum.

Limited explanation: In pre-war Germany, anti semetic and racist behaviour was common and therefore it is not specific to only some people - therefore it cannot account for the whole population as it was only tradition.