Social Influence

• Conformity


  A change in a person's behaviour or opinions as a result of real or imagined pressure from a person or group of people.
• What are the 3 levels of conformity?


  - Internalisation

  - Identification

  - Compliance
• Internalisation


  A deep type of conformity where we take on the majority view because we fully believe it is correct. It leads to a far-reaching and permanent change in behaviour, even when the group is absent
• Identification


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


  A superficial and temporary type of conformity where we outwardly agree with the majority view, but privately disagree with it. The change in behaviour only lasts as long as the group is monitoring us
• Informational social influence (ISI)


  ISI is an explanation to conformity where we are uncertain about what behaviours/beliefs are right or wrong. ISI is more likely to happen in a situation that is ambiguous and we assume the group is more likely to be right and want to be correct. ISI often leads to a permanent change in behaviour (internalisation)
• Normative social influence (NSI)

  NSI is an explanation to conformity when we act accordingly to social norms or what is normal to the majority (norms). NSI is likely to happen in a situation where we seek social approval and dterm-22o not want to be rejected. NSI often leads to a temporary change in behaviour (compliance)
• Explanations to conformity - EVALUATION 01 (AMD)

  One strength of NSI is that there is evidence that supports it from Asch (1951). When he interviewed his participants, some said they conformed because they felt self-conscious and were afraid of disapproval. However, when participants wrote their answers down - conformity fell to 12.5%. This is because privately writing down the answers meant there was no normative group pressure. This therefore shows that people will show compliant behaviour in order to fit in.
• Explanations to conformity - EVALUATION 02 (AMD)


  One strength of ISI is there is research support. One study found that participants conformed more to incorrect answers they were given when the maths problems became more difficult and more ambiguous - so they relied on the answers given. This therefore shows that ISI is a valid explanation of conformity.
• Explanations to conformity - EVALUATION 03 (AMD)


  One limitation of explanations to conformity is that it is difficult to separate the influence of the two explanations. In real-life ambiguous situations, individuals might simultaneously seek out accurate information (informational social influence) and social approval (normative social influence).
• Asch (1951) - Conformity


  Aim --> The extent in which people will conform to the opinion of others, even when the answer is unambiguous

  Procedure --> 123 American men were tested. Each participant saw 2 white cards displayed. The first card showed the standard line and the second card showed 3 comparison lines, with one line being the same length as the standard line. Confederates of Asch all gave the same (incorrect) scripted answers.

  Findings --> 36.8% of participants conformed to the confederates incorrect answer and 75% conformed at least once

  Conclusion --> Asch concluded that we agree with other people's opinions and change our behaviour to 'fit in' with them (normative social influence)
• What were the 3 variables investigated by Asch (1951)?


  - Group size

  - Unanimity

  - Task difficulty
• Group size


  Asch varied the number of confederates from 1 to 15. With 3 confederates, conformity rose to 31.8%. But the presence of any more confederates did not have a major effect/if at all as the conformity rate levelled off.
• Unanimity


  Asch introduced a non-conforming confederate to see if it would have an effect on the naïve participant's conformity. The participant conformed less in the presence of a dissenter - they behaved more independently.
• Task Difficulty


  Asch increased the difficulty of the line-judging task by making the lines more similar in length. The situation is more ambiguous when the task becomes harder - it is unclear to the participant what the right answer is.
• Conformity (Asch - 1951) - EVALUATION 01 (AAI)


  One limitation of Asch's research is that the task and situation were artificial. Participants knew they were in a study and may have displayed behaviour they believe was expected of them (demand characteristics). Furthermore, Asch's groups did not resemble groups that we experience in everyday life (lacks mundane realism). This means we cannot generalise the findings to real-world situations.
• Conformity (Asch - 1951) - EVALUATION 02 (AAI)


  Another limitation is that Asch's participants were all American men. The US is an individualist culture, whereas in collectivist cultures, the social group is much more important. Asch's study suffered from bias and it tells us little about conformity in women and other people from other cultures
• Conformity (Asch - 1951) - EVALUATION 03 (AAI)


  One strength of Asch's research is that it has high internal validity. The study was carried out in a lab setting, allowed good control for extraneous variables and had standardised procedures. This means that a cause-and-effect relationship can be established
• Zimbardo (1973) - Conformity to social roles (Stanford Prison Experiment)

  Aim --> Zimbardo wanted to investigate if the high levels of aggression observed in American prisons was due to the disposition (personality) of the guards and prisoners or situational context of the prison.

  Procedure --> Zimbardo created a fake prison in the basement of Stanford University. 21 males (student volunteers who responded to a newspaper advert) were tested as the most 'physically and emotionally stable'. Random selection of 10 guards and 11 prisoners. Prisoners were arrested from their homes, stripped off clothing and deloused. They were given the same uniform and ID to remain anonymous. The uniforms created a personal loss of identity (de-individuation). The guards also had the same uniform, wooden club, handcuffs and reflective sunglasses (so they wouldn't make eye contact with the prisoners). Zimbardo played the role of chief prison superintendent and lead investigator

  Findings --> The guards and prisoners quickly conformed to their roles. In 2 days, the prisoners revolted against the poor treatment by the guards and in 6 days the experiment was cancelled due to fears of the prisoner's mental health (was meant to run for 2 weeks). The more aggressive and brutal the guards were, the more willing and subdued the prisoners were in response

  Conclusion --> Everyone in the prison conformed to their social roles within the prison, showing that the situational pressure of the prison environment changed behaviour
• Zimbardo (1973) - EVALUATION 01 (HME)

  One strength of Zimbardo's research is that he had highly controlled variables. This is evident by the fact that he picked participants by doing a test to see if they were 'physically and emotionally stable'. Furthermore, Zimbardo randomly assigned the participants to guard and prisoner, and so the change in behaviour was due to pressures of the situation and not their personality. This suggests that there is a high internal validity in his research and we can be more confident about drawing conclusions on the influence of social roles on behaviour: establishing a cause-and-effect relationship.
• Zimbardo (1973) - EVALUATION 02 (HME)


  One weakness of Zimbardo's research is that it lacked mundane realism. This is evident through the fact that one guard based his role of an aggressive character from the film Cool Hand Luke. This suggests that the prisoners and guards were behaving according to stereotypes rather than conforming to social roles. This therefore shows how the Stanford Prison Experiment lacked mundane realism and ecological validity.
• Zimbardo (1973) - EVALUATION 03 (HME)


  Another weakness of the Stanford Prison Experiment is that there were major ethical issues. Participants were subject to significant psychological harm. Zimbardo's decision to continue the experiment despite signs of emotional breakdown from the prisoners and extreme reactions from the guards demonstrates the need for strict ethical guidelines in psychological experiments, especially those that put participants in distressing situations.
• Explanations for obedience: Milgram's research (1960s)


  Aim --> After the Holocaust, Milgram wanted to investigate why Hitler's orders were followed by the Germans.

  Procedure --> 40 males between the ages of 20-50 years responded to a newspaper advert on the 'study of memory'. Participants drew lots for the role. The confederate was always the 'learner' and the true participant was always the 'teacher'. An experimenter (another confederate) wore a lab coat. Participants were told they could leave the study at any time. The 'learner' was strapped to a chair in a different room and wired with electrodes. The participant was told to deliver an electric shock every time the 'learner' got something wrong. The electric shocks ranged from 15 (slight shock) to 450 volts (severe shock). At 300 volts, the learner pounded the wall and refused to go on. At 315 volts, the learner pounded the wall and gave no response and above 315 volts the learner made no response at all, indicating unconsciousness or death. If the participant resisted, the experimenter 'encouraged' them to continue with prods, for example, "Please continue" or "You have no other choice, you must go on".

  Findings --> 100% of the participant continued to 300 volts, 12.5% stopped at 300 volts and 65% continued to 450 volts. Participants displayed extreme tension: many were sweating, trembling, 'biting their fingernails', groaning, 'digging their fingernails into their hands'.

  Conclusion --> This suggests/Milgram concluded that people are willing to follow orders and harm others when pressured to do so by an authority figure.
• Explanations for obedience: Milgram's research (1960s) - EVALUATION 01 (HMSH)


  One weakness of Milgram's research is that it lacks mundane realism. This is because the task Milgram gave his participants isn't a task we would experience in everyday life. This means there are no real-life applications and we cannot draw conclusions about obedience or establish a cause-and-effect relationship
• Explanations for obedience: Milgram's research (1960s) - EVALUATION 02 (HMSH)


  One strength of Milgram's research is that it has highly controlled variables. This is because it was conducted in a laboratory, reducing the influence of extraneous variables which increases the validity of results. Also, having a clear script for the experimenter
• Explanations for obedience: Milgram's research (1960s) - EVALUATION 03 (HMSH)


  Another strength of Milgram's research is that it is supported by subsequent studies. For example, a French documentary focussed on a game show where they participants believed they were contestants for a pilot episode. The behaviour was almost identical to Milgram's participants (e.g. nail-biting, nervous laughter)
• Explanations for obedience: Milgram's research (1960s) - EVALUATION 04 (HMSH)


  Hofling et al., (1966) conducted a field experiment in a hospital where an unknown doctor called 22 real nurses and ordered them to administer an overdose of an unfamiliar drug to a patient (however, it was actually a placebo). 21 out of the 22 nurses completed his order, suggesting that even in a situation with ecological validity and mundane realism, people are highly obedient to those they feel has a high sense of legitimacy
• What are the situational variables affecting obedience?

  - Proximity

  - Location

  - Uniform
• Situational Variables affecting obedience

  1) Proximity - A person is more likely to obey someone if they are closer to the authority figure and are less likely to see the negative consequences of their actions. This is because it increases the pressure to obey and decreases the pressure to resist. In Milgram's experiment, obedience was higher when then experimenter was in the same room as opposed to being in a different room and speaking over the phone

  2) Location - A person is more likely to obey someone in a location linked to higher status and legitimacy. Milgram's experiment was conducted in Yale University, and so obedience was greater compared to the variation of the study being conducted in a rundown office. This is because the prestigious nature of specific locations demands obedience from participants and increases trust in researchers

  3) Uniform - A person is more likely to obey someone wearing a uniform as it gives them a higher status and greater sense of legitimacy. In Milgram's experiment, obedience was much higher when the experimenter wore a lab coat as opposed to normal clothes.
• Explanations for obedience: Agentic State

  Agentic state is a mental state where a person believes they are acting for an authority figure (as their agent). The individual does not feel guilt or responsibility for their actions as they believe the responsibility lies with the authority figure.

  Autonomous state is where an individual acts according to their own principles and feels responsible for their own actions. An agentic shifts is the movement from an agentic state to autonomous state in the presence of an authority figure
• Explanations for obedience: Agentic State

  One strength is that there is supporting evidence of the role of agentic state from Milgram's research. Most of Milgram's participant's resisted giving shocks at some point and often asked the experimenter about who was responsible if the 'learner' was harmed. When the experimenter replied that they were responsible, the participants often went quickly through the experiment with no further objections. This therefore shows that once participants perceived that they were no longer responsible for their own behaviour, they acted more easily
• Explanations for obedience: Legitimacy of authority

  Throughout socialisation, people learn their position in the social hierarchy. Individuals understand their position relative to people above and below them. Most people generally accept that legitimacy of authority is needed for society to function. Legitimacy of authority can be communicated by and/or increased by the use of uniforms (for example, police, judges)

  Destructive authority --> Problems arise when legitimacy of authority becomes destructive. Powerful leaders can use their legitimacy of authority for destructive purposes, for example, ordering people to behave in ways that are cruel and dangerous.
• Explanations for obedience: Legitimacy of authority - EVALUATION 01

  One strength of legitimacy of authority as an explanation for obedience is that Milgram's experiment is supporting research and demonstrates the power of legitimacy of authority. Individuals see scientists/professor/experimenter occupying a higher level in the social hierarchy due to their extensive training and education and respect for science. Therefore, it is more easier to accept their authority.
• Dispositional explanation for obedience: Authoritarian Personality

  Adorno argued that high levels of obedient behaviour were dispositional, a personality type he called Authoritarian personality.

  Authoritarian personality --> High respect for people with a higher social status and hostile to people they see as having a low status, fixed stereotypes about groups of people and they have views on morality is dogmatic (no greys areas) and are uncomfortable with uncertainty

  Adorno et al., (1950) studied Authoritarian personality with a questionnaire called the F-scale (fascism scale). An example of a statement from the F-scale is "Obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtues for children to learn" People who scored highly had fixed stereotypes, identified with "strong" people, disliked "weak" people and their morals were dogmatic

  Origins of Authoritarian Personality --> Adorno believed that Authoritarian Personality originated from childhood as a result of harsh parenting and strict discipline. Parents give conditional love and affecting depending on the way they behave. This derives hostility and resentment in a child and as they cannot directly express it to their parents (fearing punishment) they displace it onto those who they perceive as weaker (scapegoating).
• Dispositional explanation for obedience: Authoritarian Personality - EVALUATION 01

  One strength is that there is evidence from Milgram's research supporting the Authoritarian Personality. Milgram and Elms interviewed a small sample of people who had participated in the original obedience studies and had been fully obedient (went to 450 volts). They completed the F-scale as part of the interview and the 20 obedient participants scored significantly higher compared to a group of 20 disobedient participants. These findings support Adorno et al's view that people with high levels of obedience have an Authoritarian Personality
• Dispositional explanation for obedience: Authoritarian Personality - EVALUATION 02


  One limitation is that it cannot explain obedient behaviour in the majority of a country's population. For example, in pre-war Germany, millions of individuals displayed obedient and anti-Semitic behaviour, despite the fact they differed in personalities in all ways. Therefore, Adorno's theory is limited
• Dispositional explanation for obedience: Authoritarian Personality - EVALUATION 03


  Another limitation of Authoritarian personality is the way the F-scale is written. The F-scale was written in a way that would inflate their score on the scale leading to an inaccurate measurement (acquiescence bias)
• Resistance to social influence

  Social support --> The pressure to conform can be resisted if there are other people present who are also not conforming. Not following the majority is social support. It enables the naïve participant to be free and follow their own conscience. The dissenter acts as a 'model' of independent behaviour. The pressure to obey can also be resisted if someone else disobeys as well. The disobedient 'model' challenges the legitimacy of authority, making it easier for others to disobey as well.

  Locus of Control (LOC) --> Rotter proposed locus of control where an individual has a sense of personal control over their lives. The personality scale ranges from high internal to high external LOC. People with internal LOC believed that things that happen to them are controlled by them, whereas people with external LOC believe that things that happen to them are outside their control

  People with high internal LOC are more able to resist pressures to conform or obey. They tend to base their decisions on their own beliefs and are less concerned with social approval
• Resistance to social influence - EVALAUTION 01

  One strength is that there is supporting evidence from Asch (1951). In one of Asch's variation, a confederate disagreed with the group and gave a different response to the line. This gave social support to the participant and conformity dropped. This therefore demonstrates the power of social support
• Resistance to social influence - EVALUATION 02

  Another strength is that there is research support that links LOC and resistance to obedience. One study replicated Milgram's study and they were assessed for internal and external locus of control. 37% of participants with an internal LOC refused to continue to the highest shock level, compared to 23% of those with external LOC. This suggests that people with high internal LOC can resist pressures of orders more