Social influence

• Conformity


  Change in a person's behaviour based on social pressures; real/imagined
• Types of conformity (Kelman 1958)


  • Internalisation
  • Identification
  • Compliance
• Internalisation


  When a person accepts group norms; results in a private + public change of opinions/behaviour that is permanent + internalised
• Identification


  Publicly changing opinions to suit a group, but private opinions may differ
• Compliance


  Going along with the social norm, privately opinions may remain the same; is only superficial and not fixed; goes away once the group pressure stops
• Explanations for conformity (Deutsch + Gerard 1955)


  • Informational social influence (ISI) - cognitive process - need to be correct
  • Normative social influence (NSI) - emotional process rather than cognitive - to do with social norms - typical behaviour in a social group to gain social approval
• Informational social influence (ISI)


  Occurs in ambiguous/unfamiliar situations, crisis situations where decisions are made fast, when an expert is present
• Normative social influence (NSI)


  Most likely in situations with strangers, when there are concerns about rejection, occurs in people we know the most - seek social approval, pronounced in stressful situations
• Asch's research on conformity


  • Procedure - presented 2 large white cards, one with a standard line and another with 3 lines, 1/3 of which matched the standard
  • Findings - Naive participants gave a wrong answer 36.8% of the time, 75% conformed at least once, 25% did not conform
• Asch effect - extent to which participants conform even when the situation is unambiguous - supports NSI
• When participants were interviewed, most said they conformed to avoid rejection - NSI
• Asch's variations


  • Group size - conformity rose by 31.8% with 3 confederates, but further confederates had little effect
  • Unanimity - presence of a dissenter reduced conformity by a quarter
  • Task difficulty - conformity increased when the task was more difficult
• Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment

  • Procedure - set up a mock prison, randomly assigned roles of guard/prisoner to male students, found guards' behaviour became a threat to the health of the prisoners
  • Findings - on day 6/14 the experiment was stopped, prisoners began to rebel against the guards, guards harassed and mistreated the prisoners
• Milgram's obedience research


  • Procedure - recruited 40 male participants, told them it was a study about memory, a confederate 'learner' was strapped to a chair and given electric shocks by the 'teacher' participant when they made mistakes
  • Findings - no participants stopped below 300 volts, 65% delivered the full 450 volts, participants were highly distressed
• Hoffing et al 1966 studied nurses on a hospital ward, found levels of obedience to unjustifiable demands by doctors were very high (21/22 nurses obey)
• Hoffing et al 1966 study


  Suggests obedience to authority in Milgram's lab study can be generalised
• Replication of Milgram's study

  • A French TV series in 2010 included a replication of Milgram's study
  • Participants believed they were contestants in a pilot episode for a new game show; they were paid to give fake electric shocks, when ordered by the presenter
  • 80% of the participants delivered the maximum shock of 460 volts to an unconscious man, their behaviour was almost identical to Milgram's study, further reaffirming results
• Participants in Milgram's study were lied to; deceived by the aims of the study
• Participants in Milgram's study believed the experiment was to do with word pairs initially
• Participants in Milgram's study were deceived by a rigged drawing through the role of teacher + learner; this was fixed not random allocation
• There were ethical concerns surrounding the Milgram experiment - participants thought they gave electric shocks
• The Milgram experiment could damage the reputation of psychologists - Baumrind 1964
• Proximity


  Effect of proximity, location and uniform on levels of obedience
• Proximity variation of Milgram's study (1963)

  1. Obedience rate dropped from 65% to 40% when participants were in the same room as the learner

  2. Experimenter physically forced learner to press the electric plate when they refused to answer a question - further reduction to 30%

  3. Experimenter left the room + gave instructions to the teacher via telephone, obedience - further reduction to 20.5%

  4. Participants would give shocks that were weaker than the stated voltage over the telephone
• Location


  • Variation study - run down building rather than Yale University; prestigious setting, original setting in baseline study
  • Experimenter had less authority, obedience dropped from baseline 65% to 47.5%
• Uniform


  • Original baseline study - experimenter wore a grey lab coat as a symbol for authority
  • Variation where the experimenter had to leave due to an inconvenient phone call, meaning original experimenter was replaced with an ordinary member of public
  • Obedience dropped from 65% to 20%, the lowest variation
• Field experiment in NYC, Bickman 1974


  • 3 confederates dressed in 3 different outfits; a jacket and tie(JT), milkman's outfit(MO) + security guard uniform(SG)
  • Confederates stood in the street and asked passerbys to do tasks, eg litter-picking
  • Participants 2x more likely to obey assistant dressed as a SG rather than J+T
• Milgram's study had careful control of variables, changed each variable individually - you can be certain of what you are measuring
• All other procedures were kept the same except for the condition measured, meaning each experiment was highly standardised and the procedure was easily replicable
• Orne and Holland - lack of validity, participants found the procedure was fake
• Participants in Milgram's variations were even more likely to figure out procedure was fake due to the contrived conditions
• Variation involved conveniently leaving/ being replaced by an ordinary member of the public, therefore possible demand characteristics
• Unclear if results are genuine or the participants acted in a particular way to appease the experimenter (please experimenter/screw experimenter effects)
• Most cultural replications were in countries that were western, more developed societies and often individualistic cultures, compared to other locations - Smith and Bond 1998
• Cannot conclude Milgram's findings about proximity, location and uniform apply to every other place
• Agentic state


  • Mental state where we feel no personal responsibility for our behaviour because we believe we are acting as an agent on behalf of an authoritative figure
  • No agency/no control
  • Frees us from the demands of our consciences, allows us to obey destructive authoritative figures
  • Agents experience a high level of anxiety; moral strain, they realise what they are doing is wrong, but feel powerless to disobey
• Autonomous state


  Opposite of agentic state, we are independent, free and behave according to our own principles
• Agentic shift


  Person goes from the autonomous to agentic state, influenced by the presence of an authoritative figure
• Binding factors


  • During high level anxiety state, binding factors minimise moral strain
  • May involve victim blaming/ denial; avoiding any responsibility
• Blass and Schmitt 2001


  • Showed a film of Milgram's study to students and asked them to identify who they felt was responsible for the harm to the learner, Mr Wallace
  • Students blamed the experimenter rather than the participant
  • Students indicated responsibility was due to legitimate authority; the experimenter, who was top hierarchy had legitimate authority