SOCIAL INFLUENCE

• What is conformity?

  Form of majority influence where the beliefs of people in a group are adopted in response to real or imagined group pressure
• Types of conformity

  Compliance: publicly conforming to avoid social disapproval but privately maintaining one's own views (temporary change, only maintained as long as the group is present)

  Identification: opinions/beliefs change due to identification with the members. Membership is desirable, and members are role models so they conform to them. (generally temporary, not maintained when the group is no longer present)

  Internalisation: conversion of private views to match those of the group, beliefs become part of their own belief system. (permanent)
• Explanations for Conformity

  Dual process model:

  Normative Social Influence: desire to be liked, occurs to due fear of social rejection and desire for acceptance/social approval

  Informational Social Influence: desire to be right, occurs in an ambiguous situation as a way to gain information because individuals don't know how to respond
• Eval for Explanations of Conformity(1)

  Individual Differences are ignored: not everyone is affected in the same way, e.g when Asch's study was recreated with engineering students in the UK they conformed a lot less, probably due to confidence. This proves that conformity is subjective
• Eval for Explanations of Conformity (2)


  Difficult to distinguish between NSI and ISI: two process model suggests that behaviour is due to ONE of the processes but it is more likely that they interact. E.g when a dissenting participant was present in Asch's study conformity was less, could be due to either NSI or ISI. This makes the model too narrow, but also creates methodological issues in research
• Asch's Line Study (1951): A01


  Procedure: 123 male, US undergrads, 7-9 people had to say out loud which line was closest in length to the stimulus line, answer always unambiguous, all confederates except 1 and gave wrong answer on 12/18 trials

  Findings: 37% of trials conformed on, 75% conformed to at least one wrong answer, 5% conformed to all wrong answers

  Conclusions: Ps said they privately maintained own opinions but conformed for social approval (NSI), shows strong tendency to conform even when answer was clear
• Situational Variables in Asch's study: Task Difficulty

  Stimulus and comparison lines became more similar in length, answer less obvious

  Conformity increases when task difficulty increases (right answer becomes less obvious, confidence drops - mostly ISI)

  Situation is more ambiguous so they look to others for guidance
• Situational Variables in Asch's study: Group Size

  Number of confederates varied from 1-15

  Conformity rates increased as size of majority influence increased

  1C - 1P: 3% conformity rate

  2C - 1P: 13% conformity rate

  3C - 1P: 32% conformity rate

  Adding any more confederates had no further effect - suggests that group size is important but only to a certain point
• Situational Variables in Asch's study: Unanimity

  Confederate who disagreed with others; gave either in/correct answers

  C with correct answer: 5.5% conformity rate

  C with incorrect answer: 9% conformity rate

  Conformity rates decrease when majority influence is not unanimous, dissenter enables the participant to act more independently

  Major factor in reduction of conformity
• Asch's Line Study (1951): A03

  Methodology: lab experiment --> high internal validity, cause and effect established, confounding variables controllable BUT low ecological validity and lacks mundane realism --> cannot be generalised to real life (eg jury)

  Culture bias: used men in the US (individualistic culture) so findings cannot be generalised to collectivist cultures as they are more likely to conform (imposed etic)

  Lacks temporal validity: post WW2 society was more conformist than most societies so it was more likely for them to conform then, and these findings are not valid anymore
• What are Social Roles?

  Roles people take up as members of various social groups. Accompanied by expectations on how to act and what type of behaviour is appropriate. Examples include: teachers, parents etc
• Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment (1973): A01

  Procedure: 24 male volunteers randomly allocated to prisoner/guard role, Z played the role of supervisor. Volunteers unexpectedly arrested at home and dehumanised & de-individualised (e.g by shaving their heads, blindfolding them, giving them uniforms and IDs)

  Findings; guards began to humiliate the prisoners (e.g. making them clean toilets with bare hands), prisoners began to refer to each other by IDs.

  Conclusions: social roles override personal moral beliefs as guards acted uncharacteristically, all participants conformed
• Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment (1973): A03

  Real Life Application: Similar effects can be seen in Abu Ghuraib prison, and some people argue that the prison wardens were victims of situational factors which made them more likely to abuse --> increased understanding of 'power of the situation' and high external validity

  Ethical Issues: Zimbardo's dual role caused a conflict of interest which stopped him from protecting Ps from psychological harm. Right to withdraw was compromised as a P asked to be released and Zimbardo did not give up his role.
• What is obedience?

  Form of social influence where an individual follows a direct order from a perceived authority figure. They would not act this way without the order.
• Milgram's Behavioural Study of Obedience (1963): A01

  Aim: test the 'Germans are different' hypothesis, see if people obey even when the orders are morally wrong

  Procedure: Lab experiment, 40 male volunteers, paid $4.50. P is the teacher, C1 is learner and C2 is experimenter (wears white lab coat). Learner gives wrong answers and received fake 15volts, +15v each time up till 450v. Learner would give cries of pain, experimenter would tell P 'please continue' etc (verbal prods)

  Findings: 100% at least 350v, 12.5% stopped there, and 65% gave 450v
• Situational Variables affecting Obedience: Proximity


  Physical closeness of authority figure, Exp gives OTP orders in a diff room

  Conformity dropped from 65% --> 21%

  More likely to obey in agentic state due to diffusion of responsibility, P in autonomous state (responsible for own actions) when they are in diff rooms so they were less likely to obey
• Situational Variables affecting Obedience: Location


  Setting/environment of the experiment, repeated in run down office block

  Conformity dropped from 65% --> 48%

  Location adds legitimacy to the authority figure, Yale gave the Ps confidence in the integrity of the study, fewer people obeyed in the office as they did not associate value it as they did with Yale
• Milgram's Behavioural Study of Obedience (1963): A03


  Ethical Issues: right to withdraw was unclear due to verbal prods, participants were lied to about aims, and put under severe stress HOWEVER they were debriefed after and many said they were glad to take part

  Research Support + Reliability: study has been repeated many times e.g. French show and Hoffling Et Al - 21/22 nurses gave a higher dose of drug to patients when asked to by a doctor despite knowing it broke hospital rules and could be lethal. Support
• Explanations for Obedience: Agentic State


  Agentic State: individual acts on behalf of someone else, belief that they have diminished personal responsibility and therefore feel less guilty as they are agents of authority figures

  Autonomous State: full responsibility for their actions which are guided by their own moral code

  More likely to obey when acting as an agent as the AF is responsible for the act & its consequences

  Agentic shift: switching between either state to the other
• Evaluation for Agentic State

  Real Life Application: Nazi commander was put on trial for his crimes after WW2 said he was 'only following orders' --> saw himself in the agentic state and not responsible

  Milgram Proximity example
• Explanations for Obedience: Legitimacy of Authority

  Legitimacy of Authority: amount of social power held by AF

  Social power associated with social roles (e.g. doctors) and social status (e.g gang members)

  Socialised to believe that obeying AFs makes us more acceptable and also they have the power to punish/reward

  We trust that AFs have good intentions
• Evaluation for Legitimacy of Authority

  Accounts for Cultural Differences: obedience rates varied in Milgram's study (16% Aus, 85% Ger) which shows that obedience is affected by the way that people are taught to obey authority, and different cultures are taught different approaches to authority. +Validity

  Bickman study
• Explanations for Obedience: Authoritarian Personality

  Authoritarian Personality: dispositional explanation, individual's traits which arise due to childhood affect likelihood of obedience

  Traits: identify with 'strong' people and hostile towards 'weak' people, hyper-conscious of status, excessive respect for authorities above them, highly conformist & conventional

  More likely to obey due to belief in absolute obedience towards authority
• Evaluation for Authoritarian Personality

  Research Support: Adorno Et Al created the F-Scale where people chose from strongly agree to strongly disagree on statements. People who scored highly (strong authoritarian personality) identified with strong people etc. APs had categories of people with fixed stereotypes. Reliable

  Also: interviewed Ps after Milgram study and found that the most obedient also scored highly on the F scale and so did many Nazi war criminals
• Explanations for Resistance: Locus of Control

  LoC: dispositional explanation, people resist conformity due to personality, extent to which they believe they have control over their lives

  Internal LoC: believe their lives are result of their own actions, less likely to conform (stronger sense of personal responsibility), decisions based on own beliefs. More confident, intelligent and achievement orientated

  External LoC: believe their lives are result of external factors such as fate, more likely to conform (feel they do not have complete control over life)
• Evaluation for Locus of Control

  Methodology: forced choice, self report -> lacks nuance, may not reflect real life, social desirability bias

  Oliner & Oliner: survivors interviewed, rescuers who had resisted orders more likely to have ILOC than people who followed orders -> ILOC makes people less likely to obey against their morals
• Explanations for Resistance: Social Support

  Social support: presence of other people who resist social influence, help others do the same as they act as role models who prove resistance is possible

  Conformity: individual feels more confident in their decision, easier to reject majority, once unanimity is broken others feel more free

  Obedience: empowers others to disobey, challenges legitimacy of AF
• Evaluation of Social Support

  Asch Dissenter example

  alt exp: fix plz
• What is minority influence?


  Form of social influence which leads to majority converting their beliefs to match the minority
• Factors Affecting Minority Influence

  Consistency: keep the same beliefs over time and across all members of minority. Draws attention -> majority rethink views -> cognitive conflict -> internalisation

  Commitment: demonstrate dedication e.g by making personal sacrifices (augmentation principle) -> not acting out of self interest

  Flexibility: willing to listen & adapt as consistency can sometimes be seen as unreasonable -> majority become more sympathetic
• Evaluation into Factors Affecting Minority Influence

  Identification is also important: when the minority identifies with the majority they are more likely to be persuaded, e.g one study found that hets arguing for homos were more likely to be listened to than homos arguing for homos as hets more likely to trust other hets - shows that other factors should be considered for minority influence
• Role of Social Influence in Social Change

  Social change: society accepts a new belief/behaviour which becomes the norm

  Draw attention to issue -> challenge majority's cognitions -> maintain consistency -> prove commitment by suffering -> snowball effect: influence converts more people until a tipping point causes change -> social change occurs ->? social cryptoamnesia (forgets origins, no credit to minority influence)
• Alternative Explanations for Social Change

  ISI: as people gain access to more information from experts, their opinions shift e.g smoking and its harmful effects

  Disobedient role models: demonstrate how to resist, instigate social change, e.g Rosa Parks

  NSI: exposure to what the majority actually do, relies on tendency to conform to majority, e.g telling people their peers don't smoke made them less likely to smoke
• Evaluation of role of Social Influence in Social Change


  temporal validity : limitatioj

  mehodolofical weaknesses