Other social influence studies

• Limitation of Milgram - Orne and Holland(1968)


  Argued that P's guessed that the electric shocks were fake so were 'play-acting' +

  This was supported by Perry's discovery that only half the participants believed the shocks were real
• Against Milgram - Perry(2013)


  Analyzed Milgram's tape recordings and made several discoveries that undermine the validity of his findings and conclusions including:

  ~The 'experimenter' went off-script, for example he would vary the wording of the 4 prods and use them excessively(once 26 times)

  ~P's often voiced their suspicions about the shocks and he concluded that around half of the P's realized that they were fake.
• Strength of Milgram - Beauvois et al(2012)


  In a French TV show, contestants were paid to give (fake) electric shocks to other P's when ordered by the producer. 80% gave the maximum 460 volts to an apparently unconscious man and their behavior's were similar to those observed by Milgram.
• Support for Milgram's situational variables- Bickman(1974)


  Confederates dressed in different outfits (jacket/tie, milkman, security guard) and issued demands such as 'pick up that litter' to people on the streets on New York. People were twice as likely to obey the 'security guard' than the 'tie/jacket' confederate. Shows that situational variables can hold a lot of power.
• Limitation of situational variables - Smith and Bond(1998)


  Noted that most replications took place in a western societies(Spain, Australia) that are culturally not that different to the US. Therefore we cannot conclude that Milgram's findings apply to everyone
• Support for Milgram's research - Meesus and Raajimakers(1986)


  Worked with Dutch P's who were ordered to say stressful comments to interviewees and found a 90% conformity rate which fell when proximity decreased - evidence for cross cultural replication
• Limitation of Milgram - Mandel(1998)


  Argues that Milgram's idea that situational variables determine obedience provides an 'alibi' for genocide by hugely oversimplifying the causes of the Holocaust and are offensive to survivors.
• Support for the agentic state - Milgram 


  Most of his P's asked the 'experimenter', 'who was responsible if Mr Wallace(learner)is harmed?'. When the experimenter replied 'I'm responsible' the P's went through the procedure quickly with little difficulty.
• Limitation of the agentic shift - Rank and Jacobson(1977)


  Found that most nurses disobeyed doctor's order to give an excessive drug dose - the doctor was an authority but nurses remained autonomous and did not shift to the agentic state
• Evidence for authoritarian personality - Elms and Milgram(1966)


  Interviewed 20 fully obedient participants for Milgram's original study and they scored significantly higher on the F-scale than a comparison group of 20 disobedient participants
• Limitation of the F-scale - Christie and Jahoda(1954)


  Suggested that the F-scale aims to measure tendency towards extreme right wing ideology but right-wing and left-wing authoritarianism both insist on complete obedience to political authority.
• Support for social support - Gamson et al(1982)


  Groups asked to give evidence for an oil company to use in a smear campaign - 29/33 groups rebelled against orders much higher than Milgram's study. This shows how supporters can undermine legitimacy of authority and reduce obedience.
• Support for social support - Allen and Levine(1971)


  Only 3% of their P's resisted conformity when there were no supporters but 64% resisted when a dissenter refused to conform. However, only 36% resisted when the supporter clearly had poor eyesight and could not be relied on to judge the lines.
• Support for locus of control - Holland(1967)


  Repeated the Milgram study and measured whether the P's were internals or externals. 37% of internals did not continue to the highest shock level and 67% of externals did continue.
• Limitation of locus of control - Twenge et al(2004)

  Analyzed data from American locus of control studies over 40 years showing that people have become more independent but also more external. This is surprising because if resistance was linked to an internal LOC we would expect people to have become more internal.
• The agentic state


  In an agentic state a person feels no responsibility for their actions-act on behalf of another person

  Autonomous state: not an agent

  Agentic shift: moving into an agentic state

  Binding factors: aspects of a situation that allow a person to ignore the damaging effect of their behavior and reduce moral strain
• Evaluation of agentic state

  Has research support: most of Milgram's participants asked who was responsible of the 'learner' was harmed - when the experimenter replied saying that they took responsibility participants went through quickly without objecting

  Weakness: Agentic shift doesn't explain many research findings - e.g. Rank and Jacobson found that most nurses disobeyed orders from a doctor to give an excessive drug dosage
• Legitimacy of authority


  We obey people higher up on the social hierarchy

  Authorities have legitimacy through societies agreement

  We hand control over to authority figures since they have the power to punish others and give independence to people we trust to exercise authority properly

  Leaders use authority for destruction
• Evaluation of legitimacy of authority

  +Research shows that countries differ in obedience to authority-Kilham and Mann found that 16% of Australian women obeyed whereas 85% of German women obeyed

  -Cannot explain all disobedience=some people may disobey even when they accept the legitimacy of the hierarchal authority for example Rank and Jacobson's nurses were disobedient to the doctors orders
• Process of social change(segregation example)

  1. Drawing attention-civil rights marches

  2. Consistency-large scale, frequent marches displaying message

  3. Deeper processing-people who accepted the message began thinking deeply about the unjustness

  4. Augmentation principle-'freedom riders', mixed racial groups who challenged separate seating for black people and many were beaten. The personal risk strengthened(augmented) the message

  5. Snowball effect-activists slowly gain the attention of the US government leading to the Civil rights Act changing peoples opinions on a much larger scale
• Social cryptomnesia-people have no memory of the processes leading to social change
• Evaluating the processes of social change

  +Nolan et al: hung messages outside doors stating that other residents were trying to reduce their energy usage- there were significant decreases in the energy use compared to the control groups who message had no indication of other residents actions=conformity can lead to social change using NSI

  -Foxcroft: reviewed 70 studies of courses using social norms to reduce alcohol usage- it only caused a very small decrease in the alcohol quantity and no change in the frequency of consumption=NSI may not always provide long-term change
• Evaluating minority influence explaining social change

  +Nemeth: says that minority arguments cause people to engage in divergent thinking which leads to better discussions and creative solutions = minorities are valuable

  -Mackie: disagrees with the idea that minority influence causes individuals in the majority to think deeply about an issue. Instead minority influence creates deeper processing because we believe others think as we do. When a majority thinks differently thinks creates pressure to think about their views - casts doubt on the validity of minority influence as an explanation
• Compliance


  When you agree publicly but disagree privately - generally due to NST
• Identification


  When your private and public opinions change when with the group - temporary
• Internalisation


  When your personal opinions genuinely change to match the group
• Social Support


  • Seeing others resist social influence reduces the pressure to obey or conform by increasing the individual's confidence
  • Resistance to obedience: a disobedient role model challenges the "legitimacy of authority" of the authority figure and shows the consequences of disobedience
  • Resistance to Conformity: A non-conformist ally/dissenter breaks the group's unanimity and creates an alternate group to belong to
• Milgram's study variation


  • Two additional (confederate) teachers provided social support; one refused to continue at 150v, and at 210v, the second teacher refused to obey. The obedience rate dropped to 10%
• Asch's unanimity variation


  • One of the confederates provides social support, breaking the unanimity of the group by providing the correct response, and the conformity rate drops from 32% to 5.5%
• Weakness of resistance to social influence: Even in the Milgram and Asch variations with social support some participants still obey (10%) and conform (5.5% conformity rate), Suggesting there may be dispositional factors such as locus of control or the authoritarian personality
• Locus of Control


  A personality scale from high internal to high external, LOC refers to the factors people believe control their actions
• People with an internal LOC


  • See themselves as responsible; this personal agency enables them to resist social influence
• People with an external LOC


  • See factors like fate, luck, or powerful others as controlling their lives, so they feel less empowered to effect change in their lives and less able to resist social pressure
• Holland (1967) study: Strength


  • 37% of those with an internal LOC refused to continue to the highest shock level, compared to 23% of those with an external LOC
• Spector (1983) study: Strength


  • People with an internal LOC were more able to resist normative social influence but were just as likely as externals to conform to informational social influence
• Weakness: The relationship between LOC and resistance to social influence is correlational, there are other related factors that have been suggested as being involved in resistance such as social status, social anxiety and sense of personal morality
• Minority influence


  • Requires individuals to reject majority behaviours/beliefs and be converted to the views of a minority
  • Consistency: Minorities are more effective if members repeat the same message over time (diachronic consistency) or at the same time (synchronic consistency)
  • Commitment: If the minority suffers for their views, this shows they are not acting out of self-interest. Members of the majority to reconsider the minority's motivations (augmentation principle) and take their position seriously
  • Flexibility: if dogmatic, minorities will not be persuasive, they need the ability to appear to consider valid counter arguments, and slightly compromise, flexibility encourages majority members to move closer to the minority position
• The snowball effect: Minorities changing majority opinions starts as a slow process, however the process speeds up as more of the majority convert to the new view and the minority view improves in its acceptability
• Moscovici (1969) study


  • Members of a participant majority were more likely to report blue slides were green if a confederate minority was consistent in calling the sides green 8% of trials, than if the minority was inconsistent 1%
• Nemeth (1986) study


  • A three participant majority were less likely to change their amount closer to the confederate figure if the confederate minority was inflexible arguing for a low level of compensation for a ski accident, than if the confederate was flexible