Social influence

• Informational and normative social influence are explanations of conformity. Normative social influence is when a person conforms to gain social approval and the desire to fit in, this may lead to compliance.
• Informational social influence says people agree with the opinion of the majority because they believe it is correct and they have the desire to be right, this may lead to internalisation

   
• Asch’s study into conformity provides research support for NSI. He found that many of the participants went along with the majority and provided and obviously incorrect answer on a line of judgement tasks. When questioned by Asch, participants said they changed their answer to avoid disapproval from the rest of the group which shows that NSI had occurred as the participants conformed to fit in. 
• A strength of NSI is that evidence supports it is an explanation of conformity. For example, Asch demonstrated that when the pressure to publicly conform is removed by asking participants to write down their answers on a piece of paper, conformity rates fell to 12.5% this is because giving answers privately meant that there was no normative group pressure. This shows that at least some conformity is due to a desire
• Jenness (1932) provides research support for the role of informational social influence. Participants were asked to initially make independent judgements about the number of jellybeans contained in a jar and then discuss their estimates in a group. Following the discussion, participants then made another individual private estimate. Jenness found that this second private estimate moved closer to the group estimate and that females typically conformed more.

   
• While Jennens provides convincing evidence for the role of ISI, it must be noted that his experiment has been criticised for lacking ecological validity. Providing an estimate of the number of beans in a jar is a rather mundane task with no social consequences.
• Group size – Asch investigated whether the size of the group would be more important than the agreement of the group. Asch found a relationship between group size and conformity rate as the conformity rate increased with group size. In Asch’s original experiment the conformity rate was 32% however with a smaller group size this dropped to 12.8%.
• Unanimity – Asch investigated if the presence of a non-conforming person would have effect of the naive participants conformity by introducing a confederate who disagreed with others, this allowed the participants to behave more independently. In this variation, the average conformity rate dropped to 5%.
• Task difficulty - Asch wanted to know whether making the task more difficult would affect the degree of conformity. He increased the difficulty of the line-judging task making it harder for participants to see the difference. Asch found the rate of conformity increased
• A limitation of Asch’s research is that the task and situation were artificial. Participants knew they were in a research study and may have gone along with what was expected so therefore displayed demand characteristics. The task of identifying lines was relatively trivial and therefore there was no reason not to conform. This means the findings do not generalise to real world situations especially where the consequences of conformity might be important
• Another limitation is that Asch’s participants were American men. Other research suggests that women might be more likely to conform possible because they are more worried about social acceptance. Further, the US is an individualist culture, but similar studies conducted in China showed conformity rates are higher as the social group is more important than the individual. This means that Asch’s findings tell us little about conformity in women and people from other cultures

   
• Zimbardo conducted a study on conformity to social roles. He set up a mock prison in the basement of Stanford University. They selected 21 men (student volunteers) who tested emotionally stable after psychological screening. The students were randomly assigned to play the role of prison guard or prisoner. The uniforms worn by both guard and prisoner, along with and identified number created a loss of personal identity.

   
• Zimbardo found that both the prisoners and guards quickly identified with their roles. The guards treated the prisoners harshly and the prisoners rebelled. The guards dehumanised the prisons, forcing them to clean toilets with their hands so the prisoners became increasingly submissive. Social roles appeared to have a strong influence on individuals behaviour. they all found themselves behaving as if they were in a prison rather than a psychological study
• One strength of the Stanford Prison Experiment is that Zimbardo and his colleagues had control over key variables. For example, the selection of participants; emotionally stable individuals were chosen and randomly assigned to the roles of guard and prisoner. This was a way in which the researchers ruled out individual personality differences as an explanation of the findings. This degree of control over variables increased the internal validity of the study, so we can be confident in drawing conclusions about the influence of roles on conformity
• individual differences and personality also determine the extent to which a person conforms to social roles. In Zimbardo’s original experiment, the behaviour of the guards varied dramatically, from extremely sadistic behaviour displayed by around one third of the participants in that role, to a few guards who actually helped the prisoners by offering support. This suggests that situational factors are not the only cause of conformity to social roles, and dispositional factors such as personality also play a role, implying that Zimbardo’s conclusion could have been over‐stated.

   
• Milgram - 40 American men volunteered to take part in a study, supposedly on memory. The study aimed to assess obedience in a situation where an authority figure (experimenter) ordered the participant (teacher) to give an increasingly strong shock (15-450 volts) to a learner located in a different room. The shocks were fake, but the participant wasn’t aware of this. Every participant delivered all the shocks up to 300 volts and 65% continued to 450 volts. Milgram also collected qualitative data including signs of distress
• Milgram’s study is that it lacks population validity. This is because Milgram used a biased sample of 40 male American volunteers from a broadly individualistic society. Therefore, we are unable to generalise the results to other populations. The fact that Milgram only used male participants in his original sample shows a beta bias, as his research may have ignored or minimised the differences between men and women in relation to the conclusions drawn regarding obedience to authority.
• Another criticism of Milgram’s study is that it lacks ecological validity. This is because Milgram conducted a laboratory study, which is very different from real‐life situations of obedience. In everyday life, we often obey far more harmless instructions, rather than giving people electric shocks. As a result, we are unable to generalise his findings to real life situations of obedience and cannot conclude that people would obey less severe instructions to the same degree.
• The authoritarian personality is a type of personality that Adorno argued was especially susceptible to obeying people in authority. Such individuals are also thought to be submissive to those of higher status. Adorno argued that people with an authoritarian personality, show extreme respect for authority and are therefore more likely to obey
• Adorno believed the authoritarian personality forms in childhood as a result of harsh parenting and high standards. He argued that these childhood experiences create resentment and hostility in a child so their fears are displaced onto others who they perceive to be weaker, they cannot express their feelings directly as their fear punishment. This explains the hatred towards people considered to be socially inferior, a central feature of obedience to a higher authority. This is a psychodynamic explanation.
• Adorno conduced a study using 2000 middle class, Caucasian Americans to find out their unconscious views towards other racial groups by developing a number of questionnaires including the F-scale were status-conscious, more obedient to authority figures and showed extreme respect. They also believed that society requires strong leadership to enforce traditional values,
• Adorno et al. came to believe that a high degree of authoritarianism was similar to suffering from a psychological disorder, with the cause lying within the personality of the individual (nature) but originally caused by the treatment they received from their parents at a young age (nurture). Obedient behaviour is, therefore, determined by our socialisation experiences and not a result of free will.
• There may be individual differences that contribute to the development of the authoritarian personality. Research by Meleon has found that less‐educated people are more likely than well‐educated people to display authoritarian personality characteristics. If these claims are correct, then it is possible that it is not authoritarian personality characteristics alone that lead to obedience, but also other factors, including levels of education.

   
• There may be methodological criticisms associated with the measures used to determine authoritarian personality traits. It is possible that the F‐scale suffers from response bias or social desirability, where participants provide answers that are socially acceptable. This, therefore, reduces the internal validity of the questionnaire research method used in determining the degree of authoritarianism, suggesting that other factors/explanations may be responsible for obedient behaviour.

   
• Resistance to social influence refers to the ability of people to withstand the social pressures to conform to the majority or to obey authority.

  Social support refers to the presence of people who resist pressures to obey or conform and acts as a model and can help other to do the same pressures to conform can be reduced if there are people present who are not conforming.
• Locus of control refers to the sense we have about events of our lives. Rotter proposed the locus of control as a concept concerned with internal control vs external locus of control. An individual with internal locus of control is where individuals believe that things that happen to them are largely controlled by themselves.
• an external locus of control tend to believe the things that happen to them are outside of their control people with a high internal locus of control are more able to resist pressures to conform or obey. If a person takes personal responsibility for their actions and experiences, they tend to base their decisions on their own beliefs rather than depending on the opinions of others. They also tend to be more self-confident, and more achievement orientated, leading to greater resistance to social influence.

   
• There is evidence to support the idea that social support can reduce social influence. In one of Asch’s (1951) variations, one of the confederates was instructed to give the correct answer throughout. In this variation, the rate of conformity dropped to 5%. This demonstrates that if the real participant has support for their belief (social support), then they are more likely to resist the pressure to conform.
• Minority influence is a form of social influence in which a minority of people reject the established norm of the majority of group members and influence the beliefs and behaviours of the majority. Minority influence is also likely to lead to internalisation as both public and private beliefs are changed. The three processes are consistency, commitment, and flexibility
• Moscovici - 172 female participants were placed in groups of six and shown 36 slides, all varying shades of blue, In the consistent condition, the two confederates said that all 36 slides were green; in the inconsistent condition, the confederates said that 24 of the slides were green and 12 were blue. Moscovici found that in the consistent condition, the participants agreed on 8.2% of the trials, whereas in the inconsistent condition, the participants only agreed on 1.25% of the trials.
• Moscovici used a biased sample of 172 female participants from America. As a result, we are unable to generalise the results to other populations, for example male participants, and we cannot conclude that male participants would respond to minority influence in the same way. Moscovici’s research can be criticised as being gynocentric as his research takes an exclusive focus on the conforming behaviour of female participants to a minority influence.
• Moscovici has been criticised for breaching ethical guidelines during his study. He deceived his participants, as they were told that they were taking part in a colour perception test when in fact it was an experiment on minority influence. This also means that Moscovici did not gain fully informed consent.
• methodological issues with research into minority influence. Judging the colour of a slide is an artificial task and therefore lacks mundane realism, since it is not something that occurs every day. Research conditions are criticised as being too far removed from cases of real‐world minority influence such as political campaigning
• Consistency is when the minority keeps the same belief overtime and between all the individuals in the minority, then overtime the consistency in the minority view increases the amount of interest from other people and they rethink their own views.
• Commitment helps gain attention from the majority as sometimes minorities engage in extreme activities to draw attention to their cause. It is important that these activities do pose some risk as it shows commitment to the cause.
•  

  Social change refers to how, over time, beliefs, attitudes, and behaviours of a society are replaced with new norms and expectations. There are many processes that are involved. Consistency viewpoints are beneficial in bringing about social change as the message appears more credible and can help to convince a majority
• Augmentation Principle. When the majority pays attention to selfless and risky actions being taken by the minority group, it is more likely to integrate the group’s opinion into their own personal viewpoints due to the personal sacrifice made by the minority.
• Normative Social Influence can encourage social change by reporting the behaviour or attitudes of the majority, to urge others to follow suit to fit in with the group. Minority influence can often act as a barrier to social change. Bashir et al. (2013) were interested in investigating why so many people resist social change even when they believe it to be needed. It was found that some minority groups, such as environmental activists or feminists, often live up to the stereotypes associated with those groups, which can be off‐ putting for outsiders.
• Minority influence and majority influence may involve different levels of cognitive processing. Moscovici believes that a minority viewpoint forces individuals to think more deeply about the issue. However, Mackie (1987) counters this, suggesting the opposite to be true. She suggests that when a majority group is thinking or acting in a way that is different from us we are forced to think even more deeply about their reasons. This, therefore, casts doubt on the validity of Moscovici’s minority influence theory, suggesting it may be an incorrect explanation of social change.
• Reports of social change within society can involve concepts that have not been, or cannot be, tested empirically, which means that they lack scientific credibility. There is a large amount of subjective interpretation involved in explaining the occurrences of social norms and such evidence should be treated with caution.