Social influence

• Milgram's study of obedience.

  40 male participants aged 20-50. Confederate Mr Wallace was the 'learner' and the ppt was the 'teacher'. Teacher asked questions and with every wrong answer, they had to administer an electric shock to learner increasing by 15V each time. At 150V, learner asked to leave.
• Findings of Milgram's study of obedience.

  65% of participants went up to 450V.

  They showed signs of physical distress like giggling, twitching, sweating or digging nails into hands.

  3 participants had seizures.
• Evaluation of Milgram's study of obedience.

  • May lack temporal validity - conducted during the Cold war, Americans naturally more obedient. Burger recreated study and found a 70% concordance rate.
  • Androcentric - all male participants. Sheridan & King recreated study with males and females. 100% females administered shocks to puppies.
  • May lack ecological validity - unnatural situation. Hofling had nurses take orders over phone and administer potentially lethal dosage. 95% obeyed.
• What three main variables did Milgram test?

  Proximity, location, uniform.
• Explain Milgram's proximity variation.

  In the orginial study the participant and the authority figure were in adjoining rooms. In the variable, they are in the same room. Obedience reduced from 65% to 20%. Suggests that the proximity to an authority figure has an impact on obedience. Additionally, when put in the same room as the learner, obedience dropped from 65% to 40%.
• Explain Milgram's location variation.

  The original study took place at Yale university, whereas the variable was done in a run-down office building. Obedience decreased from 65% to 47%.
• Explain Milgram's uniform variation.

  In the original study the authority figure wore a lab coat. In the variable they wore casual clothing, and obedience reduced from 65% to 17%.
• Research to support Milgram's variations.

  Bickman conducted an experiment with three conditions: someone dressed as a milkman, someone dressed as a security guard and someone in a suit and tie. They asked pedestrians to obey requests. Security guard was obeyed 76% of the time, the milkman 47% and the man in the suit and tie 30%. This supports Milgram's uniform variation because it also suggests that uniform is a factor affecting obedience.
• Explain the authoritarian personality as an explanation for obedience.

  Those with an authoritarian personality believe power should be sought, have high respect for authority, are very obedient, and have very conventional attitudes. It is shaped through strict childhood upbringing where child can't express negative emotions towards strict parents to they displace them on someone lower than them in the hierarchy.
• How was the authoritarian personality tested?

  Adorno developed the f-scale test and gave it to over 2,000 middle-class white Americans.
• Evaluation of the authoritarian personality as an explanation for obedience.

  • Research to support - Elms & Milgram gave the f-scale test to the original participants who went up to 450V and found a strong correlation between high f-scale scores and obedience. HOWEVER, there is an issue with causality.
  • A third factor may explain f-scale scores and obedience. Hyman & Sheatsley suggested low socio-economic status and poor education could influence both these things.
• Explain Asch's research into conformity.

  Had 6-8 participants do a line judgement task with 7 confederates. Participant agreed with incorrect answers 36.8% of the time. 25% never conformed to give a wrong answer.
• Variables investigated by Asch.

  Group size, unanimity and tast difficulty.
• Asch's unanimity variable.

  Introduced a confederate who disgareed with other confederates. The genuine participant conformed to the wrong answer less when the dissenter was there. Rate decreased to less than a quarter of when it was unanimous. Suggests the influence of the majority depends on it being unanimous.
• Asch's task difficulty variable.

  Increased difficulty of the line-judging task by making the lines more similar in length. Conformity increased due to uncertainty. The task becomes more ambiguous when difficulty increases. This may demonstrate informational social influence (it is natural to look for guidance and assume they know better than you).
• Evaluation of Asch's conformity experiment.

  • Research to support - Lucas et al gave participants 'easy' and 'hard' maths questions. Higher conformity with harder questions.
  • Artificial tasks so can findings be generalised to the real world?
  • Participants were American - Neto (1995) suggested Americans conform more due to the culture - they are more concerned with social relationships. Can findings be generalised?
  • Ethical issues - deception of participants.
• Social support as an explanation for conformity.

  Social support breaks unanimity. The non-conforming dissenter allows participant to also dissent and follow their conscience.

  • Research to support - Allen & Levine conducted a similar study to Asch. Each group contained a dissenter who sometimes mentioned poor eyesight, but even with this factor, the participants still resisted conforming.
• Social support as an explanation for obedience.

  Disobedient role models - seeing others disobey an authority figure encourages disobedience.

  • Research to support - one of Milgram's variables involved two confederates rebelling. Obedience dropped from 65% to 10%. Suggests social support is important in order for someone to disobey an authority figure.
• Locus of control.

  Internal LoC: believe you control your life and what happens is largely down to consequences of behaviour.

  External LoC: believe luck and fate are important factors and what happens is largely uncontrollable.

  Increasing external pressures will have more impact on someone with an external locus of control as those with an internal locus of control are more likely to behave independently.
• Evaluation of the idea of locus of control impacting conformity.

  • Research to support - Shute conducted a study in which undergrad students expressed either conservative or liberal attitudes to drug taking. Those with an internal LoC conformed less to being pro drug-taking.
  • Unexpected changes over time. Twenge did a longitudinal study over 40 years and found people have become more resistant to pressure to conform and more people have an external LoC.
• Minority influence occurs when a small group changes the attitudes, beliefs and behaviours of a larger majority group. The three factors needed to achieve this are consistency, committment and flexibility.
• How does consistency lead to social change?

  When the majority are confronted with an unchanging message, they will have to take notice and rethink. Gives the impression that the minority are confident that they are right and they pass this confidence onto the majority.
• How does committment lead to social change?

  Members of a minority must show their willingness to sacrifice things in order to achieve their goal. This creates the image that the minority think it's important so the majority should too.
• How does flexibility lead to social change?

  Members of the majority need to feel that they are being considered, so the minority need to be willing to adapt and accept counterarguments, and influence a majority through negotation rather than enforcement.
• Evaluation of minority influence.

  • Flexibility has been tested empirically - Nemeth had a mock jury of 4 decide how much compensation ski lift accident victims should get. Each group had a rigid/flexible confederate. The flexible confederate changed the views of 3 other ppts after changing their view.
  • Research to support - Moscovici had groups of 6 females look at 36 blue slides and decide if they were blue or green. 2 confederates stayed consistent that all slides were green and in this condition, ppts agreed on 8.2% of trials compared to 1.25% of inconsistent trials.
• Social change occurs when societies adopt new attitudes. At some point, the minority will become the majority.
• What stages need to happen in order to achieve social change?

  Drawing attention (raising awareness - if they aren't aware, they won't change), consistency (having a clear message will avoid confusion), deeper processing (wider society needs to understand that change needs to occur), the augmentation principle (being willing to risk more and fight for a cause), the snowball effect (the minority becomes the majority until everyone has changed their views), and social cryptoamnesia (society knows change occured but they don't know how).
• Evaluation of the idea of social change.

  • Tested empirically - Goldstein did a field experiment for towel reusage with 3 conditions. C1 = 'save the environment', C2 = 'save resources for future generations', C3 = 'join fellow citizens...'. C3 towel reusage increased by 34%. Shows people are more likely to change when others do too. HOWEVER, field experiments lack control.
  • Research to support - Milgram's confederates rebelling condition showed other people with the same views act as social support for others when bringing about social change. HOWEVER, it was androcentric.
• Compliance is when an individual publicly conforms to the behaviour or views of others but privately maintains their own views. This is based around the desire to fit in. The changes are weak and temporary.
• Internalisation is when an individual publicly and privately agrees with the views of others. This is a total change of beliefs because the individual beliefs these new views are right.
• Identification is adjusting behaviour and opinions to the group because membership of the group is desirable. There is public and private acceptance when the group are around so this involves both compliance and internalisation.
• Normative social influence is based on our desire to fit in. We must believe we are under surveillance by the rest of the group. For example, adolescent smoking. Perkins found that adolscents who were told most of their peers did not smoke were less likely to start smoking themselves. Shows people change behaviour just to fit in with a group.
• Informational social influence occurs in unfamiliar or ambiguous situations when we are unclear on how we should behave. We look to others for the right answer. Fein showed participants a film of US presidential debate and the reactions of other group members on the points being made. Ppts mostly took up the opinions of the majority. Shows our beliefs are shaped by others when we believe they have more information than we do.
• Research to support ISI and NSI.

  • Research to support NSI - Asch found some ppts conformed because they were self conscious about giving correct answer and were afraid of disapproval. When they wrote down answers, conformity fell to 12.5%. Privacy removed normative group pressure.
  • Research to support ISI - Lucas found ppts conformed more with harder maths questions because they assumed others knew the answers when they did not.
• Limitations of ISI and NSI.

  • Hard to separate NSI and ISI - Asch found conformity reduces when there is one other dissenting participant. They may reduce power of NSI as they provide social support, but they may reduce ISI because they provide an alternative explanation.
  • Doesn't predict conformity in every case - McGhee & Teevan suggested those who want to be liked by others (nafiliators) are more likely to conform. NSI underlies conformity for some more than others.
• Social roles are the parts people play as members of various social groups. They are accompanied by expectations of what others have of what is appropriate behaviour in each role.
• Deindividuation is a state in which you become so immersed in the norms of the group that you lose your sense of identity and personal responsibility.
• Zimbardo's prison experiment.

  Investigated conformity to social roles. Mock prison at Stanford university with 21 emotionally stable male volunteers. Randomly assigned prisoner or guard. Prisoners had loose smocks, caps, referred to by number. Guards wore uniform, reflective shades, no eye contact, carried a club and handcuffs.
• Findings of Zimbardo's prison experiment.

  Within 2 days, prisoners rebelled (swore, shouted, ripped their uniform). Guards harassed prisoners and played them off against each other. After rebellion, prisoners became subdued, depressed and anxious. 1 released for psychological disturbance, 2 released after 4th day, 1 went on hunger strike. Study ended after 6 days not intended 14. Social roles appear to have a strong influence on individual's behaviour.
• Evaluation of Zimbardo's prison experiment.

  • Control - selection of ppts (emotionally stable), randomly assigned. Rules out individual differences.
  • Lack of realism - may have been play acting but unlikely. Dermott said they did behave as if it was real. 90% of conversations were about prison, talked about leaving before 'sentences' were over, etc.
  • Unethical - caused psychological harm.
  • Most guards didn't conform - 1/3 treated them fairly, 1/3 tried to help prisoners. Zimbardo minimised importance of factors like personality.