1. Social Influence

• Conformity is defined as 'yielding to group pressures' or 'a change in a person's behaviour or opinion as a result of real or imagined pressure from a person or group of people'
• Kelman proposed 3 types of conformity:

  • Internalisation: Making the beliefs, values, attitude, and behaviour of the group your own
  • Identification: Temporary change of behaviour and beliefs only in the presence of a group
  • Compliance: Following other people's ideas to gain approval or avoid disapproval
• Informational Social Influence: Conforming because one wants to be right, usually leads to internalisation

  • Example: Fein et al. study on US presidential candidate voting
• Normative Social Influence: Conforming because one wants to be liked and be part of a group

  • Example: Smoking due to being surrounded by smokers
  • Link to bullying: Garandeau and Cillissen study on manipulation by a bully
• Variables affecting conformity in Asch's study:

  • Group size: More likely to conform in larger groups
  • Unanimity of majority: More likely to conform when the group is unanimous
  • Task difficulty: More likely to conform when the task is difficult
• Asch's study:

  • Participants: 123 male American undergraduates in groups of 6
  • Aim: To investigate conformity and majority influence
  • Findings: 36.8% conformed, 25% never conformed, 75% conformed at least once
  • Factors affecting level of conformity: Group size, unanimity, and task difficulty
• Zimbardo's study:

  • Participants: 24 American male undergraduate students
  • Aim: To investigate conformity to social roles in a simulated prison
  • Findings: Prisoners and guards adopted roles quickly, guards harassed prisoners, prisoners internalized roles
• Explanations for Obedience:

  • Agentic State: Shift from autonomous to agentic state, agency theory
  • Legitimacy of Authority: Credibility of authority figure
• Legitimacy of authority:

  • Describes how credible the figure of authority is
  • People are more likely to obey if the authority figure is seen as morally good/right and legitimate
  • Students are more likely to listen to parents or teachers than unknown adults
  • In Milgram's study, the experimenter was seen as legitimate due to being a scientist, known for being knowledgeable and responsible (expert authority)
• Weaknesses of Milgram's study:

  • Lacks ecological validity
  • Demand characteristics affected the study
  • Participants may have changed behavior to please the experimenter or due to being observed
  • Participants claimed to act based on role expectations rather than genuine adoption
  • Lacks population validity as the sample only consisted of American male students
  • Findings may not be generalizable to other genders and cultures, such as collectivist cultures like China or Japan
• Ethical issues in Milgram's study:

  • Lack of fully informed consent due to deception
  • Participants were not protected from stress, anxiety, emotional distress, and embarrassment
  • Psychological harm was evident, with some participants showing signs of distress and needing to be released
  • Study would be deemed unacceptable by modern ethical standards
• Situational factors affecting obedience:

  • Appearance of the authority figure, location/surroundings, and proximity play a role
  • Participants are more likely to obey someone in a uniform, in a prestigious location, and in close proximity to the authority figure
  • Obedience was higher when the experimenter wore a lab coat and when in the same room as the participant
• Factors affecting obedience in Milgram's study:

  • Proximity: Participants obeyed more when the experimenter was in the same room
  • Location: Participants obeyed more when the study was conducted at a prestigious university
  • Uniform: Participants obeyed more when the experimenter wore a lab coat
• Evaluation of Milgram's study:

  • Strengths include thorough debriefing, real-life applications, high internal validity, high replicability, and external validity supported by other studies
  • Weaknesses include ethical issues, psychological harm to participants, socially sensitive issues, lack of internal validity, and lack of ecological validity
• Dispositional Explanations for Obedience:

  • Authoritarian personality is a dispositional explanation for obedience
  • People with this trait are more likely to obey authority figures
  • Traits can be measured using the F-scale
  • Authoritarian personality believes in strict submission to authority figures and suppression of personal beliefs
  • Coined by Theodore Adorno, individuals with this trait have a fixed cognitive style and do not challenge stereotypes
• Adorno believed in the psychodynamic theory, where a person's personality traits and attitudes as an adult stem from childhood influences, such as those of their parents
• Child with overly harsh and disciplinarian parents may displace their anger onto 'inferior' others through scapegoating
• Reaction formation: child idolises parents on the surface but fears and despises them unconsciously, leading to displaced anger towards weaker targets like minority groups
• Serious methodological issues associated with the F-scale, particularly susceptible to acquiescence bias, affecting the validity and reliability of findings
• Authoritarian Personality may not explain all cases of obedience across the political spectrum, neglecting left-wing authoritarianism and similarities between far-right and far-left views
• Authoritarian Personality lacks ecological validity in explaining real-life examples of mass obedience, such as during Nazi occupation in Germany
• Locus of control: measurement of individual's sense of control over their lives, influencing conformity and obedience
• Internal locus of control leads to less conformity and obedience, as individuals take more responsibility for their actions and decisions based on their moral code
• External locus of control leads to more conformity and obedience, as individuals believe events in their lives are beyond their control
• Research supports link between locus of control and likeliness to conform, with those scoring high on external locus of control being more easily persuaded
• Research also supports link between locus of control and social responsibility, with rescuers in Holocaust having internal locus of control and higher social responsibility
• Locus of control explanation is only valid for novel situations, as previous experiences are more influential in decision-making
• Asch found that social support can reduce conformity levels, providing confidence in one's own perception and encouraging resistance to obedience
• Minority Influence: Consistency, Commitment, and Flexibility are key factors in influencing the majority
• Moscovici's study demonstrates the role of consistency in minority influence, with consistent minority views exerting more influence on the majority
• Commitment of the minority suggests validity of their view, encouraging exploration and potential influence on the majority
• Flexibility of the minority makes their argument more appealing and reasonable to the majority, increasing chances of influence
• Research shows greater internalisation of minority views compared to majority views, indicating the power of minority influence in changing opinions
• Moscovici's study lacks mundane realism and ecological validity due to reliance on artificial tasks and stimuli
• Social change strategies include minority influence, internal locus of control, and disobedience to authority, leading to a shift in beliefs or behavior of an entire population
• Social change through minority influence is a slow process with fragile effects, not always leading to long-standing changes in society
• Social barriers like stereotypes can hinder the effectiveness of minority influence and social change
• Role of minority influence is limited, as people are more likely to change their views if the majority view differs from their own, causing discomfort and deeper processing of change