Social Influence

• What is compliance?

  Publically changing behaviour whilst maintaining a different private view.

  Superficial, temporary change.

  Often due to desire for approval as a result of normative pressure.

  e.g. Asch's Line Study
• What is Internalisation?

  Publicly changing behaviour to fit in with the group while also agreeing with them privately.

  Deepest level of conformity.

  E.g. converting religion
• What is Identification?

  Occurs when someone conforms to the demands of a given social role in society.

  Extends over several aspects of external behaviour but there is no change in internal personal opinion.

  Behaviour/belief only lasts while in the presence of the group.

  E.g. Zimbardo's prison study, policeman, teacher
• What is Normative Social Influence?

  Group pressure leading to a desire to fit in with the group.

  Often associated with compliance.

  Some people have higher need for affiliation and will be more affected by normative social influence than others, in order to be liked.
• What is Informational Social Influence?

  When a person lacks knowledge of how to behave and looks to the group for guidance.

  Have a desire to be right and look to 'experts'.

  Often associated with internalisation.
• Aim of Asch's study

  Investigated whether people would conform to the majority in situations where the answer was obvious.
• Procedure of Asch's study

  123 male undergraduates.

  5-7 participants per group.

  Each group was presented with a standard line and 3 comparison lines.

  Participants had to say aloud which comparison line they thought matched the standard line in length.

  Each group only had one real participant, the remaining were confederates. The confederates were told to give the incorrect answer on 12 out of 18 trials.
• Results of Asch's study

  Around 32% of real participants conformed on the critical trial where the confederates gave the wrong answers.

  And, 75% of the sample conformed to the majority on at least one trial.

  Asch also conducted a control condition without confederates, where participants made errors less than 1% of the time, demonstrating the influence of the group.
• AO3 Evaluation of Asch's study

  Lacks ecological validity. Because it is based on people's perceptions of lines, this does not reflect the complexity of real life conformity.

  Sampling issues. Because it was carried out only on men. Therefore the sample was gender bias and the results cannot be applied to females. This means the sample lacks population validity.

  Ethical issues. Deception as participants were not told that the study was about conformity, therefore they could not give informed consent. However, if they were told, this would lead to demand characteristics and invalid results. Furthermore, it is possible that the participants may have felt embarrassed when the true nature of the study was revealed. Thus could potentially put them through some form of psychological harm. However, Asch did debrief at the end.
• Factors affecting conformity (No 1)

  In further trials, Asch changed the procedure (i.e. independent variables) to investigate which situational factors influenced the level of conformity (dependent variable).

  Group Size = Asch altered the number of confederates. The bigger the majority group (number of confederates), the more people conformed, but only up to a point.

  With one other person (confederate) in the group conformity was 3%, with two others it increased to 13%, and with three or more it was 32% . However, conformity did not increase much after the group size was about 4/5. Because conformity does not seem to increase in groups larger than four, this is considered the optimal group size.

  Brown and Byrne (1997) suggest that people might suspect collusion if the majority rises beyond three or four.
• Factors affecting conformity (No 2)

  Group Unanimity = A person is more likely to conform when all members of the group give the same answer.

  When one other person in the group gave a different answer from the others (the answer was not unanimous) conformity dropped. Asch found that the presence of just one confederate that goes against the majority choice can reduce conformity as much as 80%.
• Factors affecting conformity (No 3)

  Difficulty of task = When the comparison lines (e.g., A, B, C) were made more similar in length, it was harder to judge the correct answer and conformity increased.

  When we are uncertain, it seems we look to others for confirmation (ISI). The more difficult the task, the greater the conformity.
• Factors affecting conformity (No 4)

  Answer in Private = When participants were allowed to answer in private (so the rest of the group does not know their response) conformity decreases.

  This is because there are fewer group pressures and normative influence is not as powerful, as there is no fear of rejection from the group.
• What experiment studied conformity to social roles? (Identification)

  Zimbardo's prison experiment
• Aim of Zimbardo's study

  To investigate how readily people would conform to the social roles of guard and prisoner in a role-playing exercise that simulated prison life.
• Procedure of Zimbardo's study

  Controlled, participant, overt study.

  Converted a basement of the Stanford University psychology building into a mock prison.

  He advertised for students to play the roles of prisoners and guards for a fortnight- but ended early.

  Participants were randomly assigned to either the role of prisoner or guard in a simulated prison environment.

  Prisoners were 'arrested', blindfolded and stripsearched before being issued a uniform, and referred to by their number only- dehumanisation.

  Guards were issued a khaki uniform, whistles, handcuffs and dark glasses (to make eye contact with prisoners impossible).

  The guards worked shifts of eight hours each (the other guards remained on call). No physical violence was permitted.

  Zimbardo observed the behaviour of prisoners and guards (as a researcher) and also acted as a prison warden.
• Findings of Zimbardo's study

  Within hours of beginning the experiment, some guards began to harass prisoners. They behaved in a brutal and sadistic manner, apparently enjoying it. Other guards join in and prisoners were tormented.

  The prisoners adopted prisoner-like behaviour- talking about prison issues a great deal of the time, telling 'tales' on each other to guards and taking prison rules very seriously. With some even siding with the guards against other prisoners who did not obey the rules.

  As the prisoners became more submissive, the guards became more aggressive and assertive. They demanded greater obedience from the prisoners.
• AO3 Evaluation of Zimbardo's study (Part 1) 


  Demand characteristics could explain findings of study. Most guards later claimed they were simply acting. Because the guards and prisoners were playing a role their behaviour may not be influenced by the same factors which affect behaviour in real life. Meaning that the findings cannot be reasonably generalised to real life, e.g. prison settings. This means the study has low ecological validity.

  Lacks population validity. As the sample comprised of US male students. Therefore, the findings cannot be applied to female prisons or those from other countries. As America is Individualist (where people are generally less conforming) the results may be different in collectivist cultures (e.g. Asia)
• AO3 Evaluation of Zimbardo's study (Part 2)

  Practical real world application. Findings have altered the way US prisons are run. For example, juveniles accused of federal crimes are no longer housed before trial with adult prisoners (due to risk of violence against them).

  Ethical criticisms- Lack of fully informed consent by participants as Zimbardo himself did not know what would happen in the experiment (it was unpredictable). Also, the prisoners did not consent to being 'arrested' at home.
• AO3 Evaluation of Zimbardo's study (Part 3)

  P's in the role of prisoners were not protected from psychological harm, experiencing incidents of humiliation and distress. One prisoner had to be released after 36 hours because of signs of distress. And the study was cut short before the fortnight was over. However, in Zimbardo's defence the emotional distress experienced could not have been predicted from the outset. In addition, Zimbardo did conduct debriefing sessions for several years afterwards and concluded there was no lasting negative effects.
• AO3 Evaluation of Zimbardo's study (Part 4)

  A strength is the harmful treatment of participants led to formal recognition of ethical guidelines. Studies must now gain ethical approval before conducted. An ethics committee review whether the potential benefits of the research are justifiable in the light of possible risk of physical or psychological harm. They may request researchers make changes, or in extreme cases deny approval of the study.
• What is obedience?

  Obedience is a type of social influence where a person follows an order from another person who is usually an authority figure.
• Aim of Milgram's study

  To see whether people would obey a legitimate authority figure when given instructions to harm another human being.

  e.g. Germans in WW2
• Procedure of Milgram's study

  He conducted a lab experiment where two participants were assigned either the role of a teacher (always given to the true participant) or learner (confederate called Mr Wallace).

  Teacher and learner were put in separate rooms. The teacher was then asked by the experimenter (who wore a lab coat) to administer electric shocks (which were actually harmless) to the learner each time he gave the wrong answer. Those shocks increased every time the learner gave a wrong answer, from 15 to 450 volts.

  The experimenter (Mr Williams) wore a grey lab coat and his role was to give a series of orders/prods when the participant refused to administer a shock. There were 4 prods and if one was not obeyed then the next prod was read and so on.
• Prods/orders in Milgram's study

  Prod 1: Please Continue

  Prod 2: The experiment requires you to continue.

  Prod 3: It is absolutely essential that you continue.

  Prod 4: You have no other choice but to continue.
• Results of Milgram's study

  All participants went to 300 volts and 65% were willing to go all the way to 450 volts.

  Milgram did 18 variations of his study. All he did was alter the situation (IV) to see how this affected obedience (DV). For example, when the experimenter instructed and prompted the teacher by telephone from another room, obedience fell to 20.5%.
• AO3 Evaluation of Milgram's study

  Limitation: Lacked ecological validity. Because it was carried out in a lab under artificial conditions. This means that it might not be possible to generalise the finding to real life. BUT, it used standardised procedures as it was a lab study. Meaning it improves the reliability of the study and helps establish a causal relationship.

  Limitation: Gender bias. Milgram only used males in his study meaning we cannot generalise the results to females.

  Strength: The value that Milgram's study provided to social psychology. As it gives an insight into why people under the Nazi reign were willing to kill Jews when given orders to do so. Also highlights how we can be blind to obedience, often doing things without question.
• AO3 Ethical Evaluation of Milgram's study

  Deception: Participants actually believed they were shocking a real person, unaware that the learner was a confederate.

  However, Milgram argued that 'illusion is used when necessary in order to set the stage for the revelation of certain difficult-to-get-at-truths'.

  And in an interview afterwards, only 1.3% of participants said that they wished they had not been involved.

  Protection of participants: Participants were exposed to extremely stressful situations that may have the potential to cause psychological harm. Many P's were visibly distressed. Signs of tension included trembling, sweating etc and even seizures for 3 participants.

  But Milgram argued that these effects were only short term and once they were debriefed (and could see the confederate was OK) their stress levels decreased. Also followed up after a period of time to ensure that they came to no harm.
• What is the agentic state?

  The agency theory says that people will obey an authority figure when they believe that the authority will take responsibility for the consequences of their actions. This is supported by some aspects of Milgram's evidence.

  For example, when participants were reminded that they had responsibility for their own actions, almost none of them were prepared to obey.

  Another example of the agentic state involved a variation of Milgram’s study whereby participants could instruct an assistant (confederate) to press the switches.

  In this condition 92.5% shocked to the maximum 450 volts. This shows when there is less personal responsibility obedience increases.
• Situational factors which affect obedience

  Uniform - Milgram's experimenter wore a lab coat (symbol of scientific expertise) which gives him high status. Therefore supports the legitimacy of his authority.

  When the experimenter wore everyday clothes, obedience was very low.

  Location - Milgram's experiment was conducted at Yale, a prestigious university in America. This status gave the study credibility and respect from participants, making them more likely to obey.

  When the experiment was moved to a set of run down offices, obedience dropped to 47.5%.

  Proximity - People are more likely to obey an authority figure in close proximity. In one variation of Milgram's study, the experimenter instructed and prompted the teacher by telephone from another room, obedience fell to 20.5%, compared to when the experimenter was in the same room.
• Dispositional factors which affect obedience

  Adorno felt that personality (a dispositional factor) explained obedience more than environmental (situational) factors.

  He proposed the authoritarian personality- a person who favours an authoritarian social system, is very aware of social status, and admires obedience to authority figures.

  An individual with the authoritarian personality is hostile to those who are of inferior status, but obedient to people with high status.

  They have a strict adherence to conventional norms, an intolerance of ambiguity and a black-and-white world view.
• Adorno et al's study

  Investigated 2000 middle class white Americans.

  Found those with higher F-scale scores indeed showed the traits of authoritarian personality:

  They were more prejudiced.

  Viewed society as needing strong leader to eradicate evil.

  Inflexible in their outlook.
• AO3 Evaluation of Adorno's study

  He found many significant correlations but correlation is not causation. We must consider other explanations like legitimacy of authority- status etc.

  During WW2, many Germans displayed obedient behaviour but it is unlikely that the majority of the population possessed an authoritarian personality. Social identity theory may be more appropriate (people identify with groups they are apart of and discriminate against ones they are not).

  Theory lacks internal validity as it does not consider situational variables. For example, prejudice may be caused by poor standard of education as a child.

  Sample was biased- lacks population validity as demographic of participants was the same, therefore findings cannot be generalised.

  F-Scale = politically biased, F stands for fascist, leading closed questions, acquisition bias (questions worded in same direction require same response leading to fatigue effects)
• What is resistance to social influence and what are two resisting factors?

  Resisting social influence means not yielding to pressures to conform or obey.

  Two factors that help people resist are the presence of social support and an individuals locus of control.
• What is social support?

  Having an ally or seeing someone else resist can strengthen an individual's ability to withstand group pressure or authority pressure.
• Social support- Resisting conformity

  Shown in Asch's conformity experiments, if one of the confederates disagreed with the majority (even if it was a different wrong answer or the correct answer) the participants conformity dropped to about 1/4 of its previous level.

  Also, one dissenter broke the unanimity and provided a model of independent behaviour, making it easier for the participant to follow their own conscience.

  The ally's dissent confirms the participants own perceptions and reduce normative pressure.
• Social support- Resisting obedience

  In Milgram's obedience variations, when the participants were in a team of three teachers (two of whom were confederates who refused to continue at certain points) the obedience level of participants who continued to 450V dropped to 10%.

  The disobedient confederates act as a model for rebellion. This peer support to stand up to authority made it far easier for participants to defy orders.
• Why does social support work?

  An ally reduces fear of isolation (NSI is reduced because you're not the only deviant) therefore less worried about fitting in.

  Also provides an alternative viewpoint (ISI because they provide information that challenges majority).

  Therefore, social support undermines the legitimacy of authority and majority pressure, giving individuals courage to resist.
• What is locus of control?

  How much control a person feels they have over their own behaviour.

  A person can either have an internal or external locus of control.

  People with a high internal locus of control = See themselves as having a great deal of personal control over their behaviour and take responsibility for their actions. Tend to be more confident, more achievement-oriented and less needful of social approval.

  People with a high external locus of control = See their behaviour as a result of external influences or luck. Believe it is controlled by fate. More likely to conform or obey, as they attribute what happens to external pressure rather than their own agency.

  Rotter = people with internal locus of control are better at resisting social pressure to conform or obey, perhaps because they feel responsible for their actions.
• What is minority influence?

  Occurs when a small group (minority) influences the opinion of a much larger group (majority).

  It often leads to internalisation, though this happens gradually.

  Key processes in making minority influence effective are consistency, commitment and flexibility.