social influence

• Conformity


  A change in behaviour/opinions due to imagined pressure from a group
• Group size


  Asch increased the size of the group by adding more confederates, thus increasing the size of the majority.

  
  

  Conformity increased with group size, levelling off when the majority was greater than three.
• Unanimity


  The extent to which all the members of a group agree. In Asch's studies, the majority was unanimous when all the confederates selected the same comparison line. This produced the greatest degree of conformity in the naive participants.
• Task difficulty


  Asch's line-judging task is more difficult when it becomes harder to work out the correct answer. Conformity increases because naive participants assume that the majority is more likely to be right.
• Asch's baseline procedure


  -123 American men, each in a group with confederates

  -Saw 2 white cards on each trial with lines A,B and C (comparison lines) on one card and line X on another (clearly resembling one of the 3 latter lines)

  -They said out loud which one they thought resembled line X the most
• Evaluation of Asch's study : Artificial task

  E = Participants knew they were in a research study and may have shown demand characteristics

  E = The task of identifying lines is trivial and so there was no reason not to conform. Also, the groups didn't resemble groups in real life

  L = The findings do not generalise to real world situations, especially those where the consequences of conformity may be important
• Limitation of Asch's study : Limited application


  P= Participants were American men

  E = Other research suggests women may be more conformist as they may be more concerned about relationships and being accepted

  E = Similar studies in other cultures found higher conformity rates

  L = Findings tell us little about conformity in women or people from other cultures
• Srength of Asch's study : Research support

  E = Todd Lucas asked pp's to solve easy and hard math problems. Participants were given answers from three other students, and they conformed more the harder the questions got.

  L = This shows Asch was correct in claiming that task difficulty is a variable that affects conformity
• Internalisation


  A deep type of conformity where we take on the majority view because we accept it as correct. It leads to permanent change in behaviour, even when in private
• Identification


  A moderate type of conformity where we act in the same way with the group because we value it and want to be part of it. But we don't necessarily agree with everything the majority believes.
• Compliance


  A temporary type of conformity where we go along with the majority view in public, but privately disagree. This only lasts with the group
• Informational Social Influence


  ...says we agree with the opinion of the opinion of the majority because we believe it is correct. We accept it because we want to be correct as well.

  May lead to internalisation
• Normative Social Influence


  ...says we agree with majority opinion because we want social approval and to be liked.

  May lead to compliance
• Strength of Normative Social Influence

  P = Research support

  E = Asch when candidates wrote down their answer, conformity fell to 12.5% and this supports the idea that they were conforming because of normative social influence.

  E = This is as giving answers privately removes group pressure

  L = This shows some conformity is due to desire to fit in with the group
• Strength of Informational Social Influence

  P = Research evidence to support ISI from study by Todd Lucas

  E = Lucas found that participants conformed more often to wrong answers when the maths problems were difficult

  E = This is because when the problems were easy they 'knew their own mind' but when they were difficult they did not want to be wrong as the situation became ambiguous

  L = This shows ISI is a valid explanation of conformity because ISI predicted the results
• Counterpoint of NSI and ISI

  P = It is often unclear whether it is NSI or ISI at work in research studies (and real life)

  E = Asch found that conformity is reduced when there is a dissenting participant

  E = The dissenter may reduce power of NSI (providing social support) or may reduce power of ISI (providing an alternate source of social information)

  L = Therefore, it is hard to separate ISI and NSI and both processes probably operate together in real life
• Limitation of NSI - individual differences

  E = Some people are more concerned with being liked than others, called nAffiliators (need for affiliation).

  E = These people have a greater need for 'affiliation' and being in a relationship with others. This desire to be liked underlies conformity for some people more than others.

  L = There are individual differences in conformity that cannot be explained by a general theory
• Social roles


  The 'parts' people play as members of various social groups.

  Parent, child, student etc.
• Stanford Prison Experiment


  - Zimbardo set up a mock prison in the basement of Stanford.

  - 21 male student volunteers who tested as 'emotionally stable'

  - Students were randomly assigned prisoner or guard

  - Prisoners were given a loose smock and were identified by numbers, whereas guards a club, glasses and handcuffs, (uniforms created loss of identity (de-individuation)
• Findings of SPE


  - Guards treated the prisoners harshly

  - Prisoners rebelled within two days

  - Guards conducted random headcounts at night, put prisoners in dark closets, force-fed them, and made them clean toilets with their bare hands
• Strength of SPE - control of key variables


  E = e.g Selection of participants. Emotionally stable individuals were chosen and randomly assigned

  E = This way individual differences were ruled out. If guards and prisoners behaved differently but the roles were by chance, then behaviour must be due to the role

  L = This increased the internal validity, so we can confidently draw conclusions about the influence of roles on conformity
• Limitation of SPE - lack of realism

  E = Some psychologists argued participants were play acting

  E = Participants performances were based on their stereotypes of how prisoners and guards act. e.g. One guard argued he based his role on a character from a movie

  L = This suggests the findings of the SPE tell us little about conformity to social roles
• < Counterpoint (strength)


  P = Mark McDermott argues participants behaved as if the prison was real to them

  E = 90% of prisoners conversations were about the prison life. They discussed how it was impossible to leave the SPE before their 'sentences' ended

  E =

  L = This suggests SPE did replicate the social roles of prisoners and guards in a real prison, giving a high degree of internal validity
• Limitation of SPE - exaggerates the power of roles

  E = Only one-third of the guards behaved brutally. Another third tried to apply rules fairly and the rest actively helped the prisoners

  E = Most guards resisted situational pressures to conform

  L = Suggests that Zimbardo overstated his view that SPE participants were conforming to social roles and minimised the influence of dispositional factors
• Obedience


  A form of compliance that occurs when people follow direct commands, usually from someone in authority
• Milgram's Obedience Study


  - 40 american male volunteers took part in Yale, USA

  - Upon arrival each participant met another (a confederate)

  - They drew lots on who would be teacher and who would be learner, it was rigged so that the naive participant is always teacher

  - An experimenter in a lab coat was involved
• Findings of Milgram's study

  - All participants shocked learner up to 300V

  - 12% stopped at 300V and 65% continued to 450V

  - Qualitative data : sweating, lip biting, seizures
• Strength of Milgram's study : replicable

  E = A french documentary, participants were paid to give fake electric shocks to other participants (actors). 80% delivered the maximum shock 460V

  E = Their behavior was almost identical to that of Milgram's - nervous laughter, nail biting and sweat

  L = This supports Milgram's original findings about obedience to authority, and demonstrated were not due to special circumstances
• Limitation of Milgram's study : low internal validity

  E = Milgram reported that 75% of his participants believed the shocks were genuine. Martin Orne argued they behaved like that as they did not buy the setup

  L = Participants may have been acting due to demand characteristics.
• Counter point


  E = A study was conducted using a procedure like Milgram's. The participants gave real shocks to a puppy due to orders from an experimenter.

  E = Despite the real distress of the animal 54% of male and all women delivered what they thought what was a fatal shock

  L = Suggests the effects in Milgram's study were genuine because people obeyed even when shocks were rea
• Evaluation extra: Ethical issues

  P: Ethical issues

  E: The participants were deceived because they thought allocation of roles was random when it was rigged. Milgram dealt with this by debriefing participants

  E: Diana Baumrind criticised Milgram for deceiving his participants. She believed deception in studies can have serious consequences for participants and researchers
• Situational variables of obedience

  Proximity

  Location

  Uniform
• Proximity (variations)


  - In Milgram's study the teacher could hear the learner but not see him. In the proximity variation teacher and learner were in the same room. The obedience rate dropped from 65% to 40%

  - In another variation, the experimenter left the room and gave instructions to the teacher by phone. Obedience returned to 20%.

  Explanation: decreased proximity allows people to psychologically distance from the consequences of their actions.e.g. when the teacher and learner are separated the teacher is less aware of the harm they were causing
• Location (variation)


  Milgram conducted a variation in a run-down office block rather than in the prestigious Yale University: obedience fell to 47.5%

  Explanation : The prestigious environment gave Milgram's study legitimacy and authority. Obedience was however still high in the office block as participants perceived the 'scientific' nature of the procedure
• Uniform (variation)


  - In the baseline the Experimenter wore a grey labcoat as a symbol of authority

  - In one variation the Experimenter was called away at the start of the procedure because of an inconvenient telephone call and 'an ordinary member of the public' (a confederate) in everyday clothes took the role of Experimenter

  - Obedience rate dropped to 20%

  Explanation: uniforms encourage obedience as they are recognised as symbols of authority
• Strength of situational variables : research support

  e = in a field experiment leonard bickman had three confederates dress in different outfits -suit, milkman, security guard. confed. stood in the street and asked civilians to perform tasks (litter picking, giving a coin)

  e = people were twice as likely to obey the security guard or man in a suit

  l = this supports the view that a situational variable, (uniform) has a powerful effect on obedience
• Strength of situational variables : cross cultural replications

  e = wim meeus used a more realistic procedure than milgram to study obedience in dutch people. pp's were ordered to say stressful things in an interview to someone desperate for a job

  e = 90% of pp's obeyed. the researchers replicated milgrams findings on proximity. when the person giving orders left, obedience decreased

  l = this suggests milgrams findings on obedience are not limited to the us, and are valid in other cultures
• Counterpoint of situational variables

  p = replications of milgrams research are not very cross cultural

  e = peter smith indentified only two replications that took place in non western countries (india, jordan)

  l = therefore it may not be appropriate to conclude milgrams findings apply to people in all/most cultures
• Limitation of situational variables - low internal validity


  e = martin orne pointed out it is likely pp's were aware the experiment was faked because of manipulation of variables e.g. when the experimenter was replaced by a member of the public.

  e = even milgram said this situation was so contrived that some pp's may have worked out the truth

  l = therefore, it is unclear whether the findings are due to the obedience or as the pp's saw through the deception and displayed demand characteristics
• evaluation extra - the danger of the situational perspective


  p = milgrams research findings support a situational explanation of obedience (uniform, location, proximity)

  e = this perspective has been criticised by david mandel who argues it offers an excuse for evil behaviour. he says it is offensive to survivors of the holocaust to suggest the nazis were obeying orders. milgrams explanation ignores the role of dispositional factors (personality)

  l = the situational perspective may not be justified