Social Influence

• What is conformity?


  Conformity is changing your behaviour or opinions as a result of real or imagined pressure from a group
• Internalisation


  Genuinely thinking the group is right and accepting the group norms publically and privately -> strongest type of conformity
• Identification


  When you value the group so you take on their values, attitudes and behaviours (conforming to be a part of the group even if privately you don't agree)
• Compliance


  A superficial type of conformity (publically agreeing but privately disagreeing) -> weak type of conformity
• Informational Social Influence (ISI)

  • When you don't know what to do or think so you look to others/experts for information
  • Genuinely thinking the group is right and go along with them
  • They need to be right
• Normative Social Influence

  • To gain social approval and avoid rejection
  • They want some reward
  • They don't want to be punished (made fun of)
  • They want to belong
• Asch's experiment 1951

  • Lab experiment to study conformity
  • 123 male participants from Swarthmore College in America
  • Each round had seven confederates and one naive participant
  • Each person had to say out loud which of the three lines matched the target line (answer was always obvious)
  • 18 trials, 12 critical trials
• Asch's results

  • Real participants conformed to the incorrect answer on 37% of the critical trials
  • 25% never conformed
  • 74% of the participants conformed at least once
  • They conformed due to normative social influence and a desire to fit in
• Factors effecting conformity

  • Group size
  • Unanimity
  • Task difficulty
• Stanford Prison Experiment 1973

  • lead by Dr Phil Zimbardo
  • Aim was to investigate whether prison guard brutality came from sadistic personalities or whether the guards are rather playing a 'social role'
  • 21 men (student volunteers)-> deemed emotionally stable
  • Randomly assigned to the role of prison guard or prisoner
  • Wore uniforms
  • Encouraged to identify with their roles
• Results of Zimbardo's experiment

  • Guards took up their roles with enthusiasm, treating prisoners harshly
  • Within two days, the prisoners rebelled
  • Guards enforced rules and administered punishments
  • After the rebellion, prisoners became subdued, depressed and anxious
  • 1 prisoner showed signs of psychological disturbance
  • 2 more were released on the fourth day
  • 1 prisoner went on a hunger strike
  • Experiment ended after 6 days rather than 2 weeks
• Strength's of Zimbardo's experiment

  • Good internal validity (high control)
  • Real world application
• Limitations of Zimbardo's experiment

  • Over exaggeration
  • Lacked realism
  • Ethical issues
  • Lacks research support
• The Milgram Study 1963

  • Aim was to determine whether ordinary American men would obey to an unjust order from an authority figure (triggered by Germans after WW2)
  • 40 male participants
  • Offered $4.50 to take part in what was called 'punishment and learning'
  • invited to Yale University where they met the experimenter and other participant (both confederates)
  • No control group was used
• Milgram Study process

  1. Real participant was assigned as the teacher and the confederate was the learner (seemed random)
  2. Learner would go in a separate room and the teacher stayed with the experimenter
  3. Teacher was told to administrate a shock after every mistake (shocks went up by 15 volts each time)
  4. 180V: learner complained of a weak heart, 300 volts: banged on the walls, 315 volts: became silent
  5. Max was 450 Volts
  6. If the teacher tried to stop the experiment, a series of prods were used to encourage him
• Milgram results:

  • 100% went up to 300 volts
  • 65% continued to 450 Volts
• Milgram variations:

  • Location-> 47.5% obedience
  • proximity-> 40%
  • remote instruction-> 20.5%
  • touch proximity-> 30%
  • uniform-> 20%
• Milgram Strengths

  • Ethics (debriefing)
  • Retest reliability (easily replicated)
  • Bickman 1974-> uniform
  • Burger 2009-> temporal validity
• Milgram weaknesses:

  • Gender Bias
  • Ethics (participants deceived)
  • Internal validity (lack of realism)
  • Mandel 1998-> proposed his results are over generalised
• Conformity (Asch)

  • Individual differences
  • Biased sample
  • Ethics
  • Artificial Tasks
• Why did Zimbardo's participants conform?

  • Situational pressures
  • Social roles
  • Deindividualism (wore a uniform)
  • Demand Characteristics
• Agentic State


  When we perceive someone to be higher up the social hierarchy than us we are likely to act on behalf of them believing it is not our responsibility but instead we are simply following orders
• Autonomous State


  Where we are independent and have free will over our actions
• Agentic shift


  When ordered by an authority figure, we make the flip from autonomous to agentic
• Binding factors


  Once in Agentic state, binding factors keep us there

  Factors of the situation which reduce our moral strain (eg, fear of being rude)
• Legitimacy of authority

  • taught from an early age who is at the top of the social hierarchy
  • trust them to exert their power appropriately
  • willing to give up our independence for them
  • usually identified through visual symbols (uniform)
• Destructive authority


  When authority figures abuse their power and order people lower down in the social hierarchy to act in a cruel way (hitler)
• Blass and Schmist (2001)

  • Showed students Milgram's study and asked them who was to blame
  • Students blamed the experimenter for legitimacy of authority
  • provides evidence for the agentic state theory
• Limitation of the agentic theory

  In Milgram's study, 65% went up to the max of 450V (not 100%), meaning not everyone obeyed so dispositional factors need to be considered
• Mandel (1998)

  • Agentic shift cannot account for the behaviour of the Nazis
  • Incident during WW2 when a german battalion shot civilians although they did not have direct orders to do so
  • Challenges the agentic theory as the soldiers had the power to disobey and could have acted upon their own principles and morals
• Cultural differences (Milgram replications)

  • Australia: Kilham and Mann (1974), 16% went up to 450V
  • Germany: Mantell (1971), 85% went up to 450V
• Real life application:


  Kelham and Hamilton (1989)

  The My Lai massacre during the Vietnam War (destructive obedience)
• Dispositional Explanation


  Any explanation that highlights the importance of personality
• Authoritarian personality


  A personality type that is particularly susceptible to obeying people in authority (more likely to obey)
• Adorno 1950 experiment

  • Measured 2000 middle class white Americans and their unconscious attitudes towards racial groups
  • Developed the F scale to measure authoritarian personality
  • Interviewed PPs on political views, prejudice and upbringing
• Adorno's findings 


  People who scored high on the F scale:

  • Identified with the strong and pitied the weak
  • Showed high respect to those of higher status
  • Patrionised those of lower status
  • Had fixed stereotypes of other groups
  • Very obedient
• Where does the Authoritarian personality come from?


  Childhood trauma and experiences:

  • Hostility
  • Conditional love
  • Little love, much punishment
  • Strict parenting
• Resistance to social influence

  The ability to withstand the social pressure to conform to the majority or to obey authority
• The ability to withstand social pressure is influenced by both situational and dispositional factors
• Explanations to social influence resistance

  Social Support

  Locus of control