🕷️ Social Influence

• In the Asch line judgement task participants were asked to judge which of three lines matched a standard line
• Asch devised a study to assess the extent to which conformity to group pressure influences people's behaviour.
• Asch varied group size (independent variable). He varied the number of confederates from 1-15. With 3 confederates, conformity to the wrong answer rose to 31.8%. Therefore suggesting that people are sensitive to the views of others since one or two confederates caused a change in opinions
• The dependent variable was the percentage of times participants conformed to the majority view
• Asch also introduced unanimity in two variations where he introduced a confederate who agreed with the majority and disagreed with the other confederates(1) and where he disagreed with both the participants and the confederates(2). The participants conformed less often in the presence of the dissenter. The conformity rate decreased to less than 1/4 of the level it was when the majority was unanimous. Therefore the dissenter allowed the participants to behave more independently suggesting that the influence of the majority depends on being unanimous to a large extent.
• Asch also varied task difficulty. he increased the difficulty of the line judging task by making the lines more similar lengths, so it became harder for the participants to genuinely see the difference of line lengths. Conformity increased since people look to others for guidance and assume they’re right since they don’t know any better. This is an example of Informational Social Influence.
• -Asch has limited application. His sample consisted mainly of white American males meaning we cannot generalise these findings to females and ethnic minorities. Neto suggests that women may be more conformist; they may be more concerned about social relationships and being accepted. The USA has an individualist culture and Bond and Smiths conformity studies conducted in collectivist cultures have found that conformity rates are higher. This means that Asch‘s findings tell us little about conformity in women and people from other cultures.
• -Asch only measured overt conformity. Overt conformity refers to changing your opinion to match those around you. But there are different types of conformity such as covert conformity. Covert conformity occurs when someone changes their behaviour but doesn’t necessarily change their beliefs. For instance, they might say something they disagree with just to fit in. This type of conformity can be difficult to measure.
• -Asch had no control groups. There was no comparison between his experimental conditions and a control condition. Without a control group, we can’t be sure whether the effects observed were due to the independent variables or some other factor.
• -Asch used deception which could affect his results. Participants were not told what the experiment was investigating until afterwards. They thought they were taking part in a visual perception test. However, some argue that this is acceptable because the participants weren’t harmed and they gave informed consent at the end of the session. Others believe that using deception undermines the ethics of psychology research and that researchers should always inform participants fully about the nature of the research.
• -Asch’s study consisted of an artificial situation and task and he didn’t control for demand characteristics in his study. Participants knew they were in a research study and may have gone along with what they thought was expected. Demand characteristics refers to cues within the situation that suggest what the participant is expected to do. These can lead to demand compliance where participants do what they think the experimenter wants them to do rather than responding honestly. The task of identifying lines was relatively trivial and there was no real reason not to conform.
• -Asch had confederates acting like subjects so the participants in his study may have realised that they were participating in a conformity study and changed their responses accordingly. Fiske argues that his groups didn’t resemble those in real life. The findings of Aschs study can’t be generalised to real world situations, especially those where the consequences of conformity may be important.
• +Other studies support for the effects of task difficulty in the Asch study. Lucas et al asked their participants to answer easy and hard maths problems with 3 confederates. The participants conformed more often when the problems were harder. This proves Asch correct when claiming task difficulty is one variable affecting conformity.
• +The Asch study has been replicated many times by various psychologists including Bem (1967) who found similar levels of conformity. This supports the reliability of the study
• -However Lucas’ study found that conformity is more complex than Asch suggested. Participants with higher confidence in their math abilities conformed less on hard tasks than those with low confidence. This shows that an individual level factor can influence conformity by interacting with situational variables. Asch didn’t research the roles of individual factors.
• Kelman identified 3 types of conformity:

  • Compliance - going along with something but not changing our private behaviour or opinions. It’s a superficial change since the behaviour stops as soon as the group pressure stops.
  • Identifications - publicly conform to be accepted as part of the group even if we don’t believe it. The change of public opinion is only in the group‘s presence.
  • Internalisation - the group norm is genuinely accepted in private and in public. This is usually permanent.
• Deutsch and Gerard came up with 1/2 explanations of conformity

  • Informational Social Influence (ISI) - the need to be right. The behaviour of the majority is followed and this leads to internalisation. This occurs in new situations or where the answer is ambiguous so we turn towards the majority for advice.
• Deutsch and Gerard came up with 2/2 explanations of conformity

  • Normative social influence (NSI) - the desire to belong. We follow the majority because we want acceptance from them. People seek social approval over social rejection. This occurs in familiar situations where there are clear answers or situations with strangers since we may seek social support. Conforming here leads to identification.
• +Research evidence supports ISI. Lucas found that participants conformed more often to incorrect answers when the maths problem was ditticult, when the problems were easy, the participants knew their own minds but when the difficulty increased, the sitation became ambiguous. The participants didnt want to be wrong so they relied on the answers they were given. This shows that ISI is a valid explanation of conformity; the results are what ISI would predict.
• -However it’s often unclear whether its NSI or ISI at work in research studies. Asch found that conformity is reduced when there is one other dissenting participant. The dissenter may reduce the power of the NSI; they provide social support or they may reduce the power of the ISI; they provide an alternative source of social information. Therefore, its hard to separate NSI and ISI as both processes operate together i most real world conformity situations.
• Zimbardo set up a mock prison in the basement of the psychology department at Stanford Uni; they wanted to know why guards behave brutally - was it sadistic personalities or their social role. They selected 21 male volunteers (students) who tested as emotionally stable, these students were assigned randomly to play the role of the prisoner or guard.
• +Other studies have demonstrated the influence of situational variables on obedience. In NYC, Bickman conducted a field experiment and had 3 confederates in different outfits: jacket and tie, milkman’s outfit and a security guard's uniform. The confederates individually stood in the street and asked strangers to do various tasks: pick up litter, give them a coin for the parking meter. People were twice as likely to obey the security guard than the jacket and tie: this supports the view that situational variables have a powerful effect on obedience.
• Agentic State

  • Milgram proposed that obedience to destructive authority occurs because a person doesn’t take responsibility. Instead, they believe they are acting for someone else (as an agent). An agent experiences high anxiety - moral strain - when they realise what they're doing is wrong but feel powerless to disobey.
• Autonomous state

  • A person in an autonomous state is free to behave according to their own values, opinions and beliefs and feel a sense of responsibility for their actions. The transition from autonomy to agency is called agentic shift. This occurs when a person perceives someone else as the authority figure; they have greater power due to their higher position in a social hierarchy.
• The agentic state can be seen in the Milgram experiments where participants believed they had no choice but to obey the experimenter. They felt responsible for following his instructions rather than taking responsibility themselves.
• +Milgram's own studies support the role of agentic stale in obedience. Most of Milgram’s participants resisted giving the shocks at some point and often asked the experimenter Who is responsible if Mr Wallace is harmed, When the experimenter said I am, the participants often went through the procedure quickly with no further objections. This shows that once participants realised they were no longer responsible for their actions, they acted more easily as the experimenters agent.
• -Agentic shift doesn’t explain many research findings about obedience. It doesn’t explain the findings of Rank & Jacobson's study: they found that 16/18 nurses disobeyed orders from a doctor to administer an excessive drug dose to a patient. Eventhough the doctor was an obvious authority figure, the nurses remained autonomous -as did many of Milgram’s participants. This suggests that agentic shift can only account for some situations of obedience.
• -Some people can be autonomous and still be evil. Mandel described an incident in WW2 involving the German Reserve Police Battalion 101. These men shot many civilians in a small town in Poland, despite not having direct orders to do so - they were told they could be assigned to other duties if they preferred - meaning they behaved autonomously.
• Legitimacy of Authority

  Most societies are structured in a hierarchal way - people with higher status possess more power and authority. The authority they yield is legitimate-agreed on by society. We accept that authority figures having more power allows society to run smoothly from childhood. Therefore some people are granted to have the power to punish others (courts and police) , we are willing to give up some of our independence and hand over control of our behaviour to people who we believe will exercise their power appropriately.
• Destructive Authority

  History often shows reruns of how charismatic and powerful leaders can abuse their legitimate powers for destructive and dangerous purposes-ordering people to act in evil ways. Destructive authority was obvious in Milgram’s experiment: the experimenter used prods to order participants to behave in ways that went against their consciences.
• +Legitimacy of authority and destructive authority is a useful account of cultural differences in obedience. Many studies show that countries differ in the degree to which people are obedient to authority. Kilham & Mann found that only 16% of female Australian participants went all the way up to 450 volts in a Milgram style study. Mantell found very different results in Germany (85%).
• +This shows that in some cultures authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimate and entitled to demand obedience from individuals. This reflects the ways that different societies are structured and how children are raised to perceive authority figures.
• -Legitimacy can’t explain instances of disobedience in a hierarchy where its clear and accepted. Most of the nurses were disobedient despite working in a rigidly hierarchal authority structure. A significant minority of Milgram's participants disobeyed despite recognising the experimenter's scientific authority. This suggests that some people just may be more or less obedient than others. Its possible that innate tendencies to obey/disobey have a greater influence on behaviour than the legitimacy of an authority figure.
• The Authoritarian Personality

  • Adorno et al believed that a high level of obedience was basically a pathological disorder. They believed the causes lie in the personality of the individual - disposition.
• Authoritarian Personality and Obedience

  • Adorno argued people with an AP show an extreme respect for and submissiveness to authority. They view society as weaker so believe we need strong, powerful leaders to enforce traditional values: love of country and family. These characteristics make people with an AP more likely to obey orders from authority.
• People with Authoritarian Personalities usually show contempt to those of inferior social status: this is fuelled by their inflexible outlook on the world: for them there is only right and wrong, they're uncomfortable with uncertainty. Therefore people who are of different ethnic groups are responsible for the ills of society. These people are a convenient scapegoat for authoritarians who are likely to obey orders from authority figures even when such orders are destructive.
• Origins of AP

  • Adorno believed the AP personality type forms in childhood, as a result of harsh parenting. This parenting style typically features overly strict discipline, an expectation of absolute loyalty, impossibly high standards and severe criticism of perceived failings. Parents give conditional love. These childhood experiences create resentment and hostility in a child, but the child can't express these feelings to their parents directly in fear of punishment. Therefore, their feelings are displaced onto people who are weaker than themselves.
• (AP)

  Displacement of feelings onto those they see as inferior to themselves explains the hatred towards people considered to be socially inferior or who belong to other social groups, a central feature of obedience to a higher authority.
• Adorno studied more than 2000 middle-class, white Americans and their unconscious attitudes towards other racial groups. The researchers developed many scales among the F-scale (potential-for -faschism scale) used to measure AP. F-scale items include: Obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtues for children to learn and there is hardly anything lower than a person who doesn’t feel great love, gratitude and respect for his parents.
• People who scored higher on the F-scale identified with strong people and were generally contemptuous of the weak. They were very conscious of status and showed extreme respect, deference and servility to those of higher status. All of these traits being the basis of obedience. Adoro also found that authoritarian people had a certain cognitive style - they had black and white thinking. They had fixed distinctive stereotypes about other groups. Adorno found a strong positive correlation between authoritarianism and prejudice.