social influence

• What are the 3 pieces of research into conformity

  1) types and explanations

  2) Asches research

  3) zimbardos research - social roles
• Outline the types of conformity

  HELMAN suggested there are 3 types of conformity:

  -INTERNALISATION-

  occurs when a person genuinely accepts the norms of a group. private change as well as public and is permanent

  -IDENTIFICATION-

  conforming to the opinions/behaviour of a group because of something we value in that group. we want to be part of it.

  -COMPLIANCE-

  going along with others to be liked. changing publicly but disagreeing privately.
• outline the explanations for conformity

  the dual process model proposed by DETUCH AND GERARD states there are 2 explanations for conformity:

  - INFORMATIONAL SOCIAL INFLUENCE: uncertain of the answer eg: not knowing the answer to a question in class. we agree to the opinion of others as we believe it is correct. (leads to internalisation)

  - NORMATIVE SOCIAL INFLUENCE: is about norms. we want social approval and to be liked so conform. (leads to compliance)
• outline a key study of NSI

  -NSI-

  NOLAN ET AL- investigated whether social influence processes led to a reduction in energy consumption in a community.

  procedure:

  -hung up messages every week highlighting that most people in the community were trying to reduce energy consumption in California.

  -a control group in another area signed just asking people to use less energy, no reference to others in the community

  findings:

  -energy consumption decreased in area were NSI was used
• outline a key study of ISI

  LUCAS ET AL- conducted a maths test

  findings-

  students conformed more to questions where they didn't know the answer (more difficult questions). showing support for ISI and that people conform in situations were people

  
• Evaluate explanations for conformity

  +RESEARCH SUPPORT FOR "ISI"

  Lucas et al asked students to give answers to mathematical problems, both easy and difficult. there was great conformity to incorrect answer when answers were difficult- this was most true for people who rated their mathematical ability as poor. this shows support for the prediction of ISI and increases its internal validity

  -INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN NSI-

  some research shows NSI does not affect everyones behaviour in the same way eg: people less concerned with being liked. people concerned with being liked and want to be associated with others are called nAfilliators. MCGHEE AND TEEVAN found, students in high need of affiliation are more likely to conform. this is a weakness as it shows the desire to be liked for some people underlies conformity more than others- creating individual differences in the way people respond

  -ISI AND NSI WORK TOGETHER

  the dual process describe by DETUCH AND GERARD assumes individuals are affected by either NSI or ISI. reality is both have an influence at one time. a person may feel pressure to fit in and conform as the other group is better informed then they are . this means it is hard to know whether ISI or NSI is at work. this is a weakness as the model doesn't fit real life conformity behaviours.
• Outline Asch's procedure


  ASCH - wanted to test conformity

  -conducted an experiment to investigate the extent to which social pressure could affect a person to conform.

  procedure:

  -used a line judgement task

  -put naive ppt in a group of 7 confederates (who had previously agreed on their responses). real ppt didn't know this

  -each person had to state a comparison line. the answer was always ambiguous.

  -real ppt gave answer last. some trials, there were 28 trials in total and on 12, confederates gave wrong answer.

  findings:

  -on average, 1/3 of ppts conformed to a clearly incorrect majority

  -3/4 of the ppts conformed on at least 1 trial

  conclusion:

  -when interviewed after, most ppts said the did not really believe the majority answer nut had gone along with them out of fear of being ridiculed. a few said they genuinely believed the groups answers
• Outline Asch's variations


  -GROUP SIZE-

  found that confederates conformity to the wrong answer grew by 31% with 3 confederates conforming.. addition of further confederates made little difference so no need for a majority of more than 3

  -UNANIMITY-

  wanted to know if presence of a non conforming person would effect conformity. found that presence of a non conforming confederate reduced conformity by 1/4- making ppt has more independence

  -TASK DIFFICUTLY-

  made tasks more difficult by making the line length more similar. found conformity increased, showing ISI had an important role when task was more ambiguous leading people to conform and look to others for guidance.
• Evaluate Asch's study into conformity

  - ARTIFICIAL NATURE OF THE TASK

  groups didn't resemble everyday life groups , 'Groups weren't very groupy' (FISK).. It is possible ppts guessed the true nature of the study and gave incorrect answer to be helpful and as a result of demand characteristics. - as findings do not generalise to everyday situations. this is especially true where the consequences of conformity might be important as we interact with groups much more directly

  - ETHICAL ISSUES

  ppts were deceived about the true nature of the experiment and the role of the confederates. they also would have experienced awkwardness and anxiety when their answer was challenged by the group. however Asch argued benefits of research was worth the discomfort. - as such a deceptive study would require more stringent controls for minimising ppts distress in order to gain ethical clearance today.

  - REPLICATION IN OTHER CULTURES

  due to its clear procedure, the Asch experiment has been replicated many times. BOND AND SMITH found the difference between conformity measures in different cultures around the world. they found in capitals countries where personal wealth and success are celebrated, conformity was generally lower. in collectivist cultures, where co-operation and group well being is prioritised, conformity was higher. individuals diminished their sense of self to meet the needs of the group, explaining why they conformed when the rest of the groups answer was incorrect. this is a weakness as it shows Aschs experiment may be culturally specific to individualist culture.
• define a social role

  -behaviour expected from an individual who occupies a given social position or status.

  
• Outline the Stanford Prison Experiment

  aim:

  to see whether people will conform to new social roles

  procedure:

  -ppts were all male psychology students at the prestigious Stanford uni, California.

  -they voulenteered to take part in the study and and were tested for their psychological stability

  ->they where randomly allocated into guards or prisoners

  GUARDS: look after the prisoners, keep then under control but no physical violence. given uniforms, sticks and mirrored sunglasses.

  PRISONERS: spent 2 weeks locked in cells. where unexpectedly arrested in the middle of the night at home and taken to the uni. they were stripped, deloused and given a number + prison uniform. (referred to as their numbers not names). wore a stocking over their heads

  findings:

  -experiment called off after 6 days

  -guards became so brutal, 2 prisoners had nervous breakdowns (one had a rash, the other went on hunger strike)

  -prisoners were apathetic (didn't stand up to guards despite them causing distress)

  conclusions:

  -ppts reaction was so extreme as maybe they had conformed to their new roles. a role is a part you play during your life and it requires different behaviours.

  - you change your behaviour according to your role- just as the prisoners and guards did

  -deindividualisation a state were you become so immersed in the norms of a group, you loose your sense of identity.

  
• what are social roles

  the 'parts' people play as members of different social groups eg: son
• what are the 4 explanations of obedience

  1) Milgrams study

  2) situational variables (milgrams variations)

  3) social-psychological factors

  4) dispositional factors
• Evaluate the Stanford Prison Experiment

  +INTERNAL VALIDITY

  a strength is that zimbardo had some control over variables. only emotionally stable individuals were chosen and randomly assigned to a role. researchers tried to rule out individual personality differences as an explanation for the findings. if guards and prisoners behaved differently, it was due to chance of them being in that role and the pressure of the situation. += high internal validity. can be confident in drawing conclusions

  +REALISM

  effort was put into making the study realistic. ppts arrested in the night, deloused and guards had sunglasses and batons etc. the prisoners were even stripped of their identity as they were referred to by their numbers. recordings show 90% of conversations were about the prison and prisoners even addressed each other by their numbers. prisoner 416 even went on hunger strike and many asked to leave. this shows the experiment has high ecological validity.

  -ETHICAL ISSUES

  ppts had not given informed consent to be emotionally tortured as they were. they were deceived and arguably weren't given the right to withdraw. ppts were told they were being taken but weren't told the true aims. when ppts asked to leave, zimbardo bribed them. ppts were under psychological harm, eg: prisoner 417 hunger strike. the studies ethical issues challenge zimbardo

  
• obedience


  is a type of social influence which causes a person to act in response to an order given by a person who has authority and power to punish
• Outline Milgram's study on obedience


  AIM

  - to see if everyday people obey authority

  PROCEDURE

  - selected ppts by advertising.

  - drew lots to see who would be the learner (in this case it was always fixed, the ppt was always the teacher and the confederate was the learner)

  - the learner was in one room, attached to wires, teacher was next door and would tell the learner to repeat word pairs. if the learner was wrong, the ppt had to administer electrical shocks (were fake).

  - each wrong answer lead to an increase in voltage all the way to 450v (severe)

  - 180v, learner shouts

  - 300v, leaner begged to be released

  - 315v +, no response

  - if ppt questioned whether they should go on, they where given 4 prods, each prod came after the last was unsuccessful

  eg: "please continue", "the experiment requires you must continue", "it is essential you must continue" to, "you have no choice, you must go on"

  FINDINGS

  - milligram predicted that only 1% of ppt would shock to 450v

  - however, ALL ppt shocked to 300v and 65% shocked to highest level. 5 stopped at 300v

  - qualitative data was also taken such as observations of the ppt for any signs of distress:

  . some were sweating, some digging nails into their hands and some even had full blown seizures.

  
• Evaluate Milgram's study


  - LOW INTERNAL VALIDITY

  ORNE AND HOLLAND argued that ppt behaved the way they did as they didn't believe the set up (guessed the shocks where not real) and milligram wasn't testing what he wanted. however SHERIDAN AND KING did milgram experiment using puppies, administering real shocks when an error was made. found that 75% of ppts went to max. 54% of males did, showing support for milgram. overall this is a weakness as there is support from GINA and PERRY, who listened to milligrams tapes and reported many of the ppt expressed doubt about the shocks being real, decreasing the internal validity.

  + HIGH EXTERNAL VALIDITY

  milligrams studies first appears to lack external validity as it was conducted in a lab. however, the central feature of the situation was the relationship between the (authority figure) experimenter and the ppts, which milgram believed reflected real life situations, in the lab environment. other research also supports this for eg: HOFLINGS NURSES. nurses were asked to administer double safe dosage of a fake drug, after receiving orders from a fake doctor over the phone. 21/22 obeyed. this shows that the obedience to authority found in milgrams experiment can be generalised and do tell us something valuable about obedience in life.

  + REPLICATION

  milgrams experiment has been replicated many times. Le Jeu de mort (a French tv show) includes a replication of milgrams study. ppts believed they were contestants in a pilot episode for a new game show called le zone xtreme. they were paid to give fake electric shocks when ordered by a presenter to other ppts who were fake actors. 80% of ppts delivered maximum shock. nervous action like nail biting was similar to milgrams ppts. this replication supports milgram showing his findings were not just a one off occurrence.
• What are situational variables?


  Features of an environment the affect the level of obedience to which individuals show
• Outline milgrams variations of proximity

  Milgram carried out many variations, changing an aspect each time to investigate which factors make people more likely to obey

  -PROXIMITY 1-

  The teacher and learner were in different rooms so the teacher could hear the learner but not see him

  - obedience level in this variation dropped from 65% to 40%

  -PROXIMITY 2-

  In a more dramatic variation, the teacher had to force the learners hand into the shock plate when he was incorrect

  -obedience level dropped from 65% to 30%

  -PROXIMITY 3-

  experimenter instructed teacher from a phone

  - obedience level dropped from 65% to 20.5
• Outline milgrams variations of location

  Milgram changed the location of the study in one of his variations. He moved it to a less prestigious run-down office. In this situation the experimenter had less authority

  - obedience levels dropped from 65% to 47.5%
• Outline milgrams variations of uniform

  - in original experiment, the experimenter wore a grey lab coat to emphasis his authority

  in a variation, this experimenter was called away at the start and replaced by a member of the public "confederate" who wore everyday clothes

  -obedience level dropped the most from 65% to 20%
• Evaluate Milgram's variations


  + RESEARCH SUPPORT

  Other studies have demonstrated the influence of these situational variables in obedience. A field experiment by BICKMAN had 3 confederates, 3 different uniforms ( a jacket and tie, milkman's outfit and a security guard uniform). Confederate stood in the streets and asked passers by to do tasks like pick up litter or give a coin for parking. FOUND, People twice as likely to obey security guard than confederate with tie and jacket. + as it supports milgrams variation of uniform and is a conclusions that uniform conveys authority of its wearer and is situational factor likely to increase obedience

  - LACK OF INTERNAL VALIDITY

  ORNE AND HOLLANDS criticism of milgrams original study was that ppts guessed the procedure was fake. They realised due to extra manipulation eg: when the member of public replaced the experimenter, it was not serous. Even milgram himself had doubts. This is a - as it is unclear whether milgrams results are genuinely due to operation of obedience or demand characteristics

  + CROSS CULTURAL REPLICATIONS

  both original and variation findings have been replicated in other cultures. Cross cultural research findings generally support milgram. Eg: MIRANDA ET AL found obedience rate of over 90% amidst Spanish students- suggesting milgrams obedience rates are not limited to American males.

  BOND AND SMITH- argued not much difference due to western countries

  overall + as it can be generalised increasing internal validity
• What is the agentic state? (social-psychological)


  people allow others (people of authority) to direct their actions, and then pass off the responsibility for the consequences to the person giving the orders. In other words, they act as agents for another person's will.
• what is the autonomous state


  - people act according to their own values and take responsibility for the results of those actions
• what are binding factors?

  an aspect of a situation which allows you to justify your actions
• what is the agentic shift?

  When we go from the autonomous state to the agentic state
• What is moral strain?

  - feeling of anxiety and discomfort when acting against you own moral values. Realise what your doing is wrong but feel powerless in disobeying
• evaluate the agentic state as an explanation for obedience

  - LIMITED EXPLANATION

  The agentic shift doesn't explain many of the research findings. For example, it does not explain why some of the participants did not obey it also does not explain the findings from Hofling et al study. The agentic shift explanation predicts that, as the nurses handed over responsibility to the doctor, they should have shown levels of anxiety similar to Milgram's participants, as they understood their role in a destructive process (moral strain). this suggests that at best, agentic theory can only account for some situations of obedience

  + RESEARCH SUPPORT

  studies using public opinion have found support for the agentic state.

  Blass and Schmitt showed a film of Milgram's study to students and asked them to identify who they felt was responsible for the harm to the learner. The students blamed the 'experimenter' rather than the participant. This supports the view that Milgrams ppts were in the agentic state. Although this study is not directly testing the theory, it shows support for the agentic state as an explanation increasing its internal validity
• What is legitimacy of authority? (social-psychological factors)

  An explanation for obedience which suggests that we are more likely to obey people who we perceive to have authority over us. This authority is justified by the individual's position of power within a social hierarchy.
• Outline legitimacy of authority

  We feel obligated to those in power because:

  - they have the power to punish

  - assume they know what their doing

  - expect them to protect us from wrongdoers (punish them)

  - assume they will exercise their power correctly

  so we train our children to also obey
• What is destructive authority?


  - Authority figures who use their legitimate powers for destructive purposes (ordering people to behave dangerous/cruel and callous ways).

  Eg: Hitler

  Eg: Milgrams study were experimenter used prods
• evaluate legitimacy of authority as an explanation of obedience

  + CULTURAL DIFFERENCES

  a strength of the legitimacy of authority explanation is that it is a useful account of cultural differences in obedience. Many studies show that countries differ in the degree to which people are traditionally obedient Eg: Kilham and Mann (1974) replicated Milgram's procedure in Australia and found that only 16% of their participants went all the way to the top of the voltage scale. On the other hand, Mantell found a very different figure for German participants - 85%.

  This shows that in some cultures, authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimate and entitled to demand obedience from individuals. This reflects the ways that different societies raise children to perceive authority figures. Such supportive findings from cross-cultural research increase the validity of the explanation.
• dispositional explanation


  an explanation of behvaiour which highlights the importance of an individuals personality
• What is the authoritarian personality?


  a personality that Adorno et al argued was especially susceptible to obeying people in authority and high status (submissive)
• Is authoritarian personality a dispositional or situational variable?

  Dispositional
• Outline Adorno et al (1950)

  -AIM-

  to investigate the idea that the concept of an authoritarian personality is due to personality traits which predispose them to be submissive and dismissive to certain people

  -PROCEDURE-

  - investigated the causes of obesdient personality in a study of over 2000 white American middle class men and their conscious attitudes towards other racial groups. They developed several scales, including the F-scale (facism scale), which is used to measure authoritarian personality

  eg: "obedience and respect is the most important virtue infants should learn"- do you agree?

  -FINDINGS-

  they found positive correlation between the authoritarian personality on the f-scale and predjudice against people from other backgrounds.
• origin of the authoritarian personality

  Adorno tried explaining why people had this type of personality and came to the conclusion that is was as a result if harsh, punishing and disciplinary upbringing. As well as sever criticism and conditional love.

  
  

  These create resentment and hostility within the child but they cannot show this to the parents out of fear of resentment so displace this onto individuals the percieve to be weaker and socially inferior (ethnic minorities within a community)
• Name some authoritarian personality characteristics


  Tendency to obey authority/ be obedient. They are submissive and have highly conventional attitudes towards sex, race and gender. They believe we need powerful leaders.
• Evaluate the authoritarian personality

  - Correlation

  MILGRAM AND ELMS conducted interviews with a small of fully obedient ppts who scored highly on the f-scale, believing there is a link between obedience and authoritarian personality. However this link is just correlation between 2 measured variables. This makes it impossible to draw the conclusion that authoritarian personality causes obedience on these results only. There may be a third factor- eg: both both obedience and authoritarian personality linked to lower education and may not be directly linked at all. - correlation does not mean causation

  - LIMITED EXPLANATION

  any explanation of obedience in terms of individual personality will find it hard to explain obedient behaviour in the majority of the countries population. eg: in pre-war Germany, millions of people displayed obedient, racist and anti-semetic behaviour. this was despite the fact that they all must have differered in personalities in many ways. it seems unlikely that they all had authoritarian personality. this is a limitation of Adorno's theory because it is clear that an alternative explanation is more realistic for example social identity
• Resistance to social influence

  the ability of people to withstand social pressure to the majority. This ability is affected by both situational and dispositional factors