Social Influence

• Conformity

  Yielding to group pressures

  Normative conformity: behaving like others in order to "fit in"

  Informational conformity: behaving like others in order to "be right"
• Collective behaviour


  The behaviour of two or more individuals who are acting together or collectively

  Small group behaviour still gives the individual a sense of control, whereas collective behaviour is where this sense is lost
• Crowd behaviour


  A group of people who have come together for a common purpose
• Anti-social behaviour

  Actions that go against society and harm it in some way
• Pro-social behaviour

  Actions that benefit society and its members
• Obedience

  Following a direct order from an individual who has superior authority

  Obedience is important as without it there would be chaos, however blind obedience can result in harmful behaviour as people do not question the morality of what they are being told to do
• Situational factors

  How external influences affect our behaviour. The ones we need to know are: majority influence, collective and crowd behaviour, culture, authority
• Normative conformity

  Going along with the group norm, but keeping their own opinions. Asch's line experiment showcases this.
• Informational conformity

  Yielding to group pressure because they are unsure of the answer themselves, so usually they will also internalise this response, changing their personal opinions.
• Three explanations of collective/crowd behaviour

  Le Bon: When in a crowd, people lose their sense of self, responsibility, and morality. Behaviour is unconscious and driven by instinct so people act in ways that they usually wouldn't.

  Reicher 1984: Crowds act under a common social identity. They attack those in the "out-group", but not those in the "in-group" (similar interests, culture, etc.)

  Reicher 1996: Crowds turn violent when police use heavy-handed methods to control the crowd, causing anger due to the shared in-group experience, so now have a common group goal against the police.
• Deindividuation

  When people are in a crowd and they lose their sense of individuality, so they feel more anonymous. Sometimes there is an assumption that there will be no negative consequences.
• Culture

  Collectivist: expected to help out with chores, care for younger siblings, etc. For example, Russia and Kenya. More likely to exhibit pro-social behaviour and altruism

  Individualist: raised to be competitive, and rewarded for chores with pocket money. For example, USA and UK. Less likely to exhibit prosocial behaviour and altruism
• Altruism

  Helping or showing concern for others without expecting any reward. Unselfish act which can disadvantage the person offering help.
• Economy on anti-social behaviour


  There is a correlation between income inequality and anti-social behaviour. There is also a correlation between social economic status and anti-social behaviour.
• Authority figures on obedience


  The presence of an authority figure causes obedience. Milgram's Electric Shock study showcases this. People do not believe they will obey as much as they actually obey

  Agency theory: people obey orders that they know are ethically wrong because they have been moved from an autonomous state (have power over their own actions) to an agentic state (acting as agents of the authority figure, so not responsible for their actions).

  Charismatic leaders: The charismatic personality of leaders allows them to exert power, as they are idolised by their followers
• Criticisms of situational factors

  1. Deterministic
  2. Deindividuation doesn't always lead to violence
  3. Not everyone conforms in the same way (individualist cultures conform less)
  4. Reductionist, ignores individual differences
  5. Milgram's research/theories on obedience are deterministic
  6. Milgram's theory takes responsibility away from those committing atrocious acts
  7. Research into cultural difference is mostly conducted on children
  8. Doesn't explain why some people don't obey
• Bickman study 1: method

  Design: field experiment, independent measures

  IV: uniform worn by the confederate (guard, milkman, or civilian)

  DV: whether people obeyed or not

  Sample: 153 adult pedestrians on the street in Brooklyn, New York

  Procedure: 4 white male experimenters wearing a uniform, told pedestrians to either:

  1. pick up a bag
  2. give a dime
  3. stand on the other side of the bus stop
• Bickman study 1: results/conclusions

  Results: no significant difference in obedience between civilian and milkman uniforms. Guard obeyed significantly more than civilian.

  Conclusions: wearing a uniform gives people more power and influence over others' behaviour. Higher perceived status in a uniform gives more power.
• Bickman study 2: method

  Design: field experiment, independent measures

  IV: Whether the confederate was wearing a guard or civilian uniform, and whether there was surveillance (whether the confederate stayed or walked away)

  DV: whether people obeyed or not

  Sample: 48 adult pedestrians on the street in Brooklyn, New York

  Results: Surveillance had no significant effect on obedience
• Bickman study 3

  Data gathered using a questionnaire with 141 college students, to investigate whether requests were perceived as more legitimate from a civilian, milkman, or guard. The guard was not seen as more legitimate.

  189 college students asked to predict what they and people in general would do in each scenario from experiment 1. Participants did not think that the guard would have more social power.
• Bickman studies 2 and 3: results and conclusions

  How people think they would behave is not a good predictor of actual behaviour.
• Criticisms of Bickman's research

  1. participants selected by opportunity sampling
  2. culture bias
  3. unethical as participants did not give consent and were deceived, with no debriefing
  4. gender bias as all confederates were male
  5. field experiment so little control over extraneous variables
• Dispositional factors

  How our own personality will affect whether or not we will obey or conform. The ones we need to know are: self-esteem, locus of control, morality, authoritarian personality
• Self-esteem on conformity

  Low self-esteem: low opinion of themselves and what they do. More likely to conform due to a lack of belief in their own ability.

  High self-esteem: feel confident in who they are and how they behave. Less likely to conform due to a confidence in their views.

  Low self-esteem explains informational conformity.

  There is a correlation between low self-esteem and reduced amounts of grey matter in the hippocampus.
• Locus of control in crowds


  Internal locus of control: believe in the ability to control their decisions, so any success or failure is due to the choices that they have made.

  External locus of control: believe they have very little or no control over their own lives and how people act around them.

  Internal locus of control increases with age. May have different loci of control in different situations. In a crowd, internal locus of control are less likely to be influenced by the crowd, and more likely to protest. External locus of control more likely to resort to violence in a crowd.
• Kohlberg's stages of morality

  Preconventional

  1 - Avoiding punishment/consequences

  2 - What benefits individual most, or others if assuming the favour will be returned eventually

  Conventional

  3 - Getting approval from others/being "good", judge actions on intention

  4 - obeying authority and maintaining social order

  Post-conventional

  5 - "lawful", what is agreed upon by society as a whole

  6 - abstract ideas of justice and ethicality
• Morality on pro-social and anti-social behaviour


  Anti-social behaviour is most common in the second stage of moral development. Parents play a role in morality - children with supportive but rule-setting parents seen to have higher levels of morality

  Damage to the prefrontal cortex might cause faulty moral reasoning.
• Authoritarian personality on obedience- Adorno


  Those with an authoritarian personality see the world in "black and white", and offer blind obedience to those they see as having higher authority than themselves. They are contemptuous and prejudiced against those they perceive as inferior. It is measured by the F-scale.
• Origin of the authoritarian personality

  Strict and rigid upbringing, particularly by fathers, of whom they are afraid. Displace negative feelings towards father onto those they see as weaker. Milgram found that those who obeyed in the electric shock experiment were more likely to have an authoritarian personality.
• Criticisms of dispositional factors

  1. focuses too much on individual so hard to generalise
  2. reductionist explanations of conformity and obedience, as evidence suggests we are also affected by those around us
  3. Kohlberg's research is ungeneralisable
  4. Locus of control doesn't explain crowd behaviour well as people can have different loci of control for different situations
  5. Authoritarian personality doesn't explain why those without a strict upbringing can be obedient
• Morrell et al: method


  Design: a report for the Cabinet Office on behalf of NatCen

  Sample: 36 people from Tottenham, 18 over-18s and 18 under-18s, range of gender, ethnicity, and work status

  Procedure: 5 weeks after the riots, participants gave informed consent and were told their answers would be confidential and anonymous, interviews conducted
• Morrell et al: findings (types)

  Watchers: present but not involved

  1. Bystanders: happened to be there
  2. Curious: chose to be there to see what was going on

  Rioters: involved in violence/vandalism

  1. Protesters: acting out due to death of Mark Duggan
  2. Retaliators: getting their own back on the "system"/police
  3. Thrill-seekers: involved due to excitement

  Looters: breaking into shops/stealing

  1. Opportunists: saw chance to steal for selves, family, or to sell
  2. Sellers: planned involvement to maximise profits

  Non-involved: did not take part

  1. Stay-aways: chose not to be there
  2. Wannabes: wanted to be there
• Morrell et al: findings (reasoning)

  Nudge vs tug factors:

  1. previous criminal activity: easy to get involved, but been caught before so know the risks
  2. attitude towards authority: cynicism towards authority, negative experience with police (or none)
  3. prospects: "nothing to lose" or having expectations for future
  4. family attitudes: relatives not approving
  5. community: attachment to community (either low-level criminal or pro-social values including religion)
  6. belonging: little or sense of ownership/stake in society
  7. poverty and materialism: desire for goods but no means, or adequate resources
• Morrell et al: conclusions

  Anti-social behaviour is influenced by:

  1. collective behaviour
  2. dispositional factors
  3. sense of right and wrong
  4. assessment or risks and benefits
• Morrell et al: criticisms

  1. unreliable memory as conducted 5 weeks later
  2. distrust of authority affected honesty
  3. social desirability due to self-report
  4. difficult to recruit participants, so mostly from prison, therefore hard to generalise
• Minority influence

  Moscovici:

  1. consistent message
  2. commitment
  3. persuasive argument, for example using a charismatic representative

  Time to Change:

  1. awareness
  2. relation to peers

  Snowball effect: members of minority slowly change the opinion of the majority
• Majority influence

  Normalising and explaining mental health to get the minority to conform. Time to Change/Time to Talk, National Attitudes to Mental Illness survey, improvement in attitudes. Reducing mental health stigma by treating it like a physical problem.