Social Influence

• Name the 3 types of conformity

  Internalisation, identification and compliance
• Define conformity


  Changing your beliefs or behaviours due to real or imagined pressure from others
• Define internalisation


  Private and public acceptance of group norms
• Define identification


  Change behaviour to be part of a group we identify with
• Define compliance


  Go along with group publicly but no private change
• Give explanations of conformity


  Informational social influence- Conform to be right, assume others know better than us

  Normative social influence- Conform to be liked or accepted by group
• Outline Asch's research


  AIM- to investigate conformity in an unambiguous situation

  METHOD- 123 American men. Line perception test with groups of 6-8. 1 participant always seated last or next to last in a group. Confederates deliberately gave wrong answers to see if participants would conform

  FINDINGS- Naive participants conformed 36.8% of trials. 25% never conformed.
• Evaluate Asch's research


  STRENGTH- lab study, high reliability as using standardised procedures like same standard and comparison lines

  WEAKNESS- artificial situation and task, demand characteristics meant participants just played along with trivial task

  WEAKNESS- ungeneralisable, 123 american men so androcentric and ethnocentric
• Briefly explain the 3 variations of Asch's study


  GROUP SIZE- conformity increased up to group size of 4

  UNANIMITY- dissenter reduced conformity

  TASK DIFFICULTY- conformity increased when task was harder
• Give the aim and method to Zimbardo's SPE


  AIM- wanted to investigate why prison guards behave brutally (many prison riots in America).

  METHOD- ''Emotionally stable'' students were randomly assigned to the role of guard or prison in a mock prison set up in the basement at Stanford University. Prisoners- were arrested and names never used just numbers. Guards- uniform, wooden club, keys and mirror shades and told they had complete power over prisoners.
• Give the findings and conclusions to Zimbardo's SPE


  FINDINGS- Guards became increasingly brutal, prisoners increasingly withdrawn and depressed. The study ended after 6 days but was meant to last 14 days.

  CONCLUSIONS- Participants conformed to their roles as guards or prisoners.
• Evaluate ZImbardo's SPE


  STRENGTH- high internal validity, had control over some variables. E.g. random assignment to roles.

  WEAKNESS- lack of realism, Banuazizi and Mohavedi argues that the PPs were just play-acting rather than conforming

  WEAKNESS- unethical, causes participants psychological harm. Prisoners showed symptoms of psychological disturbance.
• Outline Milgram's research on obedience.

  A: Wanted to see how far people would go to obey an instruction even if it meant harming another person

  M: Participants gave fake electric shocks to a ''learner'' in obedience to instructions from the ''experimenter''.

  F: 65% gave the highest shock of 450v. 100% gave shocks up to 300v. Many showed signs of anxiety. 3 participants had seizures.
• Evaluate Milgram's research on obedience


  STRENGTH- real-world application, explains why Nazi soldiers obeyed in WW2, however, may not be able to generalise to different cultures because of different cultural norms

  WEAKNESS- Ethical issues, 3 participants had seizures, so failed to protect participants from harm. However, there was no evidence of permanent psychological harm after 1 year.

  STRENGTH- high internal validity, lab study so controlled EVs. Hofling et al.'s nurses study got similar results (21 out of 22 nurses obeyed)
• Define Obedience


  A form of SI where an individual follows a direct order from another individual, who is usually an authority figure.
• Briefly explain the situation variables that affect obedience (Milgram's variations)


  PROXIMITY- Obedience decreased to 40% when teacher could hear learner, and to 30% in touch proximity condition.

  LOCATION- Obedience decreased to 47.5% when study moved to run-down office block

  UNIFORM- Obedience decreased to 20% when ''member of the public'' was the experimenter.
• Outline Bickman's research (uniform creates obedience)


  Bickman used 3 male actors dressed in normal clothes, milkman or as a security guard. The actors asked passersby to do things like pick up a paper bag that had been thrown in the street, or to give them a coin for a parking meter. Passersby were most likely to obey the actor dressed as a security guard and least likey to obey the actor in normal clothes.
• What are the social-psychological factors that affect obedience?


  Agentic state and legitimacy of authority
• Outline Agentic state as a factor that affects obedience

  AGENTIC STATE- Acting as an agent of another

  AUTONOMOUS STATE- free to act according to conscience. Switching between the two is called the agentic shift.

  BINDING FACTORS- Allow individuals to ignore the damaging effects of their obedient behavior.
• Evaluate Agentic state as a factor affecting obedience


  STRENGTH- Research support, Blass and Schmitt (students reacting to Milgram's research) found that people do blame the legitimate authority (the experimenter) for the participant's behaviour. Can recognise legitimacy of authority as a cause for being obedient.

  WEAKNESS- Limited explanation, Cannot explain why some of Milgram's participants disobeyed or the lack of moral strain in Hofling et al.'s nurses. Dispositional factors would be better to use.
• Outline the Legitimacy of authority as an explanation for obedience.


  LEGITIMACY OF AUTHORITY- created by the hierarchical nature of society so we accept that they can exert their power to keep society in order.

  DESTRUCTION AUTHORITY- some powerful figures have abused their authority in a destructive way. E.g. Hitler.
• Evaluate the Legitimacy of authority as an explanation for obedience


  STRENGTH- cultural differences, explains obedience in different cultures because it reflects different social hierarchies.

  WEAKNESS- obedience alibi, gives an excuse for destructive behaviour
• Name the dispositional factor that affects obediene

  The authoritarian personality
• Outline the authoritarian personality


  PROCEDURE- Adorno et al. used F-scale to study unconscious attitudes toward other racial groups

  FINDINGS- People with authoritarian personalities identify with the ''strong'' and have a fixed cognitive style

  AUTHORITARIAN CHARACTERISTICS- Extreme respect for authority and obedience to it

  ORIGIN OF THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY- harsh parenting creates hostility that cannot be expressed against parents so is displaced.
• Evaluate the authoritarian personality


  WEAKNESS- used F-scale, has response bias so lowers validity

  WEAKNESS-limited explanation, can't explain the increase in obedience across a whole culture, a better explanation is social identity theory

  STRENGTH- research support, Milgram and Elm conducted follow-up study using PPs from Milgram's original study. Some had authoritarian personalities (those that went to 450 volts).
• What are the 2 main reasons for resistance to social influence?

  Social support and Locus of control
• Outline Locus of control as a reason for resistance to social influence


  LOCUS OF CONTROL- LOC is sense of what directs events in our lives (first proposed by Rotter)

  CONTINUUM- High internal at one end and high external at the other

  RESISTANCE TO SOCIAL INFLUENCE- People with high internal LOC are more able to resist pressure to conform or obey
• Outline Social support as a reason for resistance to social influence


  CONFORMITY- Reduced by the presence of dissenters from a group

  OBEDIENCE- Decreases in the presence of a disobedient peer who acts as a model to follow
• Define minority influence


  A form of SI where a minority rejects the established norm of the majority of group members and persuades the majority to move to the position of the minority. Most likely to lead to internalisation.
• Outline Moscovici et al. Blue-green study


  AIM: Investigate the effects of a consistent minority on the majority.

  METHOD: First given eye tests. 4 participants+2 confederates= 1 group. 36 slides of different shades of blue. Condition 1= 2 confederates said green for 36 slides. Condition 2= 2 confederates said green 24 times and blue 12 times.

  RESULTS: Condition 1= 8.42% green responses. Condition 2= 1.25% green responses. 1/3 of all participants judged the slide to be green at least once.

  CONCLUSION: Minorities can influence a majority best when most consistent.
• Evaluate Moscovici et al.'s blue-green study


  STRENGTH- high reliability, used standardised procedures to control EVs such as using the same slides

  WEAKNESS- ungeneralisable, only used female participants. Females are said to be more conformist than males
• What are 3 factors that affect minority influence?


  Consistency, commitment and flexibility
• Outline flexibility as a factor that affects minority influence


  Minority becomes more convincing if they accept some counter-arguements. Nemeth shows that the minority should balance consistency and flexibility so they don't appear rigid to the majority.
• Outline Consistency as a factor that affects minority influence


  If the minority is consistent this attracts the attention of the majority over time. 2 types: synchronic = consistency between people in the minority. Diachronic = consistency over time.
• Outline commitment as a factor that affects minority influence


  Augmentation principle- personal sacrifices show commitment and attract attention
• What is the snowball effect?


  Minority view gathers momentum until it becomes majority influence
• How does social change occur?


  It occurs when whole societies adapt to new attitudes, beliefs, and ways of doing things. E.g. civil rights movement, women's rights etc.
• Outline the process of social change


  Draw attention-> Consistency -> Deeper processing (leads to people thinking about the message on a deeper level) -> The augmentation principle (risky/extreme behaviors) -> Snowball effect -> Social Crytoamnesia
• What is Social Cryptoamnesia?


  It is when people forget the origins of a social change. They have memory that a change occurred but don't remember how the change happened.
• Lessons from conformity research (social change)


  Asch's study: the dissenter breaks power of the majority by encouraging others to dissent. Normative social influence can lead to social change by drawing attention to what the majority is doing.