Social Influence ALL

• What were the aims of Asch's study?

  Solomon Asch (1951) devised a procedure to measure the extent that people conformed to the opinion of others, even in a situation when the others' answers were clearly wrong. The baseline procedure is briefly described below left.
• What was the method of Asch's study?

  123 American male participants were tested individually, sitting last or next-to-last in a group of six to eight confederates They were shown two large cards. On one was a 'standard line: On the other were three comparison lines. One of the three lines was the same length as the standard and the other two were always clearly different. Each group member stated which of the three lines matched the standard. There were 18 'trials' involving different pairs of cards. On 12 of these (critical trials) the confederates all gave the same clearly wrong answer

  
• What were the findings of Asch's study?

  Asch found that the naive participants conformed 36.8% of the time. This shows a high level of conformity when the situation is unambiguous. There were individual differences, 25% of the participants never gave a wrong answer (i.e. never conformed). 75% conformed at least once. Asch conducted further studies where he showed that certain variables lead to less or more conformity. The details are given below.
• How was group size investigated by Asch?

  Procedure — Asch varied the number of confederates in each group between 1 and 15 (total group size between 2 and 16). Findings —the relationship between group size and level of conformity was curvilinear. If there were two confederates, conformity to the wrong answer was 13.6%. When there were three confederates, conformity rose to 31.8%. Above three confederates, conformity rate levelled off. Adding more than three confederates made little difference. Explanation — people very sensitive to opinions of other people because just one confederate was enough to sway opinion.
• How was unanimity investigated by Asch?

  Procedure — Asch introduced a dissenting confederate — sometimes they gave the correct answer and sometimes a different wrong answer (but always disagreed with majority). Findings — in the presence of a dissenter, conformity reduced on average to less than a quarter of the level it was when the majority was unanimous. Conformity reduced if dissenter gave right or wrong answer. Explanation — having a dissenter enabled the naive participant to behave more independently
• How was task difficulty investigated by Asch?

  Procedure — Asch made the line-judging task harder by making stimulus line and comparison lines more similar in length. Thus it was diffcult to see differences between the lines. Finding — conformity increased. Explanation — the situation is more ambiguous, so we are more likely to look to others for guidance and to assume they are right and we are wrong. This is informational social influence (see next spread) — it plays a greater role when the task becomes harder.
• What is a limitation of Asch's study? (artificial)


  P - One limitation is that the situation and task were artificial.

  E - Participants knew they were in a research study (demand characteristics). The task was trivial and there was no reason not to conform

  E - Also, Fiske (2014) argued 'Asch's groups were not very groupy' (not like real-life groups).

  L - This means the findings do not generalise to everyday life (especially those situations where the consequences of conformity are important).
• What is a limitation of Asch's study? (application)

  P - Another limitation is that Asch's findings have little application.

  E - Only American men were tested by Asch. Neto (1995) suggested that women might be more conformist, possibly because they are more concerned about social relationships (and being accepted)

  E - Also the US is an individualist culture and studies in collectivist cultures (e.g. China) have found higher conformity rates (Bond and Smith 1996). (See page 62 for note on individualist/ collectivist.)

  L - This means Asch's findings tell us little about conformity in women and people from some culture
• What is a strength of Asch's study? (other evidence)

  P - One strength is other evidence to support Asch's findings.

  E - Lucas et al. (2006) asked participants to solve 'easy' and 'hard' maths problems. Participants were given answers that (falsely) claimed to be from three other students.

  E - The participants conformed more often (agreed with the wrong answers) when the problems were harder.

  L - This shows Asch was correct that task difficulty is one variable affecting conformity.

  C - Conformity is more complex than Asch thought. Lucas et al.'s study showed that conformity was related to confidence (high confidence = less conformity). This shows that individual-level factors interact with situational ones. But Asch did not investigate individual factors.
• What is internalisation?


  When a person genuinely accepts group norms. It results in a private as well as public change of opinions/ behaviour. The change is usually permanent and persists in the absence of group members because attitudes have become part of how the person thinks (internalised)
• What is identification?


  When we identify with a group that we value, we want to become part of it. So we publicly change our opinions/behaviour, even if we don't privately agree with everything the group stands for.
• What is compliance?


  Involves 'going along with others' in public, but privately not changing opinions/behaviour. This results in only a superficial change and the opinion/behaviour stops as soon as group pressure ceases.
• What is informational social influence?


  ISI is about information, a desire to be right. Often we are uncertain about what behaviour or beliefs are right or wrong. You may not know the answer to a question in class, but if most of your class gives an answer, you go along with them because you feel they are probably right. ISI is a cognitive process — people generally want to be right. ISI leads to internalisation
• When does informational social influence occur?


  ISI is most likely in situations which are new or where there is some ambiguity, so it isn't clear what is right. It may happen when decisions have to be made quickly, when we assume the group is likely to be right.
• What is normative social influence?

  NSI is about norms, a desire to behave like others and not look foolish. NSI concerns what is 'normal' behaviour for a social group (i.e. norms). Norms regulate the behaviour of groups and individuals. NSI is an emotional rather than cognitive process— people prefer social approval rather than rejection. NSI leads to compliance.
• When does normative social influence occur?


  NSI is most likely in situations where you don't know the norms and look to others about how to behave. NSI occurs in situations with strangers if you don't want to be rejected. Or with people we know because we are concerned about the social approval of friends. It may be more pronounced in stressful situations where people have a need for social support.
• What is a strength of NSI? (research support)

  P - One strength of NS! is that there is research support

  E - Asch (1951) found many participants conformed rather than give the correct answer because they were afraid of disapproval.

  E - When participants wrote down answers (no normative pressure), conformity fell to 12.5%.

  L - This shows that at least some conformity is due to a desire not to be rejected by the group for disagreeing with them.
• What is a strength of ISI? (research support)

  P - Another strength is research support for ISI.

  E - Lucas et al. (2006) found participants conformed more to incorrect answers when maths problems were difficult (with easy problems, participants 'knew their own minds')

  E - For hard problems the situation was ambiguous (unclear) so they relied on the answers they were given.

  L - This supports ISI because the results are what ISI would predict.

  C - It is unclear if NSI or ISI operate in studies and real life. A dissenter may reduce the power of NSI (social support) or reduce the power of ISI (alternative source). Therefore ISI and NSI are hard to separate and operate together in most real-world situations.
• What is a limitation of NSI? (individual differences)

  P - One limitation is individual differences in NSI.

  E - Some people are concerned about being liked by others — nAffiliators who have a strong need for 'affiliation' (need to relate to other people).

  E - McGhee and Teevan (1967) found that students who were nAffliators were more likely to conform.

  L - This shows NSI underlies conformity for some people more than for others — an individual difference not explained by a theory of situational pressures.
• What was Zimbardo's procedure?

  Zimbardo et 01. (1973) set up a mock prison in the basement of the psychology department at Stanford University to investigate the effect of social roles on conformity

  21 male student volunteers were involved in the study— selected by psychological testing that showed them to be 'emotionally stable'. They were randomly allocated to the role of guard or prisoner.
• How were the social roles were encouraged by two routes?

  UniformPrisoners were strip-searched, given a uniform and number (no names), this encouraged de-individuation. Guards enforced rules, had own uniform with handcuffs, etc.

  Instructions about behaviourPrisoners were told they could not leave but would have to ask for parole. Guards were told they had complete power over prisoners.
• What were the findings of Zimbardo's study?

  The guards played their roles enthusiastically and treated prisoners harshly. The prisoners rebelled within two days — they ripped their uniforms, shouted and swore at the guards. The guards retaliated with fire extinguishers and harassed the prisoners —reminder of their powerless role (e.g. frequent headcounts, including at night).

  The guards' behaviour threatened the prisoners' psychological and physical health. For example:

  1. After the rebellion was put down, the prisoners became subdued, anxious and depressed.

  2. Three prisoners were released early because they showed signs of psychological disturbance.

  3. One prisoner went on hunger strike; the guards attempted to forcefeed him and punished him by putting him in 'the hole', a tiny dark closet. The study was stopped after six days instead of the planned 14 days.
• What did Zimbardo conclude?

  Social roles are powerful influences on behaviour— most conformed strongly to their role. Guards became brutal, prisoners became submissive. Other volunteers also easily conformed to their roles in the prison (e.g. the 'chaplain').
• What is a strength of the stanford prison experiment? (key variables)

  P - One strength of the SPE is the control over key variables.

  E - Emotionally-stable participants were recruited and randomly allocated the roles of guard or prisoner

  E- The guards and prisoners had those roles only by chance. So their behaviour was due to the role itself and not their personalities.

  L - This control increased the study's internal validity, so we have more confidence in drawing conclusions about the effect of social roles on conformity.
• What is a limitation of the stanford prison experiment? (realism)


  P - One limitation is that the SPE lacked the realism of a true prison.

  E - Banuazizi and Mohavedi (1975) suggest participants were play-acting. Their performances reflected stereotypes of how prisoners and guards are supposed to behave.

  E- One guard based his role on a character from the film Cool Hand Luke. Prisoners rioted because they thought that is what real prisoners did.

  L - This suggests the SPE tells us little about conformity to social roles in actual prisons.

  C - Participants behaved as if the prison was real, e.g. 90% of conversations about prison life, Prisoner 416 believed it was a prison run by psychologists. This suggests the SPE replicated the roles of guard and prisoner just as in a real prison, increasing internal validity
• What is a limitation of the stanford prison experiment? (power of roles)

  P - Another limitation is that Zimbardo exaggerated the power of roles.

  E - The power of social roles to influence behaviour may have been exaggerated in the SPE (Fromm 1973).

  E- Only a third of the guards behaved brutally. Another third applied the rules fairly. The rest supported the prisoners, offering them cigarettes and reinstating privileges.

  L - This suggests the SPE overstates the view that the guards were conforming to a brutal role and minimised dispositional influences (e.g personality).
• What was Milgram's procedure?

  Stanley Milgram recruited 40 American male participants supposedly for a study of memory. Each participant arrived at Milgram's lab and drew lots for their role. A confederate ('Mr Wallace') was always the 'Learner' while the true participant was the 'Teacher'. An 'Experimenter' (another confederate) wore a lab coat. The procedure is shown in the diagram (left) and described in the text below. The Teacher could hear but not see the Learner. The Teacher had to give the Learner an increasingly severe electric 'shock' each time he made a mistake on a task. The shocks increased in 15-volt steps up to 450 volts. The shocks were fake but the shock machine was labelled to make them look increasingly severe. If the Teacher wished to stop, the Experimenter gave a verbal 'prod' to continue.

  
• What were the findings of Milgram's study?

  Key findings12.5% (five participants) stopped at 300 volts. 65% continued to 450 volts (highest level). Observations (qualitative data) — participants showed signs of extreme tension. Three had 'full-blown uncontrollable seizures'.

  Other findingsBefore the study Milgram asked 14 psychology students to predict how they thought the naive participants would respond. The students estimated no more than 3% would continue to 450 volts (so the baseline findings were unexpected). After the study, participants were debriefed. Follow-up questionnaire showed 84% were glad they had participated.
• What did Milgram conclude?

  We obey legitimate authority even if that means that our behaviour causes harm to someone else. Certain situational factors encourage obedience (Milgram investigated these, see next spread).
• What is a strength of Milgram's study? (replications)

  P - One strength is that replications have supported Milgram's research findings.

  E - In a French TV documentary/game show, contestants were paid to give (fake) electric shocks when ordered by the presenter to other participants (actors) (Beauvois et al. 2012).

  E - 80% gave the maximum 460 volts to an apparently unconscious man. Their behaviour was like that of Milgram's participants, e.g. many signs of anxiety.

  L - This supports Milgram's original findings about obedience to authority.
• What is a limitation of Milgram's study? (internal validity)

  P - One limitation is that Milgram's study lacked internal validity.

  E - Orne and Holland (1968) argued that participants guessed the electric shocks were fake. So they were 'play-acting'.

  E - This was supported by Perry's discovery that only half of the participants believed the shocks were real (see top right).

  L - This suggests that participants may have been responding to demand characteristics.

  C - However, Sheridan and King's (1972) participants gave real shocks to a puppy; 54% of males and 100% of females delivered what they thought was a fatal shock. This suggests the obedience in Milgram's study might be genuine.
• What is a limitation of Milgram's study? (blind obedience)


  P - One limitation is that the findings are not due to blind obedience.

  E - Haslam et al. (2014) found that every participant given the first three prods obeyed the Experimenter, but those given the fourth prod disobeyed.

  E - According to social identity theory, the first three prods required identification with the science of the research but the fourth prod required blind obedience.

  L - This shows that the findings are best explained in terms of identification with scientific aims and not as blind obedience to authority.
• How does proximity affect obedience?

  In the baseline study, the Teacher could hear the Learner but not see him. In the proximity variation, Teacher and Learner were in the same room and the obedience rate dropped from 65% to 40%

  In the touch proximity variation, the Teacher forced the Learner's hand onto a shock plate. The obedience rate was 30%.

  In the remote-instruction variation, the Experimenter left the room and gave instructions by telephone. The obedience was 20.5% and participants rate often pretended to give shocks.

  Explanation — decreased proximity allows people to psychologically distance themselves from the consequences of their actions. For example, when the Teacher and Learner were physically separated, the Teacher was less aware of the harm done, so was obedient
• How does location affect obedience?

  The study was conducted in a run-down building rather than at the prestigious Yale University (as in the baseline). Obedience dropped to 47.5%. Explanation — obedience was higher in the university because the setting was legitimate and had authority (obedience was expected).
• How does uniform affect obedience?

  In the baseline study, the Experimenter wore a grey lab coat (a kind of uniform). In one variation, he was called away by an 'inconvenient' phone call at the start of the procedure. His role was taken over by an 'ordinary member of the public' in everyday clothes. Obedience fell to 20%, the lowest of these variations. Explanation —a uniform is a strong symbol of legitimate authority granted by society. Someone without a uniform has less right to expect obedience
• What were the results of all the variations.

  
• What is a strength of situational variables? (research support)

  P - One strength is research support for the influence of situational variables.

  E - Bickman's (1974) confederates dressed in different outfits (jacket/ tie, milkman, security guard) and issued demands (e.g. pick up litter) to people on the streets of New York City.

  E - People were twice as likely to obey the 'security guard' than the 'jacket/tie' confederate.

  L - This shows that a situational variable, such as a uniform, does have a powerful effect on obedience.
• What is a strength of Milgram's research? (situational variables - replication)

  P - Another strength is cross-cultural replication of Milgram's research.

  E - Meeus and Raaijmakers (1986) worked with Dutch participants, who were ordered to say stressful comments to interviewees.

  E - They found 90% obedience, and obedience fell when proximity decreased (person giving orders not present).

  L - This shows that Milgram's findings are not limited to American males but are valid across cultures.

  C - However, Smith and Bond (1998) note that most replications took place in societies (e.g. Spain, Australia), culturally not that different from the US. Therefore we cannot conclude that Milgram's findings about proximity, location and uniform apply to people in all (or most) cultures.
• What is a limitation of Milgram's research? (situational variables - low internal validity)

  P - One limitation is low internal validity in the studies.

  E - Orne and Holland (1968) suggested the variations (compared to baseline study) were even more likely to trigger suspicion because of the extra experimental manipulation.

  E - In the variation where the Experimenter was replaced by 'a member of the public', even Milgram recognised this was so contrived that some participants may have worked it out.

  L - Therefore it is unclear whether the results are due to obedience or because the participants saw the deception and 'play-acted' (i.e. were influenced by demand characteristics).
• What is the agentic state?


  Act on behalf of another person.Milgram proposed that obedience to destructive authority occurs because a person becomes an 'agent' someone who acts for or in place of another. In an agentic state a person feels no personal responsibility for their actions.