2: Social influence

• Compliance


  Going along with others in public, but not changing private opinions or behaviour.

  It only results in temporary change and usually stops in private settings.
• Internalisation


  When a person genuinely accepts the group's position, resulting in a private as well as a public change of opinions or behaviour.

  Likely to be permanent as attitudes have been internalised.
• Asch's Variations: Presence of Allies

  Asch introduced a further confederate who went against the group regularly.

  Conformity dropped to 5%

  The influence of the majority depends to some extent on the group being unanimous.
• Identification


  When a person changes their public behaviour and their private beliefs, but only in the presence of the group they are identifying with.

  This could be to meet the demands of a social situation or professional role - it is usually a short-term change and is often the result of normative social influence.
• Normative Social Influence


  May have conformed as they didn't want to be mocked or stand out.
• Informational Social Influence


  May have conformed as they actually thought the others were correct.
• Asch's Method:


  - 6 participants (1 naïve)

  - Lab experiment in USA

  - Shown 3 lines and had to say which was the same length as a 4th line

  - Confederates say wrong answer to try and influence the naïve participant
• Asch's Results:


  - Naïve subjects conform to the majority 37% of the time

  - 75% of the naïve subjects conform at least once
• Asch's Method: Evaluation


  Criticism = Biased sample - only used males, not a random sample. Artificial test.

  Ethical Issues = Protection from deception, right to withdraw.

  Positives = Proved people do conform to social influences.
• Asch's Variations: Task Difficulty

  - Asch made the task more difficult so the lines were more similar in length

  - Conformity increased as subjects are more likely to believe others are correct when the task becomes harder - they look for guidance
• Asch's Variations: Group Size

  6 confederates = 37% conformity

  2 or 3 confederates = increased conformity

  Adding more confederates doesn't appreciably increase conformity.
• Ethical Issues: The debrief

  When participants have to be misled or deceived in an experiment, the experiment has to take the time to debrief them at the end of the study.

  This involves:

  - Explaining true aims

  - Checking if they're okay

  - Checking if they need further support e.g. counselling

  - Asking if they are okay to have they results used
• Flexibility


  Preparing to adapt point of view and accept arguments

  
  

  Strike a balance between consistency and flexibility
• Commitment


  Minority may engage in extreme activities to draw attention to viewers
• Consistency


  Increases the amount of interest from others

  
  

  People Rethink their own views
• Limitations of zimbardo


  Ethical implications-

  Humiliated prisoners

  Deinviduated

  Too involved as superintendent
• The Agentic state


  Failing to take responsibility because we believe that we are acting on behalf of an authority figure

  
  

  Our consciences allow us to obey a destructive authority figure
• Legitimate authority


  A person has the right to tell you what to do

  Position of power

  Holds authority
• Snowball effect


  Minority viewpoint becomes dominant

  Via informational social influence
• Authoritarian personality


  a personality type characterized by a disposition to treat authority figures with unquestioning obedience and respect.
• Social support


  People may resist pressures to conform or obey if they have support from a dissenter (someone who disagrees with the majority or refuses to obey)
• locus of control


  an individual's perception about the underlying main causes of events in his/her life. Or, more simply: Do you believe that your destiny is controlled by yourself or by external forces (such as fate, god, or powerful others)?
• Social influence processes in social change

  commitment, consistency, flexibility, and eventually a "snowball effect."
• Milgram's procedure


  The participants were "randomly allocated" to be teachers while a stooge was the learner. Participants were told to administer voltage between 15-450V whenever the learner got a question wrong. When participants showed reluctance the researchers gave verbal prompts.
• Milgram's results


  82.5 percent of participants continued administering shocks; of those, 79 percent continued to the shock generator's end, at 450 volts and they all obeyed up to 300V
• Milgram's evaluation


  Milgram's study has been criticised for lacking ecological validity. Milgram tested obedience in a laboratory, which is very different to real-life situations of obedience, where people are often asked to follow more subtle instructions, rather than administering electric shocks
• Milgrams variations (proximity)


  Milgram found that proximity affected levels of obedience. When the teacher and learner were in the same room, the percentage of participants who administered the full 450-volt shock fell from 65% to 40%.
• Milgrams variation (uniform)


  The experimenter (wearing the grey lab coat) pretended to have to leave the room. This original experimenter was replaced by a man in plain clothes. In this variation only 20 % of participants went up to 450 volts
• Milgrams variation (location)


  Milgram found that location affected the level of obedience in his research. When he conducted a variation in a run-down office block he found that the percentage of participants who went to 450 volts on the 'electric shock' generator fell from 65% (at the prestigious Yale University) to 47.5%.