social influence

• Name and define the 3 types of Confomity

  COMPLIANCE - change behaviour to fit in, don't agree in private but go along in public - last as long as group is present - linked to Normative social influence

  IDENTIFICATION - adjust because membership is desirable, conforming to behaviour of role model - private and public acceptance - temporary

  INTERNALISATION - change in public and private views - most permanent form as it can continue without presence of group - linked to Informational social influence
• Outline how Asch studied conformity


  123 male students told they were taking part in visual perception task. Lab setting. 6 confederates 1 real naive participant (asch varied number of confederates) sitting second to last. Confederate gave wrong answer on critical trials
• What did Asch find in his study of conformity?


  On 36.8% of critical trials the participant also gave the wrong answer - compared to error rare in 0.7% in control. But there was individual differences 25% never conformed and 75% conformed at least once

  Majority who gave wrong answer indicated they didn't want to stand out

  Majority can influence minority even in unambiguous situations
• Strength of Asch's study of conformity

  Lab study means high control of variables - number of participants and where they sat... show cause and effect and be confident that IV influenced the DV
• 4 weaknesses of Asch's study of conformity


  1) Lab study means low ecological validity - task was artificial and not like every day conformity... not generalised to conformity in real like. Only assessed conformity in strangers, been found even greater among friends

  2) Biased sample - male... lacks population validity and may not represent conformity in females

  3) Lacks historical validity - 1950's America was more conformist - Perrin and Spencer = replication using engineering students in UK and found 1/396 trials did a student conform - cultural change and people are possibly less conformist today... not reflective of conformity in today's society and Asch's study is a child of its time

  4) Ethical issues - didn't provide fully informed consent and misled about key aspects of procedures and place in difficult and embarrassing position... psychological harm
• 3 variables affecting conformity and research support

  UNANIMITY - conformity rates increase when majority influence is unanimous - ASCH - one confederate who went against others - dropped from 37% to 5.5%. If rebel went against others and real answer still dropped to 9%

  TASK DIFFICULTY - greater conformity rates when task difficulty increases as right answer is less obvious so look for guidance - ASCH - increased task difficulty but making comparison lines close in length and found more likely to conform to wrong answer

  GROUP SIZE - conformity rates increase as size of group increases up to a point - ASCH - altered group size by having different numbers of confederates - 3 conformity increased but addition of further confederates made little difference
• Normative social influence as an EXPLANATION for conformity + evaluation

  based on desire to be liked, acceptance and belonging to a group - rewarding and have the power to punish others - Explain compliance as may conform on surface but privately maintain own views

  ASCH - interviewed after experiment, participants who conformed said they knew the answer they gave was wrong but thought they would have looked stupid... shows conforming to be accepted

  GARANDEAU & CILLESSEN - people who do not have many close friendships tended to be manipulated more easily by bullies to be accepted
• Informational social influence as an EXPLANATION for conformity + evaluation

  based on desire to be right, conform because do not know what to so but want to be correct. Believe majority is likely to know more and give info about how to behave - involves internalisation

  SHERIF - auto-kinetic illusion - estimate how far dot moved - judgements individually, then in groups of 3 out loud. Estimates overtime gradually became closer together and week later still gave same judgements... unsure on correct answer so looked to others for information

  LUCAS - maths problems that were easy/difficult - greater conformity in difficult ones - true for most students who rated mathematical ability as poor... conform when felt they didn't know the answers

  EXPLANATIONS OVERLAP - look at others for information but partly because we don't want to be different
• Who conducted a study into conformity and what was his procedure?

  ZIMBARDO - Mock prison is basement of Stanford Uni

  24 emotionally stable student volunteers randomly assigned role of guard or prisoner

  Arrested by local police and delivered to prison - blindfolded, strip-searched, deloused, uniform, number

  Social roles: clearly divided

  Identification to roles: prisoners follow rules enforced by guards and referred to by number. Guards wore uniform, mirrored shades
• What did Zimbardo find in his study of Conformity to Social Roles

  Stopped after 6 days due to threat to mental and physical health

  Interaction was hostile and dehumanizing

  Guards - aggressive and abusive

  Prisoners - passive and depressed - 5 had to be released early

  All conformed readily to roles, influenced by loss of identity
• 1 Strength of Zimbardo's study of conformity to social roles

  Controlled observation means control over variables and individual differences were controlled - behaviour must be due to pressures of situation... increases validity and more confident about establishing cause and effect
• 3 weaknesses of Zimbardo's study of conformity to social roles

  1) Controlled observations lack ecological validity - could have been play acting... may not reflect a real life conformity situation

  2) Dispositional factors - FROMM suggested that participants personalities were cause of behaviour, evidence that guards acted differently = 1/3 brutal, 1/3 fair, 1/3 supported prisoners... Zimbardo's conclusions may be over exaggerated

  3) Ethical issues - Right to withdraw - Zimbardo was superintendent so prisoners treated like real prisoners asking for release - However, 3 did leave

  Protection from harm - distressed and one went on hunger strike - However, followed up - no negative long term effects
• Explain the procedure of Milgram's work as an explanation for obedience

  40 male volunteers

  Genuine participants - teacher

  Confederate = learner

  teacher administered shocks when the learner makes a mistake

  Started at 15 volts and rose on 15 volt increments to 450 volts

  If hesitated a researcher gave verbal prods

  No real shocks

  continued until teacher refused to continue or until 450 volts given 4 times
• What did Milgram find in his study for an explanation for obedience?

  All P's gave shocks up to 300 volts

  65% continued to highest level - lethal shock of 450 volts

  Most found it stressful and wanted to stop but continued to obey researcher who prodded them

  Under certain circumstances people will obey orders from an authority figure which go against conscience
• What is a strength for Milgram's experiment as an explanation for obedience?

  GOOD EXTERNAL VALIDITY - relationship between authority figure and P was central feature and the lab environment accurately reflected wider authority relationships in real life - Hofling (nurses found obedient to unjustifiable demands) - can be generalised to other situations and tell us about how obedience operates in real like
• What is a weakness for Milgram's experiment as an explanation for obedience?

  Low internal validity - Orne & Holland - P's didn't believe the set up so study lack validity

  However, Sheridan & King conducted an experiment where real shocks were given to puppy (54% male students and 100% females delivered fatal shock) suggests effects of Milgram's study were genuine - Milgram said 70% of his P's believed the shocks were real
• What are the ethical issues of Milgram's experiment as an explanation for obedience?

  Protection from harm - clearly distressed. However, 2% reported negative feelings and 84% said they were glad to have participated - no later psychological harm

  DECEPTION - deceived into believing they had an equal chance of being teacher and learner and that they were giving electric shocks. However, he argued that some deception was necessary as they might have changed their behaviour otherwise - fully debriefed and told true aims

  LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT - not told the study might cause conflict and distress or true aims so were not in a position to give informed consent. However Milgram did obtain presumptive consent
• What is legitimacy of authority as an explanation for obedience?

  Societies are structured in a hierarchal way with people in certain positions holding authority - agreed by society - power to punish (police and courts). Learnt from childhood
• What the agentic state as an explanation for obedience?

  People operate on 2 levels of consciousness

  - autonomic state - voluntarily and aware of actions, free to behave according to own principles and feel strong sense of responsibility

  - agentic state - act as agent for authority figure, don't feel responsible, cease to act according to conscience, lose sense of identity, obey orders that go against moral code
• What are the 2 evaluation points for legitimacy of authority and agentic state?

  RESEARCH SUPPORT - Blas's & Schmitt - film of Milgram's study, students blamed experimenter - recognised P was acting as agent for experimenter and also indicated responsibility was due to legitimate authority - supports both

  RESEARCH SUPPORT - Milgram in remote authority variation - telephone line (obedience dropped from 62.5% to 20%) - autonomous state and saw themselves responsible
• What are the situational variable as explanation for obedience?

  PROXIMITY - physical closeness or distance of authority figure - how aware individuals are of consequence of actions - Milgram - teacher and learner in same room (62.5% to 40%) and force hand on plate fell a further 30%

  LOCATION - prestige of location Influenced obedience, often highways in institutionalised settings - Milgram - variation in run down part of town dropped to 47.5% - changed location reduced perceived legitimacy of authority figure

  UNIFORM - symbolic of authority and indicates who is entitled to expect our obedience - Milgram authority figure wore lob coat - Bickman - Civilian (19%), Milkman (14%), security guard (38%)
• What is the evaluation for situational variables as an explanation for obedience?

  CROSS CULTURAL REPLICATIONS - Miranda et all found obedience rate if over 90% amongst Spanish students - Milgram's conclusions not limited to American males

  LACK OF INTERNAL VALIDITY - worked out procedure was fake - member of public replaced experimenter
• What is the dispositional explanation for obedience?

  Authoritarian personality - obey people in authority, submissive to higher status, dismissive to inferiors, fscale, harsh parenting, strict discipline, absolute obedience, rigid beliefs, intolerant of ambiguity, believe in strong powerful leaders and traditional valued of love of country, religion and family
• Evaluation of authoritarian personality as an explanation for obedience?

  RESEARCH SUPPORT - Elms & Milgram - highly obedient P's in Milgram's study were significantly more authoritarian on F-scale

  CORRELATION - impossible to draw conclusions

  VALIDITY OF F SCALE - questionnaire that could be measuring tendency to agree

  CONTRADICTED - situational factors may have greater influence
• What is Locus of Control as an explanation of resistance to social influence?

  Sense of control people have over events that happen in lives - questionnaire - internal ------ external. Internal = great deal of control over own behaviour and take responsibility. External = behaviour controlled but other forces such as fate.

  Internal - more likely to resist pressure to conform and obey, risk takers, take responsibility, greater self confidence, higher intelligence and less need for social approval
• What is the evaluation for Locus of Control as an explanation of resistance to social influence?

  RESEARCH SUPPORT - Holland repeated Milgram's study and found that 37% of internals showed resistance and 23% of externals resisted - increases vailidty

  CONTRADICTORY RESEARCH- Twenge analysed data from US obedience studies over 40 years - more external but more resistant
• What is social support as an explanation of resistance to social influence?

  Easier to resist if others do as do not feel totally isolated and are more confident in dissent - Asch dissenters provided moral support freeing P
• What is the evaluation of social support as an explanation of resistance to social influence?

  RESEARCH SUPPORT - Milgram found obedience levels dropped to 10% when two confederates rebelled and refused to continue - allies increases confidence

  FURTHER SUPPORT - Asch - conformity dropped fork 37% to 5% when one confederate gave correct answer on all trials
• What is minority influence?

  One person / small group influences beliefs and behaviours of other people - internalisation (both public and private beliefs changed)
• Consistency as a characteristic of influential minorities? And evaluation

  In opposition to majority and must present a single consistent argument to majority, this increases attention from others

  - synchronic - everyone says same thing

  - diachronic - same thing for long time

  EVALUATION - Support - Moscovici - 6 people (4 real) shown series of 36 slides that were different shades of blue - condition 1 (consistent, all 36 slides green) - 8% real P's moved to minority. Condition 2 (inconsistent 24/36 green) - 1.25%
• Flexibility as a characteristic of influential minorities? And evaluation

  Show flexibility by accepting possibility if compromise
• Commitment as a characteristic of influential minorities? And evaluation

  Demonstrate dedication to position as it shoes minority is not acting out if self interest - augmentation principle
• What is the role of each DCDASS as processes in social change?

  DRAWING ATTENTION THROUGH SOCIAL PROOF


  highlights social problems by drawing on evidence that show an issue
• What is the role of each DCDASS as processes in social change?

  CONSISTENCY


  More successful is all members put across same message for long time
• What is the role of each DCDASS as processes in social change?

  DEEPER PROCESSING


  Majority start to consider the issue in more depth - explained by informational social influence and leads to internalisation.
• What is the role of each DCDASS as processes in social change?

  AUGMENTATION PRINCIPLE


  Extreme activities to draw attention showing commitment
• What is the role of each DCDASS as processes in social change?

  SNOWBALL EFFECT


  Over time, increasing numbers of people switch from majority position - explained by informational and normative social influence
• What is the role of each DCDASS as processes in social change?

  SOCIAL CRYPTOAMNESIA


  Majority will not remember source of ideas and accept minority ideas without having to assume negative identity of minority group
• How is normative social influence used to being about social change?

  Campaigns as they provide info on what others are doing so social change is encouraged by drawing attention to what majority are doing
• What lessons are there from obedience research?

  Milgram - obedience can bring about social change through gradual commitment - once a small instruction is obeyed it becomes more difficult to resist a bigger one