Social Influence

• Conformity 


  Aronson 2011: A change in a persons behaviour or opinions as a result of real or imagined pressure from a person or group of people
• Asch's study of conformity (1951)

  • Base line: ppts in group of confederates comparing lines
  • 123 ppts in total groups of 6-8
  • Average conformity 36.8%
  • At least 75% conformed at least once
• Asch's variables (1995)

  • Group size:

  > 1-15 confederates

  > Conformity increased to a point (curvilinear)

  > 3 is the magic number (31.8%) little difference from then on

  • Unanimity:

  > Presence of dissenter reduced conformity

  • Task difficulty:

  > When task is harder conformity increased
• Evaluation of Asch

  +Support: Lucas et al 2006 asked ppts to solve easy and hard maths problems, confederates gave wrong answers but ppts only conformed if problems were harder

  -Artificial Task: ppts knew they were in a study and it was an unusual task so may not generalise to every day life

  -Limited sample: ppts were American men so may not generalise to other cultures or women
• Types of Conformity: Kelman 1958

  • Compliance: going along with others in public but no private change at all, stops when group pressure does
  • Identification: public change of behaviour and opinions even though may not privately agree with all, because you wants to be accepted into a group
  • Internalisation: genuine acceptance of group norms, private and public change that is permanent even with absence of group members
• Explanations for Conformity: Gerard and Deutsch 1955

  • Informational social influence (ISI):

  > Conform to be right, cognitive process

  > Leads to internalisation

  > Most likely in ambiguous situations and crisis

  • Normative social influence (NSI):

  > Conform to be liked, emotional process

  > Leads to compliance

  > Most likely in situations with strangers or stressful situations with friends
• Evaluation of conformity

  + Support for NSI, Asch's ppts were interviewed after and said they were self conscious of giving the wrong answer, when answers were written down conformity dropped to 12.5%

  + Support for ISI, Lucas et al- ppts conformed more when task was more difficult because it was ambiguous

  -Individual differences, nAffiliators more concerned with being liked by others, McGee and Teevan (1967) found that students who were nAffiliators were more likely to conform, individual differences- not one situational explanation
• Conformity to social roles (Zimbardo)

  • Stanford Prison Experiment 1973:

  > 21 male volunteers tested as emotionally stable and randomly assigned the role of guard or prisoner

  > Both groups given uniform to deindividuate and encouraged to conform

  > Found that guards were harsh and within 2 days prisoners became subdued, depressed and anxious, one was released early for showing signs of psychological disturbance, another went on a hunger strike

  > Guards became more aggressive and brutal, enjoying the power they had

  > Experiment ended after 6 days instead of 14
• Evaluation of the Stanford Prison Experiment

  + High control= high internal validity

  -Lack of realism: Banuazizi and Mohavedi 1975 Argued ppts play acted based on stereotypes rather than conformed

  -From 1973 argued Zimbardo exaggerated power of social roles, only 1/3 tried to be fair, others tried to help and support, suggest Zimbardo overstated conformity to social roles and minimised influence of disposition
• Milgram's study of obedience 1963

  > 40 male American volunteers for supposed memory study

  > Ppts always teacher for two confederates (learner and experimenter)

  > Would shock learner for incorrect answers, going up in 15V increments (fake)

  > 100% went up to 300V

  > 65% went to full fatal shock, 450V

  > Ppts also observed to be anxious and tense
• Evaluation for Milgram baseline

  + Support, French documentary (Beauvois et al 2012) ppts paid to give fake shocks to confederates in front of audience. 80% went to max 460V to 'unconscious' man, all showed anxiety

  -Low internal validity, Milgram said 75% believed the shocks were real, Orne & Holland 1968, argue ppts play acting- demand characteristics

  -Alternative interp, 3 prods 'Please continue, the experiment requires you continue, absolutely essential you continue'= all obeyed, 'no other choice'= disobeyed. Social identity theory says ppts only obeyed when identifies with scientific aims
• Obedience: Situational Variables

  • Location:

  > Run down office building= 47.5%

  > University gave legitimacy and authority unlike in the office

  • Proximity:

  > Same room as confederate= 40%

  > Touch/face= 30%

  > Remote instruction 20.5%

  • Uniform:

  > Experimenter called away and take over by 'member of the public'= 20%

  > Uniform gave authority
• Obedience: Situational Variables Eval

  + Research, Bickman 1974- 3 confed, suit, milkman, guard all asked passers-by's to pick up litter. 2X as likely to obey guard

  + Cross-culture, Meeus and Raaijmakers 1986- more realistic study for Dutch ppts, saying stressful things in interview to candidate (confed), 90% obeyed, applies to other cultures + women

  -Low internal validity, Orne and Holland 1968- criticised baseline ppts may know it was fake, more likely in these variations, especially when replaced by member of the public, unclear if findings are genuine or demand characteristics
• Obedience: Situational Explanations

  • Agentic state 1974:

  > Autonomous state undergoes agentic shift when authority figure (hierarchy) present

  > Binding factors keep people in agentic state- aspects of situation that allow person to ignore or minimise damaging affect of behaviour- reduce moral strain e.g. victim blame

  • Legitimacy of Authority:

  > More likely to obey those we perceive to have authority over us

  > Authority is justified in social hierarchy, problems when this is destructive
• Obedience: Situational Explanations Evaluation

  + Support from Milgram's studies, ppts asked who was responsible if learner harmed and experimenter said he was, no further objections (agentic state)

  + Cross culture differences, Kilham and Mann 1974- 16% Australian women went to 450V in Milgram style study, Mantell found 85% for German ppts (legit authority)

  +Real World Application- My Lai Massacre was due to destructive legitimate authority. Nazi Germany also (legit authority)
• Obedience: Dispositional Explanation (Adorno)

  • Authoritarian personality:

  > Shows extreme respect and submissiveness to authority

  > Contempt for those perceived as weaker

  > Black and White thinking

  > 'Others' are scapegoats for society's problems

  > Formed in childhood- harsh parenting, conditional love, strict discipline, fear of parents gets displaced onto scapegoats
• Adorno's Research 1950

  • 2000 middle class white Americans got sent the F-scale (fascism) to measure authoritarian personality
  • People that scored high identified with 'strong people', were conscious of state and showed high respect for those of higher status
  • Strong positive correlation between authoritarianism and prejudice
• Obedience: Dispositional Explanation Evaluation

  + Support, Elms and Milgram 1966- interviewed small sample of original ppts who had been fully obedient, all completed F-scale and scored significantly higher than control group of 20 Disobedient

  -Limited explanation, e.g. Nazi Germany had high levels of obedience and anti-Semitic behaviour but very unlikely they all had authoritarian personality

  +Political bias, Christie and Jahoda 1954- argued that F-scale politically biased interpretation of Authoritarian Personality towards extreme left as well as right. Doesn't account for across spectrum
• Resistance to Social Influence

  • Social support: presence of dissenter reduced conformity and obedience (10%) rates
  • Locus of control: high internal LOC are more able to resist pressures because of their own personal responsibility
• Resistance to Social Influence Evaluation

  + Support, Albrecht et al 2006- evaluated Teen Fresh Start USA, 8 week programme to help pregnant women 14-19 resist peer pressure to smoke. At end those with a buddy significantly less likey to smoke than those without. RWA

  + Support, Holland 1967- repeated Milgram baseline and measured if ppts externals or internals. 37% internals resisted, 23% externals
• Minority Influence

  • Small group changes beliefs and behaviours of others
  • Most likely to lead to internalisation
  • In order to be effective they need to be:

  > Consistent

  > Committed (Augmentation principle)

  > Flexible

  • In order to cause:

  > Conversion

  > The snowball effect (minority view is now the majority view)
• Minority Influence: Moscovici 1969

  • Groups of 6 people asked to view set of 36 blue coloured slides varying intensity, then state blue or green
  • In each group there were 2 confederates consistently saying green
  • True ppts gave same wrong answer on 8.42% of trials
  • Second group of ppts exposed to inconsistent minority, green 24 times and blue 12 times
  • Agreement fell to 1.25%
  • Third group had no confederates and all ppts had to do was identify, 0.25% were wrong
• Minority influence Evaluation

  + Support, Moscovici showed minority influence, Wood et al 1994- meta analysis of 100 similar studies and found minorities that were seen as the most consistent were the most influential

  -Artificial task = reduced external validity

  -Power of minority influence, Moscovici only 8%, suggest Minority Influence is rare and not useful
• Social Influence and Social Change: Minority Influence

  (E.g. Suffrage)

  1. Draw attention- Posters
  2. Consistency- Many women took part in marches
  3. Deeper Processing- Those who accepted now think deeply about injustice
  4. Augmentation Principle- Emily Davison hit by King's horse to show her dedication
  5. Snowball Effect- More backing led to change in law, 1918 women ages 30+ with property had the right to vote, 1928 equal to men (21+)
  6. Social Cryptoamnesia- Society knows change has occurred but can't remember how
• Social Influence and Social Change: Conformity and Obedience

  • Conformity:

  > Dissenter can lead to social change

  > Environmental and health campaigns use NSI by saying what other people are doing

  • Obedience:

  > Milgram's research showed when confederate teacher refused to shock learner obedience rate plummeted, so disobedient role models are important

  > Zimbardo 2007 suggested obedience can be used to create social change through gradual commitment, when small instruction obeyed harder to resist bigger one, people drift into new behaviour
• Social Influence and Social Change Evaluation

  + Nolan et al 2008- messages on doors in San Diego, neighbours reducing energy usage, control didn't mention others, significant decrease for first group, NSI conformity is valid

  + Minority Influence explains change, Nemeth 2009 claims minority influence inspires divergent thinking which is broader and more active. Leads to better decisions and creative solutions to social issues= valuable

  -Deeper processing, Mackie 1987 claims majority influence creates Deeper Processing when we disagree, challenges validity of minority influence