SOCIAL INFLUENCE

• CONFORMITY RESEARCH?

  AO1:

  • Asch - normative social influence, compliance
  • 123 American male undergraduates
  • obvious, line comparison, 37%, 75%, 1%
  • post-experiment interviews, avoid disapproval
  • group size (3 increased to 33%, plateau, decrease at 15)
  • unanimity (decreased to 5%)
  • task difficulty (increased - informational social influence, Jenness)

  AO3:

  + laboratory experiment (cause and effect, standardised, easily replicated) but demand characteristics (internal validity)

  + RWA: PRIEBE + SPINK (4% longer, 16% shorter), environment

  -. PERRIN + SPENCER (McCarthyism, Britain, less than 1%)
• CONFORMITY EXPLANATIONS?

  NORMATIVE SOCIAL INFLUENCE

  • social reward, avoid rejection
  • compliance

  + ASCH (37%, 75%, 1%) but demand characteristics (internal validity)

  + RWA: PRIEBE + SPINK (4% longer, 16% shorter)

  -. PERRIN + SPENCER (McCarthyism, Britain, less than 1%)

  INFORMATIONAL SOCIAL INFLUENCE

  • knowledge
  • ambiguous situations
  • internalisation

  + JENNESS (beans) but no social pressure

  + RWA: environment
• TYPES OF CONFORMITY RESEARCH?

  COMPLIANCE

  • public, normative social influence, social reward, rejection
  • Asch
  • 123 American male undergraduates
  • 37%, 75%, 1%, post-experiment interviews, avoid disapproval

  + PRIEBE + SPINK (4% longer, 16% shorter)

  -. PERRIN + SPENCER (McCarthyism, Britain, less than 1%)

  IDENTIFICATION

  • true but liked, value group
  • Zimbardo
  • 24 male college students
  • conformed to social roles, 90% conversations

  + RWA: prison reform

  + high internal validity (control, individual differences) but REICHER + HASLAM (demand characteristics)

  -. volunteer sampling + beta bias (authoritarian, aggression, empathy) but (workers)

  -. low ecological validity but 90%

  -. ethical issues

  INTERNALISATION

  • privately, informational social influence
  • Asch variation
  • task difficulty, conformity increased, ambiguous situation

  -. internal validity, demand characteristics
• CONFORMITY TO SOCIAL ROLES?

  AO1:

  • part as member of social group, meet expectations
  • Zimbardo
  • controlled, overt, participant observation
  • volunteer sampling, questionnaire
  • mock arrest, uniforms
  • 6 days
  • adopted social roles
  • 90% conversations

  AO3:

  + RWA: prison reform

  + high internal validity (control, individual differences) but REICHER + HASLAM (demand characteristics)

  -. volunteer sampling + beta bias (authoritarian, aggression, empathy) but workers

  -. low ecological validity but 90%

  -. ethical issues
• MILGRAM'S OBEDIENCE RESEARCH?

  AO1:

  • direct order, authority figure
  • volunteer sampling, 40 male
  • controlled observation
  • 100% 300V, 65% 450V

  AO3:

  -. beta bias (volunteer, disposition) but variation with women (similar rates)

  -. lacks internal validity (demand characteristics) but stress, post-experiment interviews

  -. lacks ecological validity but HOFLING (natural, 95%) but RANK + JACOBSON (still not natural, 11%)

  -. unethical but post-experiment interviews, debrief
• SITUATIONAL VARIABLES?

  PROXIMITY

  • same room, 40%
  • hand onto plate, 30%
  • phone orders, 21%

  LOCATION

  • run-down office, 48%

  UNIFORM

  • everyday clothes, 20%
  • 'teacher', 92.5%
  • dissenting 'teacher', 10%

  + BICKMAN (twice as likely to obey security)

  AO3:

  -. beta bias (volunteer, disposition) but variation with women (similar rates)

  -. lacks internal validity (demand characteristics) but stress, post-experiment interviews

  -. unethical but post-experiment interviews, debrief
• OBEDIENCE EXPLANATIONS?

  LEGITIMACY OF AUTHORITY

  • situational
  • socialised to recognise, hierarchy, institutions
  • trust agreed by society

  + HOFLING (95%) but RANK + JACOBSON (11%)

  + MILGRAM (65% lab coat, 20% normal) but still 20%

  + BICKMAN (twice as likely, security) but still 30%

  AGENTIC STATE

  • situational
  • mindset in hierarchy, obey and associate, autonomous, dependent
  • no responsibility

  + MILGRAM (21% phone, 92.5% teacher) but Nazis without authority figure

  AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY

  • dispositional
  • social system, strong ruler
  • HEROIC PS

  + ADORNO (F-scale, 2000 working class Americans) but not account for entire social groups

  + ELMS + MILGRAM (higher, less close to father) but no cause and effect (other factors, education)
• AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY?

  AO1:

  • dispositional
  • social system
  • strong ruler
  • HEROIC PS
  • Adorno - F-scale

  AO3:

  + ADORNO (F-scale, 2000 working class Americans) but not account for entire social groups

  + ELMS + MILGRAM (higher, less close to father) but no cause and effect (other factors, education)

  -. fails to consider situational factors
• RESISTANCE TO SOCIAL INFLUENCE EXPLANATIONS?

  SOCIAL SUPPORT

  • situational
  • dissenter, breaks unanimity

  + ASCH (63%, 95%) but internal validity, demand characteristics

  + MILGRAM (35%, 90%) but volunteer sampling, fails to consider dispositional factors, OLINER + OLINER (internal, resist Nazi pressures)

  -. mediating factors, ALLEN + LEVINE (supporter status, 60%, 36%, 5%)

  LOCUS OF CONTROL

  • dispositional
  • Rotter
  • internal more likely to resist conformity (self-confident, achievement orientated, higher intelligence, less social approval)

  + OLINER + OLINER (internal, resist Nazi pressures)

  -. situational factors (MILGRAM: 35%, 90%/ ASCH: 63%, 95%)

  -. inconsistent, SCHURZ (80%, no link) but more responsibility
• MINORITY INFLUENCE RESEARCH?

  AO1:

  • consistency, commitment, flexibility
  • Moscovici (consistency)
  • 172 American females
  • laboratory experiment
  • all 36 green (8%, 32%), 24 green/ 12 blue (1%), no confederates (0.25%)

  AO3:

  -. beta bias, low population validity (females more likely to conform)

  -. lacks ecological validity but high control reduces effect of individual differences as standardised

  -. CLARKE (200+ college students, evidence, 4 needed)
• SOCIAL INFLUENCE PROCESSES IN SOCIAL CHANGE?

  AO1:

  • replaced with new norms
  • Snowball effect, consistency/ flexibility,
  • Augmentation Principle, commitment, Suffragette prison/ hunger strikes
  • Social Cryptomnesia
  • obedience, socialised, laws/ policies, equal marriage
  • ISI, convince minority to internalise majority beliefs, segregation following research

  AO3:

  + ASCH (37%, 75%, 1%, task difficulty), JENNESS but PERRIN + SPENCER (McCarthyism, Britain, less than 1%)

  + MOSCOVICI (8%, 32%, 1%) but CLARKE (evidence)

  -. laboratory experiments, lack ecological validity, disproportionate causes