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
• Internalisation


  Occurs when a person genuinely accepts the groups norms resulting in private and public change whcih is likely to be permanent because attitudes have beeen internalised
• Identification


  Something about the group we value meaning public change in opinions and behaviour to achieve being part of the group even if not privately agreeing
• Compliance


  Simply going along with others in public but not privately changing personal behaviour or opinions, a superficial change where the behaviour stops when group pressure stops NSI
• Informational social influence


  Happens because people want to be right a cognitive process most likely to occur in ambiguous situations or crisis situations and when one person or group is regarded as being an expert most likely a permanent change in attitude
• normative social influence


  Influence occurs because people want social approval an emotion process likely to occur with strangers when concerned about rejection and in places where you are concerned about social approval
• Variables affecting conformity group size


  Asch found 3 confederates or more made conformity rise to 31.8% and plateau suggesting a small majority isnt sufficient for influence to be exerted but no need for more than 3
• Variables affecting conformity unamity


  Asch tested this with a dissenter giving the correct answer which made conformity reduce by 1/4 enabled naive participant to behave more independently suggesting influence of majority depends on gorup being unanimous
• Variables affecting conformity task difficulty


  Asch found when the line tasks where more difficult and less obvious conformity increase ISI playing a greater role because situation is more ambiguous did this by moving lines coser together making task harder to judge
• Conformity to social roles


  Zimbardo's Stanford Prison experiment 1973
• Obedience


  type of social influence which causes a person to act in response to an order given by another person. The person who gives the order usually has power or authority
• Agentic state


  Acts on behalf of an authority figure because they want to maintain a positive self image they may assess the consequences of their actions but once in the agentic state the action is no longer their responsibility as they attribute the responsiblity to the authority figure feeling no guilt as it doesnt reflect their self image
• Agentic shift


  Milgram suggested person moves from autonomous state into agentic state which he described as the agentic shift which heppens when a person percieves someone else as a fiigure of authority
• Autonomous state


  Sees themselves as responsible for their own actions
• Binding factors of the agentic state


  Social etiquette regulates our behaviour to fit in and not appear rude and be accepted NSI
• Legitimacy of authority


  For a shift into agentic state there must be a perception fo a legitimate authority figure who has control over the situations the participant feels commited to authority figure. In order for authority to be legitimate it must occur in an institutional structure
• Situational variables affecting obedience proximity


  When teacher and learner were in the same room obedience levels fell to 40% and when the experimenter was absent from the study obedience levels dropped to 21%
• Situational variables affecting obedience location

  In Yale 65% went to highest level of 450 v in a run down building in Connecticut obedience levels dropped to 47%
• Situational variables affecting obedience uniform

  When experimentor wore a lab coat 65% went to 450v when replaced by an another participant with no uniform obedience levels fropped to 20%.
• authoritarian personality dispositional explanation to obedience (personality traits)


  Adorno et al. 1950 argued someone with this type of personality was likely to obey authority, be submissive to those of higher status and dismissive of inferiors measured with Adorno's F-scale developed 1950
• Social pressure


  influenced that is exerted on a person or group it includes rational argument, persuasion, conformity and demands
• Resistance to social influence social support


  Other people around resiting pressures making them more likely to do the same because having an ally allows individuals to remain independent no longer fear being ridiculed avoiding NSI for obedience they will be able to resit it as more people disobeyed reduces pressuure to obey
• Resistance to social influence locus of control


  How much a person belives that they have control over events that happen in their lives measured along a scale with internal control at one end and external contorl on the other. Internal control is where the individual believes behaviour is guided by their personal decisions and are less lokey to conform less likely to obey more likely to resist social pressure. External control belives their behaviour is guided by fate luck more likley to conform obey and less likely to resist social pressure.
• Minority influence consistency


  Representing the same viewpoint over a sustained epriod of time increases amount of intrest from other people making others rethink their own biews and disrupting established norms
• Minority influence commitment


  Engaging in extreme activities to draw attention if they are at risk it demonstrates comitment to the cause increasing intrest
• Minority influence flexibility


  Being compromising less likely to be seen as extreme and will have a better chance of changing majority views if they are reasonable
• The process of change

  The snowball effect where the faster the rate of conversion from minority to majority , social crypto amnesia when the majority will forget this view was a minority as social change has occured
• Social influence processes in social change


  Refers to the change that occurs in a society and not at the individual level by being consistent flexible and commited social change is brought. Social crypto amnesia and the snowball effect the minority turns into the majority. Governments can bring about social change through power and obedience
• Suffragettes example


  Consistent in their view using political arguements to draw attentions, sacrifises risking imprisonment hungerstrikes, group membership to expand influence snowball effect
• Explanations of conformity A03 ISI


  - research evidence to back up ISI

  - Jenness' beans study 1932 can back up conformity in ambiguous situations. Involved a glass bottle with 811 white beans and a sample of 101 psychology students. They individually estimated the number, then in a group of 3, then re evaluated individually

  - found that most changed their original answer and there was an average change in females of 382 and males 256

  - however participant reactivity could have affected these results as the sample was psychology students and they could've figured out the aim

  - overall this is a strong piece of evidence to back up conformity in ambiguous situations linking to ISI
• Explanations of conformity A03 NSI


  - Asch research evidence

  - conducted a lab experiment

  - results illustrated that 75% of naive participants conformed at least once NSI

  - and in the control where all participants where naive less than 1% gave the wrong answer
• Explanations of conformity A03 NSI weakness


  - research shows that NSI does not affect everyone's behaviour the same way

  - e.g, people who are less concerned with being liked are affected by NSI than those who care more about being liked

  - some people have a greater need for association with others and they are described as affiliators and will be more likely to conform due to NSI

  - e.g, McGhee and Teevan 1967 found that students high in need for affiliation were more likely to conform

  - this shows that the desire to be liked underlies conformity for some people more than others therefore suggesting there are individual differences in the way people respond.
• Asch Key study


  - lab experiment to study the affect of conformity and social pressure

  - 50 male students from Swarthmore college in the USA

  - using a vision test with a line judgement task

  - asked to say which comparison line ABC was the most like the target line with the answer being obvious

  - put 1 naive participant in a room who always voiced their answer last with 7 confederates

  - 18 trials in total and confederates gave wrong answer in 12 critical trials
• Asch strength study

  - Asch's study was highly controlled and produced reliable results in relation to conformity

  - the results illustrated that in the critical trials about 75% of naive participants conforming at least once

  - shows how the group pressure caused people to conform

  - in the control group with no pressure to conform less than 1% gave the wrong answer
• Asch strength highly controlled A03


  - highly controlled making it reliable

  - controlled his 3 variations in the study for example

  - more reliable producing valid data

  - another variable
• Asch weakness child of it's time A03

  - Criticised as being a child of it's time

  - research conducted in 1951 America which was an individualistic culture and the findings wouldn't be applicable to a collectivist culture

  - may make people conform more because post-war America there was less freedom of expression and male students would be likely to conform due to ISI to fit it with the societal standards

  - sample bias because no women results could change

  - therefore it has low ecological validity results cant be generalised
• Conformity to social roles Stanford prison experiment A01


  - 1973 Zimbardo conducted an experiment to investigate why prison guards behave brutally in America

  - he set up a mock prison in the basement of Stanford university and advertised in a newspaper for male volunteers

  - he randomly assigned the roles of prisoner or guard and Zimbardo took the role of superintendent and immersed himself into the experiment

  - to heighten reality prisoners here arrested in there homes, blindfolded, strip searched, deloused and issued a uniform and a number to which they were referred to

  - guards had to enforce 16 rules over the prisoners as a daily routine

  - guards had they own uniform and a wooden club, handcuffs, keys to rooms, mirrored reflective sunglasses

  - told they had complete power
• Stanford prison experiment A03 ethical issues


  - extremely criticised for braking many ethical guidelines

  - participants were not given protection from harm and they where deceived by zimbardo

  - for example they endured verbal abuse from the guards and asked to degrading tasks like cleaning a toilet with their bare hands, prisoners were left feeling inadequate and placed under undue stress.

  - in the newspaper the experiment was advertised as a psychological study of prison life which is very Vaughan

  - many participants had to go through distress and affected them during the study and long term making the study extremely unethical
• Stanford prison experiment A03 dual-role


  - Zimbardo played a dual-role and became immersed as the superintendent

  - the boundary for reality and make belief was blurred which caused him to become to involved in the study

  - for example a prisoner tried to leave the study and reported back to other participants after talking to zimbardo saying "they wont let you leave" Zimbardo wasn't thinking as a psychologist

  - however strength was highly controlled , personality tests carried out on participants to ensure emotionally stable individuals were chosen to ensure that conformity to social roles was due to situational and not dispositional factors

  - study not reliable making him blind to ethical right to withdraw
• Stanford prison experiment A03 real life application


  - strength is that this study can be applied to real life situations

  - for example in Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad from 2003-2004 United States Army military police committed serious human rights violations

  - prisoners tortured, physically, sexually and humiliated zimbardo noticed similarities with his study and the guards at Stanford prisons Trudy because like the study the guards where not told to torture the prisoners

  - therefore real life application insight into events and conformity to social roles with power