Social influence- Paper 1

• SOCIAL INFLUENCE - CONFORMITY

  A change in a person's behaviour/opinions as a result of real, imagined pressure from a persons/ group of people
• VARIABLES OF ASCH INVESTIGATED - GROUP SIZE

  He wanted to know if the size of the group would be more important than the agreement of the group. He found a curvilinear relationship between the group size and conformity rate. This increased with group size but only up to a point with 3 confederates, conformity for the wrong answer rose to 31.8%. But the presence of more made a little difference. This suggests most people are sensitive to the views of others because 1/2 of the confederates was enough to sway opinion
• UNANIMITY


  It introduced a confederate who disagreed with the others. In one variation of the study, he gave the correct answer and in another gave the wrong one. The geniune one conformed less often to the presence of dissenter. This appeared to free the naive participant to behave more independently.
• TASK DIFFICULTY


  He wanted to know if making the task look harder would affect the degree of conformity. He increased the difficulty of the task by making the stimulus line and the comparison even more similar making it harder for the genuine participant to see the difference. He found that conformity increased, natural for people to look at others for guidance.
• STRENGTHS OF ASCH - RESEARCH IS SUPPORTED FROM OTHER STUDIES FOR THE EFECT OF TASK DIFFICULTY

  For example, Todd lucas asked participants to solve easy and hard maths problems. Ppts were given answers from 3 other students (not real) ppts conformed more often agreeing with the wrong answers when problems were harder. Shows Asch was correct in claiming that task difficulty is one variable that affects conformity.
• ANOTHER STRENGTH-

  His procedure was controlled- standardised instructions, same behaviour from confederates and researchers . It was an ambiguous task which means they aren't accidentally testing someone else. It could easily be replicated in the same way today
• ONE LIMITATION - LIMITED APPLICATION

  American men study shows women may be conformist, possibly because they are concerned about social relationships and being accepted. USA is an individual country (more concerned about themeselves), meaning Asch's studies show little about conformity in woman and people from different cultures.
• ANOTHER LIMITATION- ARTIFICIAL SITUATION AND TASK

  Artificial as participants knew they were ina research study and may simply have gone along what was expected (demand characteristics). Task was relatively trivial so not reallya reason not to conform. Susan Fiske said 'Asch's groups weren't really groupy (not resembling groups experienced in real life), meaning findings don't generalise to real- world situations
• TYPES OF CONFORMITY

  Internalisation- when a person genuinely accepts the group norms, resulting in a private as well as public change in opinions/behaviours. Usually permanent because attitudes have been internalised eg became part of the way a person thinks- fullly agree private and public.Identification- sometimes conform to group because there is something we value about them. We identify with the group, so we want to be part of it. May mean we publicly change our opinions to be accepted by group even if we don't agree privately.Compliance - simply going along with public but privately not changing personal opinions results superficial change, means particular opinion stops as group pressure stops.
• EXPLANATIONS FOR CONFORMITY- ISI

  Deutsch and Gerald (1955) developed two process theory arguing that there's 2 main reasons people conform 2 central human needs- need to be right and to be liked. It's about about who has better info (you/group) eg often we're certain what beliefs are right and wrong. Eg you may not know the answer in class. We follow behaviour of the group because we want to be right. Cognitive process because it's to do with how we think, leads to permanent chnage in opinion, occurs when decisions have to be made quickly.
• NSI - NORMAL SOCIAL INFLUENCE

  About norms who regulate the behaviour of the groups people don't like to appear foolish and prefer to gain social approval rather than being rejected. NSI is an emotional process leading to temporary change in opinions (compliance). likely in situations with strangers where you feel more concerned about rejection. Eg social approval of our friends.
• ISI: STRENGTH AND WEAKNESS

  Strength- research evidence to support this from the study Lucas et al. He found that ppts relied on people's answers to hard maths questions. As situation was unclear and they worked to be right straight away, they relied on other answers given by the group which validates ISI because its what ISI predicts would happen.Weakness- cannot separate ISI and NSI as it's unclear whether its NSI or ISI at work in research studies or in reality. Asch found that a dissenter reduces conformity. A dissenter may reduce NSI by providing social support or reduce ISI by providing alternative answer. This suggests that it's impossible to separate NSI and ISI and both probably operate together in the real world
• NSI - WEAKNESS AND STRENGTH

  Strength- research support and evidence to support NSI from the study by Asch (1951). Asch found out that ppts said they conformed as they were afraid of groups disapproval. When participants wrote answers down, conformity reduced from 36.8% to 12.5% because private answers meant no normative group pressure, shows NSI exists due to fear of group rejection.Weakness- doesn't predict conformity in every case. Individual differences. Research by McGhee (1967) found people who are greatly concerned about being liked by others are more likely to conform. Means NSI undermines conformity for some and not conformity for others. So individuals cannot be fully explained by one theory of situational pressures.
• CONFORMITY TO SOCIAL ROLES- ZIMBARDO

  Stanford Uni, Zimbardo set a mock prison in basement of psychology department. Selected 21 make students volunteers who were tested emotionally stable. Students randomly assigned to play prison/guard role. Both encouraged to conform to social roles through uniform and instructions about the behaviour. Uniform- given loose smock to wear and a cap to cover their hair identified as numbers- created loss of personal identity (de-individuation) meant most likely to conform to perceived roleinstructions about behaviour - rather than leaving the study early, prisoners could apply for parole, guards encouraged to play their role being reminded that they had complete power over prisoners
• FIDNINGS RELATED TO SOCIAL ROLES


  Guards took up roles with enthusiasm, treating prisoners harshly within 2 days. prisoners rebuild and ripped up uniform, swore at the guards and retaliated with fire extinguishers. They used divide and rule tactics by playing off against each other, harassed constantly to remind them the power of their role. After rebellion was put down, prisoners were depressed anxious, one released showing symptoms of psychological disturbance. Guards identified more closely to their role and became increasingly brutal and aggressive with some actually enjoying the power they had over prisoners. Zimbardo ended study after 6 days.
• CONCLUSION RELATED TO SOCIAL ROLES

  Social roles appear to have strong influence on people's behaviour (guards became more brutal and prisoners became more submissive) such roles were easily take on by ppts. Even volunteers who came to perform specific functions (prisons chaplain) found themselves behaving as if they were in prison rather than psychological study
• ONE STRENGTH

  Zimbardo and colleagues had control over key variables in experiment. eg it was the selection of ppts emotionally stabled assigned to the roles of guards randomly which was one of the ways researchers ruled out individual personality differences as an explanation of the findings. If guards, prisoners behaved differently but were in roles only by chance then their behaviour must be due to the role itself. The degree of control over variables increased in internal validity of the study so we can be much more confident in drawing conclusions about the influences of the roles in conformity.
• ANOTHER STRENGTH

  Dermott argues that ppts did behave as if they were in prison (a real one) eg 90% of the prisoners conversations were about prison life. They discussed how it was impossible to leave the SPE until their sentences were over. this suggests that SPE did replicate the social roles of prisoners and guards in a real prison
• ONE LIMITATION

  Lack of realism of a true prison. Movahedi said ppts were merely play acting rather than genuinely conforming to a role. Their ppts performances were based on the stereotypes of how prisoners and guards are supposed to behave. Eg one of the guards claimed he had based his role on brutal character from a film 'cool hand Luke' - reason why prisoners rioted. suggests these findings tell us little about conformity to social roles in actual prisons.
• ANOTHER LIMITATION

  Exaggerates power of the roles. Eg only 1/3 of guards acted brutally another 1/3 tried to apply the rules fairly, restricted to actively help prisoners and support them. Suggests Zimbardo overstated his view that SPE ppts were conforming to social roles and minimised the influence of dispositional factors i.e. personally. Majority of guards managed to resist to situational pressures.
• OBEDIENCE - MILGRIM'S EXPERIMENT

  Nazi (Eidman) 'I was doing my job during WW2: if he didn't he would have got killed. Teacher is deceived into thinking its a learning a experiment. Learner (confederate) wearing a lab coat . Learner wasn't actually getting electrocuted but only the teacher thinking that. Leaner made louder sounds for each sock for error. 65% of ppts went maximum 450 volts, put under a lot of pressure from authority figure.
• BASELINE FINDINGS

  Every ppts delivered shocks up to 300 volts. 12.5% stopped at 300 volts. Milgram also collected qualitative data including observations such as ppts showing signs of extreme tension. Many of them were seen to sweat, stumble, dig their finger nails. 3 even had full blown uncontrolled seizures.
• CONCLUSIONS

  Milgrim concluded the german people are not 'different'. The American ppts in this study willingly obey orders even when they might harm another person. He suggested there was certian factors in the situation that encouraged obedience so decided to conduct further studies to investigate this
• ONE STRENGTH


  Milgrim's findings were replicated in a french documentry that was made about reality TV. (Beavios et al 2012) focuse on a game show made especially for the programme ppts believed they were in a game as contestants in pilot episode were in a new show called Le Jeu de la move(game of death). They were paid to give 5 'fake' electric shocks ordered by presenters in fornt of the studio audience. 80% of ppts delievered the maximum shock of 460 volts to an unconscious man.
• ANOTHER STRENGTH

  Richard King (1972) conducted a study using a procedure like Milgram's. Ppts gave real shocks to puppies in response to orders from the experimenter. despite real distress from an animal 54% men and 100% gave what they thought was a fatal shock. Suggests affects in Milgram's study were genuine because people behaved obediently when the shocks were real
• ONE LIMITATION

  Low internal validity- His procedure may have not been testing what he intended to test. He reported that 75% of his ppts said they believe the shocks were real but Orne and Charles Holland (1968) argued that ppts behaved as they did because they didn't really believe in the set up so they were 'play acting.' Gina Perry 2013, research confirmed, she listened to tapes of his ppts and reported only about half of them believed shocks were real. 2/3 of these ppts were disobedient. Suggests that ppts may have been responding to demand characteristics trying to fulfil the aims of the study
• ANOTHER LIMITATION

  Alternative interpretation of findings- conclusions of blind obedience may not be justified. Haslam 2014 showed that his ppts obeyed when experimenter delivered the first 3 verbal prods, however the others every ppt who were given fourth prod (you have no choice, you must go on) without exception disobeyed. According to social identity theory, ppts only obeyed when they identified with the scientific aims of the research (experiment requires that you continue). When ordered to blindly obey an authority figure, they refused. Shows that SIT may provide a more valid interpretation of Milgram's findings especially when he suggested ta
• OBEDIENCE: SITUATIONAL VARIABLES

  Proximity - Milgram's study, teacher could hear the learner but not see him. In proximity variation, teacher and learner were in the same room, obedience rate dropped 65% to 40%. In touch proximity variation, teacher had to force the learner's hand onto an electric shock plate if he refused to place it there himself after giving a wrong answer- obedience dropped to 30%. In remote instruction variation, experimenter left the room and gave instructions to 25%Location - Milgram instructed variation in run-down office block rather than a prestigious yale uni. Setting of the baseline study. In this obedience fell to 47.5%. Uni environment gave the study legitimacy and authority. They were more obedient because they perceived that the experimenter shared this legitimacy and that obedience was expected. However quite high in the office block because people perceived the 'scientific nature' of the procedureUniform- experimenter wore lab coat as symbol of his authority. One variation, experimenter called away because of the procedure. Role was taken over by ordinary member of public (confederate). In normal clothes rather than a lab coat. Obedience rate dropped 20% the lowest of these variations. Uniforms encourage obedience- widely recognised symbols of authority, someone without has less right to expect obedience.
• ONE STRENGTH

  Other studies demonstrated the influence of situational variables on obedience. In the field experiment in New York city, Bickman (1974) had 3 confederates dress in different outfits jacket and tie, milkman's outfit and security guards. Confederates individually stood in the street and asked people to perform tasks such as picking up litter. people were twice as likely to obey the assistant dressed as a security guard than one dressed with jacket and tie. Supports the view that situational variables (uniform) does have a powerful effect on obedience.
• ANOTHER STRENGTH

  Milgram's research, his findings has been replicated in other cultures for instance, Rajamakes (1986) used a more realistic procedure than Milgram study obedience in Dutch ppts. Ppts were ordered to say stressful things in an interview to confederate desperate for job. 90% of them obeyed. The researchers also replicated findings concerning proximity. When the person giving orders wasn't present, obedience decreased dramatically.
• ONE LIMITATION

  Ppts may be aware the procedure was fake. Charles Holland (1968) made this criticism of Milgram's study. They point out this even more likely in his variations because of the extra manipulation of variables eg the variation of where the experimenter was replaced by a member of public.
• ANOTHER LIMITATION

  Replications of Milgram's aren't very 'cross - cultural'- Peter Smith and Michael Bond (1998) identified two replications between 1968 and 1985that took place in India and Jordan both culturally quite different from US whereas Spain, Australia were culturally similar to US eg similar notions about role of authority. Therefore may not be appropriate to conclude that Milgram's findings apply to people in all/most cultures.
• OBEDIENCE: SITAUTIONAL EXPLANATIONS

  Agentic state where we are feeling no personal responsibility for our behaviour because we believe to be acting for an authority figure i.e. as an agent. This frees us from the demands of our consciences and allows us to obey to destructive authority figure. eg Eichmann had been in charge of the Nazi death camps and his defence was that he was only obeying orders, this led to Milgram to propose that obedience to destructive authority occurs when a person don't take responsibility instead they believe they are acting for someone else (agent). Agent's aren't unfeeling puppets - experience high anxiety (moral strain)
• AUTONOMOUS STATE


  opposite of agentic state, autonomy means to be independent/free. A person in this state is free to behave according to their own principles and feels a sense of responsibility for their own actions. Milgram (1974) that agentic shift from autonomy to agency, occurs when a person perceives someone as an authority figure - having greater power.
• BINDING FACTORS


  Milgram observed that many of his ppts wanted to stop but seemed powerless to do so. Wondered why they were in agentic state. Binding factors - aspects of situation allow person to ignore the damaging effect of their behaviour and reduce the moral strain they are feeling. One strategy they use is shifting the responsibility to the victim eg he was foolish to volunteer/ denying damage they were doing to victims.
• LEGITIMACY OF AUTHORITY

  Exercise their authority appropriately, we learn acceptance of legitimate authority from childhood, parents, teachers, adults
• DESTRUCTIVE AUTHOURITY

  Problems arise when LOA becomes destructive. History shown that charismatic powerful leaders (Hitler, Stalin) can use their legitimate powers for destructive purposes, ordering people to behave in ways cruel and dangerous. In Milgram, when experimenter used pods to order ppts to behave in way that went against their consequences
• AGENTIC STATE - ONE STRENGTH

  Research support- Milgram studies' support the role of the agentic state in obedience, most of his ppts resisted giving the shocks at some point and often asked the experimenter questions about the procedure. One of these was who is responsible if the learner was harmed. When experimenter said I'm responsible the ppts often went through procedure quickly with no further objections. Showed that once ppts perceived that they were no longer responsible for their own behaviours, they acted more easily as experimenter's agent as Milgram suggested
• ONE LIMITATION

  limited explanation- agentic shift doesn't explain many research findings about obedience, eg doesn't explain findings of Steven Rank study. They found that 16/18 hospital nurses disobeyed orders from doctor to administer an excessive drug to patient, doctor was an obvious authority figure, but almost all the nurses remained autonomous as they did many of Milgram's ppts, suggests that at the best the agentic shift can only account for some situations of obedience.
• EVALUATION ON LEGITIMACY OF AUTHORITY

  One strength- useful account of cultural differences in obedience. Many studies show that countries differ in the degree to which people are obedient to authority. eg Wesley Killham and Leon Mann found 16% of Australian women went all the way up to 450 volts in Milgram style study. But David Mantel found a very different figure for German ppts- 85%. Shows that in some cultures authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimate and entitles to demand obedience from individuals, this reflects the ways that different societies are structured and how many kids are raised to perceive authority figures.