Social Influence Researchers

Explanations for conformity - Informative social influence

Aim: To demonstrate conformity to group norms in ambiguous situations by using an autokinetic effect experiment

Method: Put into groups and had to share answer, one person said a different answer and two said the same answer

Findings: Person with the biggest difference in answer conformed

Conclusion: We look to others for guidance in unfamiliar situations

Explanations for conformity - Normative social influence

Aim: Investigate if social pressure could affect conformity

Method: Lab experiment, 123 male undergrads, had to judge which line on a board was the longest, they were then put into a group with 7 confederates and gave their answer 5th in turn

Findings: Overall 1/3rd conformed by giving the wrong answer

Conclusion: They conformed as they wanted to fit in with the group

Variables affecting conformity

Aim: To see if size of group, difficulty of task, whether there was a non-conforming role model and whether giving answers in private changed conformity rate

Findings:

Group size - 1 or 2, very little conformity, 3, conformity for 30%, >3, no difference

Non conforming role model - If answer was same as participants, 33% conformity to 5.5% conformity, if answer was different, 33% conformity to 9% conformity

Difficulty of task - As difficulty increased, so did conformity

Private - Less likely to conform

Variables affecting conformity

Aim: To replicate Asch's original study but using engineering, maths and chemistry students

Findings: Results were not replicated, 1 in 396 conformed

Conclusion: Self efficacy may also play a part hence the lower conformity rates

Conformity to social roles

Aim: To see how participants conformed to social roles

Method: Lab experiment, IV - prisoner/guard, DV - conformity, independent measures design, 27 male US students were randomly assaigned guard and prisoner, given uniforms/clubs/whistles/ID number/reflective sunglasses, took place in basement of psych dept at Stanford university

Findings: Guards grew increasingly abusive, 5 prisoners were released early due to extreme reactions

Conclusions: Both conformed to social roles, guards were cruel and sadistic whereas prisoners were passive and accepting of their plight

Situational variables affecting obedience

Aim: To see whether proximity and uniform affected obedience rates

Method: Location - moved the experiment to a run down office in bridgeport, Proximity - one where the 'teacher' and 'learner' were in the same room and another in a touch proximity condition

Findings: Location - 65% to 48% obedience rates, Proximity - Same room 65% to 40%, touch proximity 65% to 30%

Situational variables affecting obedience

Aim: To see whether uniform had an impact on obedience

Method: Dressed a female researcher up as a policeman, business woman and a beggar who then told people to give change to someone for a parking meter

Findings: Policemen 72%, business woman 48%, beggar 52%

Conclusions: Easily recognised and can convey power and authority - symbolized as a sovereign

Research into obedience

Aim: Test the levels of obedience showen by participants when told to administer electric shocks by an authority figure

Method: Volunteer sample, 20-50yrs old, 40 participants, told they were testing punishment on learning, had to give an electric shock (increasing by 15v) for every incorrect answer

Findings: 65% went to full 450v, 5 stopped at 300v

Conclusions: Ordinary people could behave in an inhumane way when obeying an authority figure, suggests it is situational not dispositional

Research into obedience

Aim: To see the level of obedience shown by nurses when told to administer fatal doses of medication by a doctor

Method: Field study, got a doctor to instruct a nurse to administer lethal doses of medication to a patient over a phone

Findings: 21/22 obeyed as doctor was perceived as an authority figure

Agentic state and legitimacy of authority - AS

Suggested the idea that one will shift responsibility for one's actions onto someone else and instead be 'acting as an agent'. Being in an autonomous state refers to being responsible for one's own actions.

Example: Lt William Calley, during the Vietnam war he ordered his men to kill 500 innocent people but did not accept responsibilty insisting he too was just following orders

Conclusion: He was in the agentic state and felt the responsibility was on someone else

Agentic state and legitimacy of authority - LA

Aim: To study whether there were any real life examples of legitimate authority

Method: Looked at data on aviation accidents from the NTSB

Findings: Found that the actions of the crew contributed majorly to 19/37 of the accidents as they were dependent on the captain

Conclusions: The crew perceived the captain as a legitimate authority figure, someone with more experience and authority than them thus they did not challenge his decisions

Authoritarian Personality

Created the California F-scale

Aim: To measure the components of the authoritarian personality

Method: Questions relating to rigid thinking, strict adherence to social rules and obey authority figure

Authoritarian Personality

Aim: See whether obedience and personality type correlated

Method: Follow up of Milgram's original experiment but with 20 obedient and 20 defiant participants completing the F-scale

Findings: The obedient participants showed high levels of authoritarian personality compared to the defiant participants

Conclusions: Shows strong relationship between obedience and perception of social hierarchy

Resistance to social influence

Locus of control - Term which refers to a persons perception of personal control over behaviour. Split into internal and external: Internal is having a high perception of personal control whereas external is having a low perception of personal control.

Resistance to social control

Found that high internals are better able to resist coercion from others and thus are better able to resist the attempts of an interrogator to gain information.

Resistance to social influence - **

Social Support - When having an ally who believes/has the same answer as you, you are more able to resist conformity pressure from the majority.

Resistance to social influence

Method: Compared perception of personal control on people who resisted orders to those who didn't during WW2

Findings: Those who followed orders were high externals

Conclusion: Internals are less likely to follow orders

Resistance to social influence

Aim: To see whether conformity varied between collectivilist and individualist cultures

Method: Conducted a meta-analysis

Findings: IC, had independent views and were more likely to resist rules, CC, had collective goals and were more likely to adhere to rules

Minority Influence

Suggested consistency, commitment and flexibility

Consistency - Effective provided there is stability in expressed position over time and agreement among members of minority

Commitment - Degree of dedication to cause or activity, the more commitment the more influence

Flexibility - Willingness to compromise when expressing a position

Minority Influence

Aim: To analyse the effect of a consistent/inconsistent minority

Method: 172 participants into groups of 6, 4 participants and 2 confederates in each group, they were shown the colour of 36 slides (blue/green) and had to state their colour

Findings: Condition 1, consistent minority = 8.4% influence, condition 2, inconsistent minority 24 green and 12 blue = 1.4% influence

Social influence processes in social change

Proposed 5 stages to social change:

Drawing attention to an issue - motivates resolution

Cognitive conflict - two issues, what majority and what minority believe

Consistency of position - Same message over time

Augmentation principle - if someone suffers for their beliefs, they are taken more seriously

Snowball effect - small effect which reaches a tipping point and then a change occurs

Social influence size in social change

Social norms approach - The idea that if people perceive something to be the social norm, they tend to alter their behaviour to fit that norm

Social influence processes in social change

Boomerang effect - Campaigns aimed at less desireable behaviours can also affect more desireable behaviours

Example: A poster may say that drinking 2 glasses of wine a week is ok - this may have a positive effect but may also cause people who drink nothing a week to drink more