SOCIAL INFLUENCE

• form of social influence
• yield real/ perceived group pressure
• occurs when adopt behaviour, attitude, value
• public or private

INFORMATIONAL INFLUENCE

• desire to be correct, need certainty
• some situations= subjective
• refer to social groups for answers/info

- leads to- change private opinion, now think correct way behave

- private acceptance (conversion)

INTERNALISATION- accept influence, content consisten own beliefs/attitudes/behaviour & private beliefs

NORMATIVE INFLUENCE

• desire be accepted/ approved by social group- power reward/ punish may cause conflict

- doesn't necessarily change private opinion, just public behaviour

- public compliance (following social norms)

COMPLIANCE- accept influence hope achieve favourable reaction from group, attitude/behaviour adopted due to rewards associated  NOT CONTENT

• whether people conform with majority when no doubt in correct answer

• 50 male college students
• unambiguous test
• pair cards- 7 people @ table
• 1 card= test card
• 1 card= 3 comparison lines
• PPS ask out loud say line equal length to test line
• correct answer= obvious
• 1/7 PP true PP
• 6/7= confederates
• PP= near end table, last but 1 answer
• confed same wrong answer 12/18 trials

• 32% critical trials (confeds) PPs form unanimous view of majority
• 74% PP conform at least once
• 26% never conform- tension & anxiety

small minority= genuine right answer

most= perception must be wrong

some not bear minority

• there are conformity effects in unambiguous situation
• group pressure much greater than thought
• different reasons for conforming

• lab experiment= high control, no outside influences confound results
• repeated measures design= smaller amount of PPs save time & money, don't have to instruct all over and over
• ethics- debreifed PPs

• lab= artificially set up, lack ecological validity
• repeated measures= practice, improve, demand characteristics, order effects (boredom)
• 50 males- lack generalisability- gender and & age
• ethics- deception/ consent

• majority increased 16- no effect still 32% (Asch= 3 people ideal majority no effect if more)
• confeds= 1 dissenter agree PP disagree majority= down 5% (once not alone, easier voice own beliefs confidence)
• task more difficult, lines closer each other= increase (more ambiguity more need for information influence)
• give answers privately, Deutsch & Gerard= down (remove normative influence & need for approval)

• whether actual presence of others generate pressure conform
• certain types people more likely conform

• Version of Asch
• PP= booth out of sight others, stimulus cards, row switches, lights in front, press when turn came
• lights show responses other PPs (experimenter controlled this each PP see identical display)
• told last person give judgement
• 600 PPs
• some business & mil backgrounds
• tested IQ and leadership

• 32% conform wrong answer during Asch's lines
• task more difficult conformity increase
• bus & mil= high on IQ & leader tests, less conformity

• pressure to conform operate without face-to-face communication
• awareness of unseen presence enough pressure
• there is a conforming personality type

:)

• lab= high control, high internal reliability
• larger sample size= more generalisable
• ethics= debrief

:(

• lab= lack ecological validity & mundane realism
• ethics= deception

• test hypothesis 'German's are different' based atrocities WWII

• 40 male PP (20-50yrs)
• deceptive newspaper ad, 'role of punishment and learning' $4.50
• lab Yale Uni
• 'teacher' or 'learner' (all teachers) confeds- learners 47 y/o man, minor heart complaint
• PP shock every mistake simple learning task (word pairs) 
• electric chair next room
• start 15 V- increase by 15V to 450V (danger, severe shock)
• C start right then make mistakes
• 180V= protest
• 300V scream, heart complaint
• 315V refuse continue
• measure of obedience= strength of shock administered
• shocks= not real
• most PP protest want stop
• standardised prods 'you must go on' 'please continue'
• continue to 450V or refusal

• all PP reach 300V
• 65% reach 450V (predicted only 3%)

• seedy office= 48%
• same room= 40%
• teach force learner hand on shock panel= 30%
• two teachers support teacher= 10%

- Obedience due to situational factors rather than to deviant personality type

- contradicts GD WII hypothesis

:)

• lab= high control, internal reliability, well standardised procedure
• obedience well operationalised

:(

• ethicall unsound- lack informed consent, deception, protection of PPs
• lack generaisibility- gender bias (40 men)
• volunteer sample- right reasons?

• 22 night nurses, psychiatric hos USA
• field experiment
• telephone call 'doctor', adminster 20mg drug before he arrived (max= 10mg)
• sign papers when arrive

21/22 obeyed

against rules

2x daily dosage

blind obedience can occur in real life

• test eco valid Milgram
• 3 experimenters- 1= guard, 1= milkman, 1= sport top
• 153 pedestrians Brooklyn, NY
• 'pick up this bag for me'

most obey guard comparison to milk & sport

obedience related to perceived authority

Milg has some ecological validity

1. GRADUAL COMMITTMENT

• 'foot in the door' method persuasion, already started may as well see it through
• Milg= PPsalready given low 15V harder resist higher shocks
• no shock increase more than 15V- committed particular course of action, hard change minds

BUFFERS

• protect from seeing victim/consequenceof actions
• buffers= obedience high
• Milg- teacher and learner diff room not see effects shock
• variation, same room= 40% obedience (down from 65%)

AGENTIC SHIFT

1. Autonomous state= direct own actions, take own responsibility for consequences

2. Agentic state= others direct actions and take responsibility for consequences

• switch back and fourth between

Milg= take responsibility for consequences and actions

JUSTIFYING OBEDIENCE

• sound justification/ reason provided, obedience rates increase
• Milg= improve memory through punishment and rewards- help science/reasearch
• offer ideology, people willing surrender freedom of their actions

Need 2 things:

• 1. person giving orders preceived qualified to direct others' behaviour LEGITIMATE
• 2. being ordered by perceived authority will take responsibility for consequences

Monocasual emphasis:  Mandel- obedience not sole reason for atrocities against man kind

Goldenhagen= socialisation plays part, socialised into norms & valuse determine behaviour/rates obedience

Agentic shift: may not be only psychological proccess that determines obedience rates

level of harm someone inflicts on others not down to agentic shift

cannot shift two states, humans are active ability to reason, not passive

Obedience Alibi: Mandel- obedience used as alibi to excuse responsibility & negative consequences

just obeying not only reason explain person's actions

human ethics impact behaviour

ASCH:

• if social support available provides independent assessment, gives more confidence 
• 1 variation= 1 dissenter, conform down 5% 

MORAL CONSIDERATIONS:

• moral judgement involved, includes a cost to one's integrity influence resisted
•  if moral judgement needed normative influence less attractive 

NON CONFORMIST PERSONALITY:

• independent, not concerned with social norms, resist influence
• intentionally oppose it

MILGRAM: 

• ituation & environment impacts obedience
• seedy office= 48%
• same room= 40%

MORAL CONSIDERATIONS:

• cost to ones integrity
• those who based decisions on general principles were more defiant

SOCIAL HEROISM:

• put oneself at risk to pusue important principle
• loss of credibility, torture, death, jail
• Nelson Mandela- resisted government apatheid policies south Af imprisoned 36 years

• form social influence due to exposure to minority opinion in a group
• number of conditions necessary
• minority rejects established norms of the majority and induces the majority to move into the position of the minority

• majority influence based on public compliance, minortiy based on private acceptance/conversion
• whether minority can influence majority, reverse usual direction social influence
• determine conditions necessary
• CONSISTENCY

• lab, estimate 36 col slides all blue vary brightness
• PP test col blindness
• random allocated: consistent (2 confeds 36 green), inconsistent (2 confeds 24 green, 12 blue) control (0 confeds)
• minority influence measured 5 yield to confeds

• consistent= 8.4% yield
• 32% yield at least once
• inconsistent= 1/3% yield
• control= 0.25% yield

-minority can influence majority

-more effective when consistent, more persuasion

:)

• lab= high control, internal reliability, no outside influences

:(

• lack eco valid, mundane realism, demand characteristics

• occurs when society adopts a new belief which brings about a change
• change in social institutions, behaviour/ relationships
• range strategies used by minority to imrpove social status
• gradual or dramatic

1. people= opressed/inequality

2. try influence majority- informational influence and consistency

3. snowball effect- views= internalised

4. minority groups stay confines generally accepted by majority

5. more and more internalise- min=bigger than maj

6. change socities laws and policies- SOCIAL CHANGE

7. Social cryptamnesia- forget views ever minority

• perception of control over own behaviour

INTERNAL EXTERNAL

• behaviour caused by own decisions & efforts
• have responsibility over events- 'I made that happen'
• seek info useful to them
• less reliant on others opinions
• acheivement orientated
• LEADERS
• less resistent to coercion/ persuasion
• MOST LIKELY RESIST INFLUENCE

Anderson et al- high internal= emerge as leaders

• behaviour caused by fate or other external factors/forces
• do not feel in control 'was in the wrong place at the wrong time'

Twerge et al- met-analysis, children & students US, most believe external forces

• poor acheievment and depression
• LESS LIKELY RESIST INFLUENCE

MEN= internal

WOMEN= external