Social influence

• Social influence definition:

  Human behaviour as influenced by other people and the social context in which this occurs.
• Conformity definition:

  A type of social influence involving a change in belief or behaviour in order to be in line with a group ( in response to real or imagined group pressure) " yield to group pressures "
• Explanations of conformity:

  Informational Social influence ( ISI ) 


  Conforming to be right

  Ambiguous situations

  permanent change in opinion

  Public and privet acceptance

  Leads to Internalisation ( type of conformity )
• Explanations of conformity:

  Normative Social Influence ( NSI )


  Conforming to be liked

  Unambiguous situation

  Public not privet acceptance

  temporary change in opinion

  Leads to compliance ( type of social influence )
• Types of conformity

  1 Compliance - Shallowest level of processing

  public not privet ( going along w/ group )

  Caused by NSI

  2 Identification - Middle level of processing

  Inbetween - accepts behaviours are true but in

  curtain circumstances (e.g. police )

  3 Internalisation - deepest level of processing

  Public and privet ( True conformity )

  caused by ISI
• AO1:

  Asch (1951) Research into conformity

  Aim: whether people conform to a group even when they know they are wrong , an unambiguous task.

  
  

  Procedure: 123 Males

  estimate which comparison line was the same length as

  the target line

  1 real participant who went last / second to last ( rest were

  confederates )

  2 neutral trials ( confederates answered correctly )

  
  

  Findings: 33% conformity rate

  1/4 didn't conform on any of the trials

  1 in 20 conformed on all trials
• AO3

  Asch research on conformity

  1 33% conformity means 67% did not conform.

  idea that people are more likely to resist conformity

  2 Artificial nature of experiment

  • does not reflect conformity in real
  • confederates are random people rather than friends and family

  low ecological validity ( however high internal validity + reliability )

  I&D Cultural bias

  • Sample = American men in 1950
  • Afraid of being accused of being a Russian spy
  • more conformity
  • and sample is not representative and cant be generalised to other cultures.
• Variables affecting conformity

  1 Task difficulty

  • made lines more similar
  • Unsure on correct answer and look to their peers for support - ISI
  • increase in conformity

  2 Group size

  • Different group sizes 1 to 15
  • 1 - no conformity
  • 1 to 3 - Big spike in conformity
  • 3 to 7 most conformity
  • 8+ decrease in conformity - Participants figure out what is happening

  3 Unanimity

  1 confederate answer correctly

  decreases conformity to 5.5% - reassures participant of answer

  different but wrong answer - 9% conformity - gives participant confidence - group loses power
• AO1

  Zimbardo - conforming to social roles

  Procedure

  • Sample - 24 male Uni students
  • Location - Basement at Stanford Uni
  • Controlled observation - Zimbardo acted as prison superintendent
  • Participants randomly allocated role as guard or prisoner

  Findings

  • Day 2 Guards began to harass prisoners in brutal and sadistic manner
  • Prisoners turned against each other
  • Prisoners showing signs of distress - had to leave
  • Shut down after 6 days
• AO3

  Zimbardo - conforming to social roles


  1 ethics:

  • lack of fully informed consent and deception
  • psychological and physical harm
  • However , Zimbardo not aware it would turn out that way

  2 Demand characteristics

  • artificial environment - not real prison
  • Pps guessed aim of study

  3 Nomothetic

  • It draws assumptions and universal laws that apply to all
  • allows predictions to be made - for the most part accurate
  • Doesn't account for individual differences
  • More valid approach - idiographic - individual is studied independently (e.g. case study )
• AO1

  Milgram - Obedience

  
  

  Sample - 40 males aged 20 - 50

  15 - 450 volts

  Finding - Participants showed signs of distress

  0 participants stopped below 300 volts

  4 participants stopped at 315 volts - learner stopped responding

  26 continued to 450 volts ( 65% )
• Situational variables:

  Proximity

  victim in the same room as participant

  40% obedience

  Cant psychologically distance themselves from the consequences of their actions.

  Touch proximity:

  20% if Participant is holding the learners hand onto the electrode
• Situational variables:

  Remote authority variation

  The experimenter left the room

  20.5% obedience

  Less authority influence - easier to disobey
• Situational variables

  Venue

  The experiment is moved away from the university to a run down office block

  47.5% obedience

  Prestigious university = legitimacy

  Obedience is more expected at the university rather than the run down office block.
• Situational variables

  Uniform

  Experimenter dressed casually - no lab coat

  20% obedience

  Uniform = symbol of authority

  encourages obedience
• Explanations of obedience:

  Legitimacy of authority

  Someone who is entitled to have there decisions and rules accepted and followed by others

  Higher in the social hierarchy

  Have uniform , qualifications , titles

  Why are they followed - keeps society running smoothly

  Problems - corruption
• Explanations of obedience

  Agentic shift

  The shifting of responsibility and control of actions from the autonomous individual to legitimate authority ( an agentic state ).

  e.g Nazis agued they were in the agentic state " just following orders"

  Binding factors = anything that makes you more likely to stay in the agentic state - e.g. previous agreement
• AO3

  Explanations of authority

  1 Milgram's variations

  • uniform + location to support Legitimate Authority

  2 Milgram's research

  • prods - support Legitimate authority
  • Binding factor - touch proximity
  • 3 Nomothetic
  • Theories applied universally - assumptions
  • Allows predictions to be made
  • doesn't account for individual differences - not always accurate
• A dispositional explanation of behaviour highlights the importance of the individuals personality (e.g. attitudes and behaviour )
• Authoritarian personality


  Distinct personality pattern characterised by strict adherence to conventional value and belief in absolute obedience
• Authoritarian personality

  Harsh and punitive upbringings can lead to

  1. Fear of parents - Making them excessively respectful ( obedient ) of authority figures
  2. Hatred of parents - They displace their hate and anger onto others ( usually someone they see as less than e.g. man-woman)
• The F scale ( Authoritarian personality )

  Adorno et al (1950)

  • scale of 30 questions
  • measured 9 personality dimensions that characterised authoritarian individuals
  • From strongly disagree to strongly agree ( 6 options )

  He created the scale and interviewed 2000 middle class , white Americans about their childhood and looked for common patterns among those who scored highly on the F scale
• Evaluation of the F scale

  Positives:

  • large sample size
  • quantitative data - able to replicate and compare

  Negatives:

  • Sample - all white middle class males - cant generalise to wider population and cultures
  • Demand characteristics - don't want to stand out( 1950 - communism )
  • miscommunication - questionnaire ( not face to face )
• AO3 Authoritarian personality

  Support- Elms and Milgram

  • 20 obedient and 20 defiant participants give the F scale and questions about their feelings towards their parent and the experimenter.
  • High levels of AP in obedient compared to defiant

  Methodological issues- questionnaire

  • demand characteristics
  • sample m/c men
  • how well can it support - correlation not causation

  Nature nurture

  • AP based on nature - personality which is an internal factor
  • Argues obeying is due to nature rather than situation / environment - parents