Social Influence

• What is social influence?

  The process by which individuals and groups change each other's attitudes and behaviors. Includes conformity, obedience and minority influence.
• What is conformity?


  A change in a person’s behaviour or opinions as a result of real or imagined pressure from a person or a group of people.
• What was Asch’s baseline procedure? (1951)

  > Asch devised a procedure to assess to what extent people would conform to the opinions of others, even in an unambiguous situation.

  > 123 American men, in groups with other apparent ppts.

  > saw two large white cards -> line X on left card = standard line, line A,B and C = comparison lines (one clearly same length as X, others substantially different)

  > In each trial, had to say which comparison line was same length as standard line X.
• What 3 variables did Asch investigate?

  • group size

  unanimity

  • task difficulty
• Asch’s variables: Group size

  
  

  >test: varied the number of confederates from 1-15 (total group = 2-16)

  >found: curvilinear relationship between group size and conformity rate. -> conformity increased with group size but only up to a point. - 3 confederates, conformity to wrong answer rose to 31.8%. More confederates made little difference -> conformity level soon levelled off.

  >suggests: most people are very sensitive to the views of others because just 1 or 2 confederates was enough to sway opinion.
• Asch’s variables: Unanimity

  > test: introduced confederate who disagreed with other confederates. one variation = gave the correct answer, another variation = gave a wrong answer.

  >found: genuine participant conformed less often in presence of a dissenter. Rate decreased to less than a quarter of the level it was when majority was unanimous. The presence of dissenter appeared to free the naive participant to behave more independently -> true even when dissenter disagreed with genuine participant.

  > suggests: influence of majority depends to a large extent on it being unanimous.
• Asch’s variables: Task difficulty

  > test: increased difficulty of line-judging task by making standard line and comparison lines more similar to each other lengthwise -> harder for genuine participants to see differences between lines.

  > found: conformity increased -> may be situation is more ambiguous when task is harder. It’s unclear to participants what right answer is, making it natural to look to other people for guidance and assume their right, and your wrong (this is called informational social influence (ISI)).
• (-) artificial task:

  risk of demand characteristics.

  Fiske (2014) “Asch’s groups weren’t very groupy.” -> didn’t resemble groups we experience in everyday life -> findings can't be generalized to real-world situations, especially where consequences of conformity may be important.

  (-) All American men:

  research suggests women may be more conformist.

  USA is an individualist culture - other conformity studies in collectivist cultures (e.g. China) found higher conformity rates (Bond and Smith 1996) - means Asch’s findings tell us little about conformity in women and other cultures
• Strength of Asch’s study (with counterpoint)

  (+) research support (task difficulty):

  Lucas (2006) - participants solved ‘easy’ and ‘hard’ math problems -> given answers from three other students (not real). Higher conformity with harder problems - shows Asch was correct = task difficulty as conformity variable.

  (-) counterpoint:

  Lucas’s study found that conformity = more complex than Asch suggested.

  Those with high confidence in maths, conformed less on harder problems than those with low confidence - shows individual-level factor can influence conformity, which Asch didn't research.
• What are the different types of conformity?

  • identification
  • compliance
  • internalisation
• What is Internalisation?

  A deep type of conformity where we take on the majority view because we accept it as correct. Leads to a far-reaching and permanent change in behaviour, even in absence of the group.
• What is Identification?

  A moderate type of conformity where we act in same way as group because we value it and want to be part of it. But don’t necessarily agree with everything the group/necessary believes. Publicly change opinion/behaviour to be accepted by group, even if don’t agree privately with everything the group stands for.
• What is Compliance?

  A superficial and temporary type of conformity where we outwardly go along with the majority view, but privately disagree with it. The change in behaviour only lasts as long as group is monitoring us.
• What are the two explanations for conformity?

  • Informational social influence (ISI)
  • Normative social influence (NSI)
• Who developed the two-process theory?

  Deutsch and Gerard (1955)
• What is Informational social influence (ISI)?

  > explanation of conformity: says we agree with opinion of majority as we believe they are correct as we are uncertain and want to be right as well.

  > cognitive process - to do with what you think.

  >may lead to internalisation (permanent change in opinion/behaviour).

  >most likely to occur in situations that are new to a person - they don’t know what is right. Or where there is some ambiguity - isn’t clear what’s right. Also occurs in crisis situations - decisions have to made quickly so assume group is more likely to be right.
• What is Normative social influence (NSI)?

  > explanation of conformity: we agree with opinion of majority as want to gain social approval and be liked, as we don't like to appear foolish and prefer to gain social approval rather than rejection -> making this an emotional process.

  > may lead to compliance (temporary change in opinions/behaviour).

  > likely to occur in situations where strangers make you feel concerned about rejection, or with people you know - concerned about social approval of friends. May be more pronounced in stressful situations -> have greater need for social support.
• Research support for NSI

  (+) evidence supports it’s an explanation of conformity.

  E.g. when Asch interviews his ppts, some said they conformed because they felt self-conscious giving correct answer, and were afraid of disapproval. When they wrote answers down, conformity fell to 12.5% - giving answers privately meant there was no normative group pressure.

  shows: some conformity is due to desire of not being rejected by group for disagreeing with them.
• Research support for ISI

  (+) research support: Lucas (2006).

  found: conformed more to incorrect answers in harder questions - easier problems: ‘knew their own minds’ but ambiguous (unclear) situations: didn’t want to be wrong - relied on answers

  shows: valid explanation
• Limitation on NSI and ISI research

  (-) unclear on ISI or NSI in research

  Asch found conformity reduced when one other dissenting ppt. They reduce power of NSI (social support) or reduce power of ISI (alternative resource of social information). Both = possible explanations.

  Therefore, hard to separate ISI and NSI - both processes work together in most conformity situations.
• Individual differences in NSI

  (-) NSI doesn’t predict conformity in every case.

  Some are concerned with being liked with others - called nAffiliators - have a strong need for ‘affiliation’ (want to relate to other people).

  McGhee and Teevan (1967) found: students who were nAffiliators = more likely to conform.

  Shows: NSI underlies conformity for some people more than it does for others. There are individual differences in conformity that can’t be fully explained by one general theory of situational pressures.
• What are social roles?


  The parts people play as members of various social groups. examples = parent, child, student, passenger, etc.

  These are accompanied by expectations we and others have of what is appropriate behaviour in each role - caring, obedient, industrious, etc.
• What was Zimbardo’s experiment?

  The Stanford prison experiment (1973)
• Why did Zimbardo conduct his experiment?

  There’d been many prison riots in America - he wanted to know why prison guards behave brutally was it because they had sadist personalities or was it their social role that created such behaviour?
• The Stanford prison experiment (SPE)

  mock prison in Stanford University.

  21 male student volunteers - ‘emotionally stable’ - randomly assigned role - encouraged to conform to social roles.

  Uniforms: prisoners - loose smock, cap, identified by number.

  Guards - uniform, wooden club, handcuffs and mirror shades -> loss of personal identity - more likely to conform to social roles.

  Instructions about behaviour: Prisoners encouraged to identify with their role by several procedures - could ‘apple for parole’.

  Guards - reminded they had complete power over prisoners.
• Findings related to social roles (SPE)


  Guards (G) took their roles enthusiastically, treat prisoners (P) harshly. P rebelled - rip uniform, shouting, swearing at guards -> retaliated with fire extinguishers.

  Harassed P constantly - show their powerlessness, e.g. frequent head counts

  G highlighted difference of social roles (punishment)

  P became subdued, depressed and anxious, 3 released early.

  G identified more closely with role- behaviour became brutal and aggressive, with some appearing to enjoy the power they had over prisoners.

  Ended after 6 days instead of intended 14.
• Conclusions related to social roles (SPE)

  Social roles had a strong influence on individuals behaviour.

  Guards - brutal, prisoners - submissive.

  roles easily taken on by all participants - even volunteers who came to perform specific functions (such as ‘prison chaplain’) - behaved as if they were in a prison rather than an psychological study.
• Strength of the Stanford prison experiment


  (+) control over key variables: example = the participants.

  Emotionally stable individuals, randomly assigned to the roles = researchers ruled out individual personality differences as explanation of findings. If guards and prisoners behaved very differently, but were in those roles only by chance, their behaviour must be due to the role itself.

  This control increased the internal validity of study - more confident in drawing conclusions about influence of roles on conformity.
• Limitations of the Stanford prison experiment

  (-) not realistic: play-acted based on stereotypes ?- p rioted due to this, suggests: finding tell us little about conformity in actual prisons

  (+): did behave like prison was real, conv abt prison life. impossible to leave SPE before ‘sentences’ over. suggests: did replicate social roles - high degree of internal validity.

  (-)exaggerated power to influence behaviour: only 1/3 of g behaved in brutal manner, 1/3 applied rules fairly, rest actively tried to help and support p. suggests: minimised influence of dispositional factors
• What is obedience? 


  A form of social influence in which an individual follows a direct order. The person issuing the order is usually a figure of authority, who has the power to punish when obedient behaviour isn’t forthcoming.
• Milgrams research (why he did it?)

  Milgram (1963) designed baseline procedure to asses obedience levels.

  Procedure adapted in later variations by Milgram and baseline findings were used to make comparisons.

  He wanted to know why such a high proportion of German population obeyed Hitler’s commands - one possible explanation was Germans were different from people from other countries, perhaps more obedient.
• Milgram’s baseline procedure

  40 American men volunteers - study at Yale University, USA, supposed on memory.

  Milgram introduced each volunteer to another participant (a confederate) - drew lots: see who would be ‘teacher’ (T) and ‘learner’ (L) - fixed draw so participant always T. Also an ‘experimenter’ (E) (confederate, dressed in grey lab coat).

  T couldn’t see L but could hear him. T gave L electric shock every time they made mistake on memory task. Shocks increased per mistake in 15-volt steps up to 450 volts - shocks = fake but labelled to suggest they were increasingly dangerous.
• Milgram’s baseline findings

  Every participant delivered shocks up to 300 volts - 12.5% (5 ppts) stopped at 300 volts and 65% continued to highest level of 450 volts, I.e. were fully obedient.

  Milgram collected qualitative data including observations: participants showed signs of extreme tension; many were seen to sweat, tremble, stutter, bite their lips, groan and dig their fingernails into their hands; three even had ‘full-blown uncontrollable seizures’.
• Milgram’s conclusions

  Concluded German people are not ‘different’.

  American participants were willing to obey orders even when they might harm another person.

  He suspected there were certain factors in situations that encouraged obedience, so conducted further studies to investigate these.
• Strength of Milgram’s research

  (+) research support: findings replicated in game show. ppts believed they were contestants in pilot episode for new show - paid to give (fake) electric shocks (ordered by presenter) to other ppts (actors) in front of studio audience.

  80% delivered to max shock, 460 volts to apparent unconscious man - almost identical to Milgram’s ppts; nervous laughter, nail-biting and other signs of anxiety.

  support Milgram’s findings about obedience to authority, demonstrates findings weren’t due to special circumstances.
• Limitations of Milgram’s research

  (-) low internal validity: 75% believed shocks=genuine. argued ppts play-acted. listened to tapes of ppts, 1/2 believed shocks were real, Two-thirds=disobedient. suggests: demand characteristics

  (+) ppts gave shock to puppy in response to orders. Despite real distress, 54% males and 100% females delivered shock - effects genuine

  (-)Alternative interpretations: ppts obeyed to first three verbal prods. disobeyed to fourth - social identity theory - only obeyed when identify to scientific aims. shows: SIT provide valid interpretation of Milgram’s findings.
• What are situational variables?

  They are features of the immediate physical and social environment which may influence a persons behaviour. The alternative is dispositional variables where behaviour is explained in terms of personality.
• What three situational variables did Milgram research?

  proximity

  • location
  • uniform
• Milgram: Proximity


  baseline study: T could hear L but not see then - 65%

  proximity variation: T and L same room - 40%.

  touch proximity variation: T forced L hand onto ’electroshock plate’ when refused to answer question - 30%.

  remote instruction variation: E left room and gave instructions to T by telephone - 20.5%.

  Explanation: decreased proximity allows people to psychologically distance themselves from consequences of actions - when T and L physically separated, T less aware of harm they were causing to another person=more obedient.
• Milgram: location

  conducted variation in run-down office block rather than the prestigious Yale University setting of baseline study - obedience fell to 47.5%.

  Explanation: prestigious university environment gave his study legitimacy and authority. Ppts more obedient in this location because they perceived the experimenter shared this legitimacy and that obedience was expected. However, obedience was still quite high in the office block because the participants perceived the ‘scientific’ nature of the procedure.