SOCIAL INFLUENCE

• Obedience


  Following the orders of an authority figure
• Authority figure


  Someone with more power and control
• Conformity


  Matching the behaviour and beliefs of others to fit in
• Compliance


  Going along with the majority even though privately you may not agree
• Normative social influence


  When you comply to fit in with the group
• Informational social influence


  When we conform because we don't know what to do and think that others know more than us
• Internalisation


  When we genuinely adopt the beliefs of the group
• Identification


  Temporarily adopting the beliefs of a group
• Deindividuation


  Loss of personal awareness and responsibility when in a group
• Bystander effect


  When we fail to help others in need
• Bystander intervention


  Helping others in need
• Cost of helping


  If a situation could cause us harm, we are less likely to help
• Personal factors affecting bystander intervention

  • Competence
  • Mood
  • Similarity
• Situational factors affecting conformity

  • Size of the majority
  • Unanimity of the majority
  • Task difficulty
• Locus of control


  The extent to which we believe we have control over our behaviour/life
• Internal locus of control

  When we feel we have control over our behaviour (less likely to conform to others)
• External locus of control


  When we believe external factors control our behaviour (more likely to conform)
• Blind obedience


  When we obey an authority figure without question
• Situational factors affecting obedience

  • Proximity of the authority figure
  • Proximity of the victim
  • Legitimacy of the authority figure
• Authoritarian personality


  A type of personality that respects authority, has rigid beliefs and right wing attitudes
• F-Scale

  A questionnaire designed to identify authoritarian personality traits
• Piliavin et al (1969)


  • field experiment - high ecological validity
  • passengers were not aware they were being observed - unethical
• Behaviour in crowds can be 'prosocial' (helpful and kind) or 'antisocial' (destructive and aggressive)
• In crowds people can become deindividuated and this can lead to people conforming to antisocial behaviours
• If an authority figure is physically close to a crowd (e.g. a policeman), the crowd may be more likely to obey than if they are further away
• Ways to prevent blind obedience to authority figures

  • Social support
  • Familiarity of the situation
  • Distance
  • Education
• SITUATIONAL FACTORS AFFECTING BYSTANDER INTERVENTION

  • DIFFUSION OF RESPONSIBILITY - when we don’t help someone in need as we think someone else will
  • NOTICING THE EVENT - In crowds we are less likely to notice an emergency
  • PLURALISTIC IGNORANCE - we interpret a situation according to how others react to it
  • COST OF HELPING - if a situation could cause us harm we are less likely to help
• The Milgram experiment was unethical because participants thought they were giving electric shocks that would kill their victim, but in reality there was no shock at all.
• Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment showed that situational factors such as role-playing and social norms can influence behaviour.
• Milgram found that 65% of his participants gave what they believed were lethal shocks to their victims, even though they showed signs of distress.
• proximity of victim - Milgram


  when victim could not be seen, it was easier for participants to obey the order to continue. when in the same room obedience was at 40%. when forced to put on the shock plate it fell to 30%
• proximity of authority figure - Milgram


  when experiment was in the same room, 65% obeyed to the highest level of shock. when Mr Williams gave instructions by telephone, 20.5% obeyed
• authority figure - Milgram


  when wearing a lab coat obedience was high, but when replaced with a civilian, obedience fell to 20%
• legitimacy of context - Milgram


  when experiment was replicated in a run down office block obedience fell to 47.5%
• personal responsibility - Milgram


  when participants instructed someone else to give the shock obedience rose to 90%
• support of others - Milgram

  when 2 actors were placed with the participant and encouraged them to keep going, one refused at 150 volts, one at 210, only 10% of participants continued to 150 volts
• Results - Zimbardo

  • after a few hours guards became aggressive towards prisoners
  • on the second day prisoners rebelled
  • study was stopped after six days because behavior was getting out of control
  • by the end of the six days participants were showing extreme signs of anxiety and distress
• conclusions - Zimbardo


  participants conformed to the role they had been assigned. prisoners became submissive and passive, guards became hostile and aggressive
• strengths - Zimbardo

  • No evidence to suggest that the participants were not acting. they seem fully immersed in prison life, increasing validity
  • The study tells us about prison behaviour – it tells us that the situation in a prison can lead to negative behaviour
• weaknesses - Zimbardo

  • The sample was limited – only males took part, it was a small sample and they were all university students
  • The study was unethical – there was lots of psychological harm, and it was very difficult for the prisoners to withdraw
  • The prison was not real life – the participants all knew it was part of the study and may have shown demand characteristics