Social Influence

• Supportive evidence for NSI.


  Asch interviewed his ppts, finding conformed as they felt self-conscious giving the correct answer as they were afraid of disapproval. Conformity fell to 12.5% when writing answers down due to privacy and lack of group pressure.Showing some conformity is due to a desire to not be rejected by the group for disagreeing.
• Supportive evidence for ISI.


  Lucas et al found ppts conformed more often to incorrect answers given when the maths problems were difficult.

  When they were easy ppt ‘knew their minds’ but when hard it was ambiguous. Ppts didn’t want to be wrong so relied on answers given.

  Showing what ISI predicts.
• NSI doesn't always predict conformity.


  Some people are greatly concerned with being liked by others (nAffiliators). It has been found that students who were nAffiliators were more likely to conform.This means there are individual differences in conformity that cannot be fully explained by NSI.
• Often it is hard to determine if ISI or NSI is at work.


  Asch found conformity to reduce when there was another dissenting ppt. This may reduce the power of NSI due to social support or ISI due to providing another source of information.Hard to separate the process, they may instead operate together.
• Compliance is supported by Asch's findings.


  Ppts knowingly gave incorrect answers even though they believed the correct answer to be different, reporting they did so as to not stand out.This shows a mismatch between private beliefs and public behaviour to fit the norm.However, this was undertaken in the 1950s after the war which was a conformist time in the US in attempts to establish social norms.
• Internalisation is supported by Jenness's findings.


  Ppt claimed they believed others had gotten the right estimates so changed theirs accordingly.This shows a change in private opinions and behaviours and the display of these publically due to believing the others were right.
• Zimbardo's findings support identification.


  Ppts were told to play the roles of either prisoner or guard, identifying strongly with their groups, and conforming within.
• Asch and Jenness's tasks lacked mundane realism.


  Tasks were unimportant and inconsequential. If the stakes are higher compliance and internalisation may not be as likely.cannot explain real-life conformity when the consequences are greater.
• Research support for Milgram's findings.


  Findings were replicated in a French documentary, ppts were paid to give electric shocks to other ppts in front of an audience.

  80% delivered the maximum shock to an unconscious man. behaviour was almost identical to that of Milgram’s ppts - nervous laughter, nail-biting etc.

  Showing Milgram’s findings weren’t due to special circumstances.
• Milgram's research was replicated in other cultures.

  A more realistic procedure studying obedience in Dutch ppts found 905 of ppts obeyed, saying stressful things to a confederate ‘desperate for a job’. Findings were also replicated where proximity was concerned.However, this may only be the case in cultures with similar notions about the role of authority in the US as only two studies within countries with significant cultural differences have been replicated.
• Milgram's research has low internal validity.


  Milgram reported that 75% of ppts believed the shocks were genuine. However, Orne and Holland argued ppts acted as they did because they didn’t believe in the set-up.Suggesting ppts were responding to demand characteristics.
• Milgram supports the variables affecting obedience.

  The proximity of the experimenter, teacher and learner, location of study and presence of a uniform are all factors that influence obedience.However, this offers an excuse for abhorrent behaviour, offensive to holocaust survivors to suggest the Nazis were simply obeying orders, victims themselves due to these factors.
• Ppts may have been aware that the procedure was fake (Milgram variables).

  The likelihood of them being aware of variations was increased because of the manipulation of variables.

  Milgram recognised ppt likely worked out the truth when the experimenter was a ‘member of the public’.

  Unclear if the findings are genuine or whether ppts saw through the deception.
• Legitimacy of authority explains cultural differences in obedience.

  Studies show that countries differ in the degree to which people are obedient. Found 16% of Australian women went to 450V as opposed to 80% of German ppts.Showing in some cultures authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimate.
• LoA can't explain all instances of disobedience even where LoA is clear.

  Nurses in Rank and Jacobson’s studies were mostly disobedient despite working in a hierarchal authority structure.Suggesting some people may just be more or less obedient than others, innate tendencies may have a greater influence on behaviour.
• Research support for the agentic state.

  Blass and Schmitt found people who said the experimenter was to blame for harm caused when videos of Milgram’s original study.Supporting that ppts believed they weren’t responsible but acting as agents of the experimenter.
• A gentic state doesn't explain findings on obedience.

  Rank and Jacobson found that 16 of 18 hospital nurses disobeyed orders from a doctor to administer an excessive drug dose to a patient.

  Suggesting agentic shifts can only account for some situations.
• Research support for authoritarian personality.


  Elmes and Milgram found those that shocked to full 450v scored higher on the F-scale than those who refused.

  This supports Adorno et al’s view that those who are obedient show similar characteristics to those with authoritarian personalities. 

  CA: correlational research, cause and effect cannot be established. Not all of Milgram’s ppts who were obedient had an authoritarian personality.
• Authoritarian personality can't explain obedience in the majority of a country's population.


  In pre-war Germany, millions displayed obedience/anti-semitic behaviour, despite differing personalities, it is unlikely they were all authoritarian. This means an alternative explanation is more realistic.
• Political bias in authoritarian personality.


  F-Scale measures the tendency towards extreme right-wing ideology.Argued to be a politically biased interpretation of authoritarian personality.

  The extreme right and left-wing ideologies have a lot in common, both emphasise the importance of complete obedience to political authority. 
• Research into minority influence used artificial tasks.


  Moscovici et al set the task to identify a slide colour. This is far removed from how minorities attempt to change behaviour in real life.

  In cases such as Jury decision-making, outcomes are vastly more important.

  This means findings lack external validity and are limited in what they tell about minority influence in real life.
• Moscovicii supports consistency in minority influence.


  It showed that a consistent minority opinion had a greater effect than an inconsistent opinion.This suggests presenting a consistent view is a minimum requirement for a minority influencing a majority
• Martin et al support deeper processing in minority influence.


  Found people were less willing to change their original opinions if they had listened to a minority group than a majority when later exposed to a view conflicting with the first viewpoint shown.

  Suggesting the minority message has been deeply processed and had a more enduring effect.

  CA: ecological validity - majority usually have more power and status, with minorities needing to be extremely committed factors lacking in minority influence research.