4.1.1 - Social Influence

• Compliance:


  •Publicly changing your behaviours to fit in with the group, but privately disagreeing (beliefs remain unchanged). 

  Results in a superficial change, it lasts only as long as the group is present.

  E.g. laughing at a joke that you don’t find funny. 
• Identification


  • Occurs when we value and want to become part of it – a sense of group membership 

  • We may publicly and privately change our beliefs or behaviour, but it is often temporary and is not maintained when the individual leaves the group

  E.g. moving to a new town for uni and supporting the local football team. But not following the team after you finish the course and move back home 
• Internalisation


  • Individual publicly and privately changes their beliefs and behaviour because they have   genuinely accepted the views of the group and becomes a part of their belief system

  •  It is long lasting and permanent and persists in absence of group members  

  •  This is the deepest type of conformity  

  E.g. Becoming a vegetarian or changing religion 
• Normative social influence (NSI) - AO1


  A desire to be liked

  •NSI concerns what is expected/acceptable/typical behaviour for a social group (i.e. norms).

  •NSI is an emotional process, people prefer social approval rather than rejection (desire to be liked)

  •NSI occurs can occur with strangers where you may feel concerned about rejection and with people you 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.

  •It leads to temporary change in beliefs/behaviour (compliance)
• Normative social influence (NSI) - AO3


  + Research support, Asch’s study when interviewed after ppsexpressed they felt self-conscious giving the right answer and conform to avoid disapproval.

  -Individual differences in NSI e.g. Affilators (those high in need of affiliation were more likely to conform) and those with external LOC. Explanation does not account for this.
• Normative social influence (NSI) - AO3


  -NSI/ISI distinction may not be useful as ISI and NSI may work together, people may conform for the desire to be right (ISI) and at the same time understand that this is required for social approval (NSI). 

  Example when entering a new environment (work or school). Both are interlinked
• Informational social influence (ISI) - AO1


  A desire to be right

  •This occurs when we look to a majority group for information believing                                                 others know better- especially if the task is difficult/unfamiliar. 

  •It is a cognitive process because it is to do with how you think and generally people want to be right.

  •It most likely in new situations or where there is some ambiguity- so it is not clear what is correct

  •It leads to a permanent change in beliefs/behaviour (internalisation)
• Informational social influence (ISI) - AO3


  +Research support, Lucas et al. (2006) found there was greater conformity to incorrect answers, when given more difficult maths problems. OR Asch’s task difficulty variation OR Jenness’ bean study

  -Individual differences in ISI e.g dispositional factors - LOC and level of expertise. Asch found that students are less conformist (28%) than other pps (37%). Perrin and Spencer found very little conformity amongst science and engineering students (1/396 trials) -  less affected by ISI
• Informational social influence (ISI) - AO3

  -NSI/ISI distinction may not be useful as ISI and NSI may work together, people may conform for the desire to be right (ISI) and at the same time understand that this is required for social approval (NSI). 

  Example when entering a new environment (work or school). Both are interlinkedà two process theory fails to explain this
• Asch’s study - AO1


  A: To examine the extent to which people will conform to a majority in an                            unambiguous situation 

  M: 123 American male university students volunteered to take part in a line judgement task testing conformity, butwere told it was a visual perception task (vision test). They had to match the length of the target line to a choice of 3 comparison lines. There were 6-8 confederates and 1 naïve pp and they took part in 18 trials and of these 12 critical trials.​
• Asch’s study - AO1

  R: Pps conformed 36.8% of the time and 75% conformed at least once (meaning 25% never conformed).

  C: People will conform to an incorrect majority due to fear of rejection (NSI) even when the task is unambiguous.(the Asch effect).
• Asch’s study -AO3

  +High control of EV. Controlled lab environment,. standardised procedures. E.g. same set of cards and instructions, 12 critical trials. allows for replications e.g. Asch’s variations and check for reliable results. Such control increases internal validity. 

  C.A. effect of demand characteristics and LOC confounding variables

  -Ethical issues e.g. deception and lack of informed consent. Thought it was a vision test and confederates were real. Deception is a betrayal of trust. 

  C.A. However they were debriefed and deception was necessary to….
• Asch’s study -AO3

  -Gender and culturally biased sample.  123 American males, may not generalise to females from collectivist cultures (where conformity rates may be higher) - lacks population validity 

  -Artificial procedure and environment, line judgement task trivial/unimportant-no real reason to conform and in a lab. lacks ecological validity -  Real-life conformity e.g. pressure to smoke amongst friends , more direct interaction and consequence of rejection (that may be long-term).
• Asch’s situational variables

  Group size: 

  varied between 1-15. 2 confederatesconformity to the wrong answer was 13.6%

  3 confederates conformity rose to 31.8%

  Further increases to majority made little difference to conformity. 

  Therefore, size of majority is important BUT up to a point, a small majority is sufficient for influence to be exerted.
• Asch’s situational variables

  •Unanimity:

   introducing a dissenter who disagreed with the majority choosing the correct answer or different wrong answer.

  Conformity decreased by a ¼ as the naïve pps had social support acting as model, encouraging independence/ reducing the pressure of NSI/ breaking the power of the majority
• Asch’s situational variables

  •Task difficultly: 

  stimulus line and comparison line were more similar in length.

  Conformity increased, due to ISI as the task became more ambiguous.

  They were more likely to look for others for guidance and assume they are right.
• Zimbardo Study - AO1

  A:To investigate how readily people would conform to the roles of guard and prisoner                                                                (in a role-playing activity that simulated prison life).

  M: He set up a mock prison in the basement of Stanford University and recruited 24 emotionally stable students to part in the study. Prisoners were arrested from their homes. They were assigned roles as guard or prisoner and each given a uniform. Paid $15 a day 
• Zimbardo Study - AO1

  R: The guards took on their role with enthusiasm began to humiliate and punish the prisoners and threaten their psychological and physical health. Prisoners showed signs of mental and emotional distress e.g. disorganised thinking, uncontrollable crying, screaming, rage . Deindividuation occurred. The study was stopped after 6 days instead of 14

  C:The study rejected the dispositional hypothesis, it was the power of situation that was more important than personality in determining their behaviour. All conformed to their social roles 
• Zimbardo - AO3

  + High control over EVs. All emotionally stable (can see effect of the situation, controlling disposition) and random allocation to roles (reduce researcher bias and distributes participant variables evenly) - cause and effect -  internal validity 

  -Lack of realism. Banuazizi and Mohavedi (1975) suggest that participants were play-acting (demand characteristics). Also much smaller than a real prison

   C.A. 90% of the prisoners’ conversations were about prison life and ½ introduced themselves as their ID number to the priest when he visited (was quite real to them)
• Zimbardo - AO3

  -Ethical issues e.g. arrested at home (lack of informed consent), protection from harm e.g. mental and emotional distress and Zimbardo’s dual role of superintendent and researcher - compromised their right to withdraw. 

  -Sample biased. Only white middle class males from US. Findings may not generalise to how likely females from other cultures may conform to social roles or give much insight into the brutality experienced in female prisons
• Zimbardo - AO3


  +Applications 

  •Prison reform, focus on mental health •Led to formal recognition of ethical guidelines by the American Psychological Association.•For example, juveniles accused of federal crimes are no longer housed before trial with adult prisoners because of the likelihood of violence against them

  "Quiet Rage," a video that he and his Stanford undergraduate students produced from footage of the experiment, continues to be used in college classes and by civil, judicial, military and law enforcement groups to enlighten and arouse concern about prison life.
• Zimbardo -AO3

  -Understated role of dispositional facotors- Only 1/3 of guards behaved brutally. 1/3 applied the rules fairly. The rest supported the prisoners. Personality may determine the extent to which a person conforms to social roles.
• Milgram’s study of obedience -AO1

  A: To investigate whether ordinary people would obey an unjust order from an authority figure (and inflict pain on an innocent person).

  M: controlled observation 40 male volunteers aged 20-50. Rigged draw, naïve pps always teacher, who would administer increasing shocks when the learner (confederate) got a word pair wrong. The experimenter would prompt the teacher to continue. E.g. ‘please continue’
• Milgram’s study of obedience -AO1

  R: All went up to 300V, five of them (12.5%) stopped at 300 volts 65% went up to 450 volts.  Pps showed signs of extreme tension (sweating and trembling) and 3 had seizures

  C: Obedience has little to do with disposition, but rather the situation made it difficult to disobey- e.g. being in the presence of a legitimate authority figure
• Milgram’s study of obedience -AO3

  + High control of EV, standardised procedures e.g. roles, audio, prods volt increments. Controlled lab environment. Replicated exactly  Increases internal validity. 

  C.A. demand characteristics and LOC as EVs/CVs

  -Ethical issues, deception, rigged draw and thought the confederates and shocks were real. Protection from harm, pps distressed, 3 had seizures.

   C.A. deception to avoid demand characteristics
• Milgram’s study of obedience -AO3

  -Gender bias and cultural bias, 40 males from the US, does not show us the impact of female authority figures or effect of authority in collectivist cultures. Lacks population validity

   C.A. range of education & jobs so some variation

  -Artificial procedure and environment, shocks and lab, real obedience does not occur under such controlled these circumstances and therefore may not explain real-life destructive obedience (e.g.to dictators) lacks ecological validity 
• Situational Variables affecting obedience

  •Location, experimenter had less authority in a run-down building and obedience was less expected here.

  •Increased proximity to victim = increased moral strain and less obedience. Less distanced from the consequences of their actions

  •Uniform is a strong symbol of authority and status within a social hierarchy.

  
• Situational Variables affecting obedience -AO3

  +High control, systematically altered one variable at a time, other variables kept constant -  cause and effect

  -Low internal validity, demand characteristics. experimenter replaced by ‘a member of the public’ contrived. Guessed shocks were fake.

  Confounding variables e.g. dispositional factors LOC, authoritarian personality or morality.
• Situational Variables affecting obedience -AO3

  -Obedience alibi, provides an excuse for evil evil behaviour - situation not the person who is responsible. Offensive to genocide survivors

  -Ethics, deception (aim, confederates and fake shocks) protection from harm, distress  especially in the touch proximity condition - unusual and distressing experience
• Agentic state -AO1

  An agent is someone who acts for or in place of another, they are not an unfeeling puppet. They experience high levels of anxiety ‘moral strain’ when they realise what they are doing is wrong but feel powerless to disobey. An agentic state is a mental state where a person feels no personal responsibility for their actions because they are acting on behalf of an authority figure
• Autonomous state 


  independent or free, a person behaves according to their own principles and feels responsible for their own actions.
• Agentic shift

  shift from autonomy to agency. Milgram suggested this occurs when we perceive someone as an authority figure. The person has power due to their position in a social hierarchy 
• Binding factors


   aspects of a situation that allow a person to ignore or minimise the damaging effects of their behaviour, reducing the ‘moral strain’ of obeying immoral orders. E.g. blaming the victim or denying the damage.
• Agentic state -AO3

  + Research support Blass and Schmidt, when shown a film of Milgram’s study, students stated the experimenter was responsible due to their legitimate authority- supporting the idea that the participants were in an agentic state (where the responsibility did not lie with them).

  -Obedience alibi, excuses people who blindly follow destructive orders. Offensive to the holocaust survivors. People can behave destructively in an autonomous state and can resist orders 

  -Reductionist, fails to consider dispositional factors, such as the Authoritarian personality & LOC
• Legitimacy of Authority -AO1

  • We are more likely to obey people who we perceive as having authority over us. This                    authority is justified (legitimate) by an individual’s position of power within a social hierarchy.

  • Authorities e.g. parents teachers and police have legitimacy through society’s agreement. We are socialised from a very young age to respect authority.

  • Most of us accept that authority figures should exercise social power over others because this allows society to function smoothly.
• Legitimacy of Authority - AO1

  • One consequence of legitimate authority is that some people are granted the power to punish others. We give up some of our independence to people we trust to exercise authority appropriately

  • However, history has shown that charismatic and powerful leaders (e.g. Hitler and Stalin) use legitimate authority destructively to behave in cruel callous ways. 
• Legitimacy of Authority - AO3

  + Research support Milgram’s original study 65% up to 450V, experimenter in a lab coat (legitimate authority), compared to 20% when the experimenter was replaced by an ordinary member of the public 

  + Real-life applications e.g. My Lai massacre (hierarchy in the US army) or Holocaust (Hitler’s power to punish and those ranked below take orders) explains destructive obedience 

  -Reductionist, fails to consider dispositional factors, such as the Authoritarian personality & LOC
• Authoritarian Personality - AO1

  • Extreme respect for authority and submissive to those of a higher status and dismissive of inferiors.

  • Show contempt (disregard) for people they perceive as having inferior social status

  • Cognitive style: black and white thinking, rigid stereotypes about groups, conventional attitudes towards race and gender.
• Authoritarian Personality - AO1


  • Formed in childhood as a result of harsh parenting: extremely strict discipline, expectations of absolute loyalty, impossibly high demands and conditional love This relieves anxiety and hostility and explains hatred towards those who are socially inferior.

  • Creates resentment and hostility that the child cannot express due to reprisals, feelings are displaced on people seen as weaker- scapegoating. 
• Authoritarian Personality -AO3

  + Research support Elms and Milgram interviewed fully obedient pps from Milgram’s study (they went up to the full 450 volts). They all scored highly on the F-Scale and were less close to their fathers during childhood

  -Based on a flawed questionnaire, F-scale has acquiescence bias à lacks validity