Social influence

• 3 types of conformity

  Compliance

  Identification

  Internalisation
• Define compliance

  Simplest form of conformity.

  A temporary change in beliefs/behaviour externally but privately or internally disagree with it. Behaviour lasts only when the group is monitoring us.
• Define Identification

  Moderate type of conformity.

  Acting in the same way with a group because we value becoming apart of it. Public opinions are changed whether or not we agree with them privately
• Define Internalisation

  Extreme type of conformity.

  When a person permanently changes their public AND private beliefs. This is because attitudes have been internalised and does not change when the group is absent
• Explanations for conformity

  Informational Social Influence (ISI)

  Normative Social Influence (NSI)
• Define Conformity

  A change in a person's behaviour or opinions as a result of real or imagined social pressure from a person or group of people.
• Define/Explain ISI

  Conforming to a group who you believe has the better information out of fear of being wrong and desire of wanting to be correct. ISI is a cognitive process affecting how you think. May lead to INTERNALISATION

  SITUATIONS: Likely to happen in a situation that is new to a person/ambiguous where the right answer isn't clear. May also happen in a crisis situation where decisions have to be made quickly and someone is regarded as more of an expert.
• Define/Explain NSI

  Conforming to a group to gain social approval out of fear of rejection. Following the social norms that regulate the behaviour of groups. NSI is an emotional process. NSI may lead to COMPLIANCE

  SITUATIONS: Likely to happen in situations with strangers or people you know who may concern social approval. May be more pronounced in stressful situation where people have a need for social support.
• Research support for ISI

  Lucas et al (2006) asked students to give answers to mathematical problems that were either easy/difficult. Greater conformity to incorrect answers for difficult questions. Shows that people conform where they feel they don't know the answer in difficult situations.
• Research support for NSI

  Asch (1951) found that many of his ppts went along with the wrong answer because other people did. Many ppts said they felt self-conscious giving the correct answer when asked and afraid of disapproval.

  When writing answers instead of saying them aloud, conformity rates fell to 12.5%
• Group size


  Asch added more confederates, thus increasing the size of the majority.
• Unanimity


  The extent to which all the members of a group agree.
• Task difficulty


  Conformity increases during a more complex task because naive participants assume that the majority is more likely to be right. (ISI)
• Asch's Procedure (1956)


  Procedure:

  123 male American undergraduates tested.

  Shown a series of lines and seated around a table, always answered in the same order (real participant/naïve participant answered last)

  Confederates told to give the same incorrect answer 12/18 trials
• Asch's Findings

  Findings:

  On 12 trials, 33% of responses were incorrect, therefore conformed to the incorrect response given by the group.
• Asch's Variations


  Variations:

  writing it down, saying it out loud, having another candidate saying the correct answer along with the naïve participant
• Negatives of Asch's research

  -People are more likely to conform now in comparison to before (child of its time, Perrin and Spencer 1980)

  -All candidates were male, so therefore biased-Some knew about the research task and displayed demand characteristics

  -The test does not represent everyone, due to beliefs, upbringings and cultures-Asch’s test was carried out in the USA, individualistic culture (less likely to conform)
• The Stanford Prison Experiment (1973) ZIMBARDO


  -12 prisoners, 12 guards volunteers to recreate prison life for 2 weeks in a mock prison

  -Prisoners had 16 rules to follow

  -Prisoners were never addressed by names only numbers, were told what to do and when, followed a strict schedule while the guards had more freedom and authority

  -Randomly assigned

  -Operation shut down after 6 days

  -Tests the theory if evil is effected by the environment or whose in it

  -Conclusion that people with power are more like to become evil/abuse it
• Perrin and Spencer (1980)


  -Repeated Asch's original study with British engineers. Only 1 conformed out of 396 trials.

  -In a less conformist era and not in America
• The Stanford Prison Experiment Findings

  -Within 2 days prisoners rebelled against their treatment-Guards employed a divide-and-rule tactic, playing the prisoners against each other

  -Frequent headcounts, punishments, abuse from the guards

  -Prisoners eventually became derepressed, subdued

  -One prisoner was released on the first day after signs of psychological disturbance, two more on fourth day

  -Behaviour from guards elevated in brutality and aggression due to power dynamics
• TSE Conclusion (1973)


  All test subjects conformed to their roles. They were taken very seriously by participants as if it were a real prison.
• Negative evaluations TSE


  -Ethical issues such as psychological disturbance caused

  -Wasn’t accurate to say everyone conformed to their roles

  -Zimbardo took up two roles, therefore too involved with the experiment

  -Traumatic for some participants, being arrested in the night

  -Weak internal validity, participants could guess what the aim of the study was (counter argument would be the quantitative data 90% conversations were about prison life, 416 prisoners expressed it was real but run by psychologists)
• Positive evaluations TSE

  -Strong internal validity, good control over other variables such as choosing confederates with good emotional well-being

  -Strong study because it can be applied to Abhu Ghraib, real world application, powerful external validity
• Obedience


  A form of compliance that occurs when people follow direct commands, usually from someone in a position of authority
• Milgram's Obedience study (1963)


  -Lab Experiment, test based on the German extermination of Jews

  -Took place at Yale University

  -Met with a confederate experimenter dressed in a lab coat to show authority

  -40 males between 20-50-Shock generator between two people following a test/questions-15 to 450 volts (no shocks administered)

  -Experiment was rigged, ‘victim’/students responses were pre-recorded and false

  -Roles were not random, all confederates were given the ‘teacher’ role

  -Correct answer=no shock   Incorrect answer= shock, increasing the level of shock at each wrong answer
• Milgram's Findings (1963)


  -65% of participants shocked all the way to the highest voltage (450v)

  -12.5% of participants shocked to only 300 volts

  -84% glad to have participated

  -Even though some dissented, they continued to obey the observer who prompted them to give shocks

  -3 subjects has seizures
• Milgram's Conclusion (1963)


  -Under certain circumstances, most would obey orders that are against their conscience

  -When people experience a subordinate position in a dominance hierarchy, they become liable to lose feelings of empathy/compassion/morality

  -Atrocities (WW2) may be largely explained in terms of pressures to obey powerful authority
• Negatives of Milgram's study

  Low internal validity- Orne and Holland, demand characteristics due to ppts believing the shocks weren't real

  Gina Perry (2013) Many ppts in the recording expressed their doubts about the shocks

  Ethical issues- psychological trauma from situation

  Low ecological validity- scenario is not true to real life (mundane realism)
• Positives of Milgram's study

  High external validity- Hofling et al. - 21 out of 22 nurses obeyed unjustified demands by doctors on a ward (external validity, proving the theory of obedience under authoritarian roles)- Field experiment, providing a

  Replication- La Jeu de la Mort (The Game of Death, French TV show) 80% of participants gave maximum shock to an ‘unconscious man’. Behaviour was identical to the study (e.g. nail biting..)

  Application to real life- Abhu Graib
• Milgram's Variations:(SITUATIONAL VARIABLES)

  Proximity

  Location

  Uniform
• Proximity:

  • Teacher and learner seated in the same room.
  • 40% administered 450v.
  • Teacher forced the learner’s hand directly onto the shock plate.
  • 30% administered 450v experimenter had given the initial instructions they left the room. All subsequent instructions were provided over the phone.
  • 21% administered 450v
• Location


  Milgram conducted a variation in a run down building in Bridgeport, Connecticut.

  47.5% administered 450v

  This highlights the impact of location on obedience, with less credible locations resulting in a reduction in the level of obedience.
• Uniform


  Milgram examined the power of uniform in a variation where the experimenter was called away and replaced by another ‘participant’ in ordinary clothes, who was in fact another confederate. I

  n this variation, the man in ordinary clothes came up with the idea of increasing the voltage every time the leaner made a mistake.

  20% administered 450v
• Agentic state

  We feel no personal responsibility for our behaviour as we are acting on behalf of an authority figure. The shift from autonomy from agency is called 'agentic shift'
• Autonomous

  Opposite of agentic. Free to behave according to their own principles and are personally responsible for their actions.
• SITUATIONAL explanations of Obedience

  -Agentic and Autonomous state

  -Legitimacy of authority
• Binding factors 


  Aspects of situations that cause the person to ignore or minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour and thus reduced the 'moral strain' they are feeling.
• Legitimacy of authority 


  We are more likely to obey people who we perceive to have authority over us (e.g. police allowed to punish as due to the law/hierarchy)
• Destructive authority 


  Figures are able to use their legitimate power for destructive purposes and can order people to behave in callous ways. Destructive authority was clearly on show in Milgram's study when the experimenter used prods to order ppts to behave in certain ways.
• Negatives for Situational explanations for obedience (ST)

  -Limited explanation: the agentic shift doesn't explain why some of the ppts did *not* obey.

  -Agentic shift does not explain the findings from Holfing et al. It predicts that the nurses handed over responsibility to the doctor and experienced similar levels of anxiety. This was not the case.