social influence 2

• Conformity


  How an individual or small group change their behaviour and/or attitudes as a result of the influence of a larger group, where there is no direct request for them to do so
• Explanations of why people conform


  • Informational Social Influence
  • Normative Social Influence
• Informational Social Influence


  The desire to be right
• Normative Social Influence


  The desire to be liked
• Compliance


  The most superficial type of conformity, where an individual wants to achieve a favourable reaction from the other group members
• Identification


  Where the individual adapts their behaviour and or opinions because they value membership of a particular group
• Internalisation

  The deepest level of conformity, where an individual accepts the influence of the group because the ideas and actions are rewarding and consistent with his or her own value system
• Sherif's study using the autokinetic effect

  1. Participants judged how far a spot of light had moved individually

  2. Participants put into groups of three and their judgements converged towards a group norm

  3. Participants went back to judging individually and tended to maintain the group norm
• Sherif's study demonstrates informational social influence and internalisation
• Asch's study


  1. Participants asked to judge which out of three lines was the same as a sample line

  2. Confederates all gave the same wrong answer

  3. 32% general conformity rate across critical trials
• Asch's study demonstrates normative social influence and compliance
• When faced with an ambiguous situation


  Participants look to others for help and guidance
• When a task is easy

  Participants conform in order to fit in with the group
• Research into types of conformity has useful applications, e.g. in the legal system and for those trying to change behaviour
• s been taken on board by trade unions, who no longer ask for a show of hands when attempting to vote through, for example, strike action. Instead, private ballots are the norm, thus demonstrating how knowledge of normative social influence has improved the democratic process.
• Group Size


  Asch manipulated the size of the majority to record the effect it had on the participant
• Unanimity


  Asch wanted to see if one person dissenting from the majority would affect the likelihood of the participant conforming
• Difficulty of the Task

  Conformity increases when the task becomes more difficult
• Conformity to social roles


  How an individual's behaviour changes according to the expectation of behaviour in that particular situation
• Agentic State


  Milgram suggested that people operate on one of two levels. Most of the time we operate in autonomous mode. This means that we feel responsible for our own behaviour and therefore we are likely to act according to law and conscience, as we know we are accountable for our actions. However, in certain situations, an individual may slip into agentic state. This occurs when the individual feels able to pass responsibility for their actions onto an authority figure. It is so called because the individual in this state regards themselves as an 'agent' of the authority figure and no longer feels responsible or accountable for their actions. This allows them to act in ways that would not be possible if they were in autonomous mode.
• Legitimate Authority


  People are socialised into acting on the requests of a legitimate authority. We tend to obey those with authority because we assume they know what they are doing. If someone has legitimate authority they have a role that is defined by society that gives them a right to exert their control over others. We may obey these people because we trust them, or because we believe that they have the power to punish us. Legitimate authority may come from a person's status in society, which may be conveyed by a uniform, or their position in the family structure.
• Proximity


  This can refer to how close the person is to the consequences of their actions when obeying an authority figure. Milgram found that the distance between 'Mr Wallace' and the participant influenced the obedience rate. The further away the participant is from 'Mr. Wallace', the more able they are to avoid witnessing the consequences of their obedient behaviour, and therefore the more likely they are to obey. The proximity of the participant to the experimenter also has a bearing on the obedience level. This is probably because the pressure the participant feels to obey the experimenter is lessened if he is not in the same room.
• Location


  Location can have an effect on obedience rates because some locations increase the perceived legitimacy of the authority figure. For example, the experimenter in Milgram's study had a high amount of perceived authority because he was attached to a very prestigious institution (Yale University). Therefore, we would expect obedience to that authority figure to be higher than if the study had have been carried out in a less prestigious institution.
• Uniform


  A uniform can give the perception of greater authority, and therefore we would expect that obedience rates would be higher if the person giving the order is wearing a uniform.
• Authoritarian Personality


  The authoritarian personality was first identified by Adorno et al (1950). Milgram suggested that someone with an authoritarian personality is more likely to be obedient. It results from an upbringing with strict, dogmatic parents who are emotionally distant. These parents tend to use harsh physical punishments for disobedience, thus instilling in the child the need to obey those in authority. This upbringing leads to a high respect for authority which continues into adulthood and becomes part of the personality. This means that that they place high importance in obedience to authority, and believe that those in a position of power have to be obeyed. So while they attempt to control and dominate those that they consider to be beneath them in the hierarchy, they are very obedient to those they consider to be above them in the hierarchy, which would explain why those individuals are more likely to obey in the Milgram procedure.
• Social Support


  One reason that people can resist the pressure to conform or obey is if they have an ally, someone supporting their point of view, or at least, in the case of conformity, a dissenter – someone who deviates from the majority, although they may not share the same view or behaviour. This gives the individual social support for non-conformity or non-obedience. In relation to conformity, this can be because they no longer fear being ridiculed, allowing them to avoid normative social influence to conform. It also helps them to resist pressure to obey because it is easier to stand up to an authority figure if there is someone else to share the consequences of doing so. Therefore, dissenters make disobedience and non-conformity an option that the individual may not have considered without them.
• Locus of Control


  This refers to the extent to which individuals believe that they can control the events in their lives. Individuals with a high internal locus of control believe that events result primarily from their own behaviour and actions. Those with a high external locus of control believe that powerful others, fate, or chance primarily determine events. This means that those with a high internal locus of control have better control of their behaviour and are more likely to attempt to influence other people because they are more likely to assume that their efforts will be successful. They tend to be more likely to be confident and therefore less likely to need approval from others, so that means they are less likely to change their behaviour to fit in with the group. This means that we would expect those with a high internal locus of control to be more resistant to the pressures of social influence. For example, they are more likely to believe that events happen as a result of their own choices and decisions so will not obey if they feel uncomfortable with their behaviour as they will automatically feel responsibility for that behaviour, unlike those with an external locus of control, who are more likely to be able to pass responsibility for something that they feel uncomfortable with, onto someone else (agentic state).
• The supporting research lacks internal validity as it is correlational. Therefore it is not possible to say internal locus of control causes resistance to social influence. There may be another factor that is associated with locus of control that causes independence.
• The research lacks reliability as not all studies support the view that locus of control is associated with resistance to social influence.
• Williams and Warchal (1981) studied 30 university students who were given a range of conformity tasks based on Asch's procedure. Each student was also assessed using Rotter's locus of control scale. They found that those who conformed did not score differently on the locus of control scale but they were less assertive, so assertiveness may have more to do with conformity than locus of control, showing that the explanation is limited.
• Minority influence


  When an individual, or a small group change the behaviour and/or attitudes of a larger group. It is the opposite of conformity.
• Minority influence usually results in internalisation


  A permanent change, because it is likely to result from informational social influence, and therefore represents a true conversion.
• Qualities a minority needs to have to be successful


  • Consistency
  • Flexibility
  • Commitment
• Minorities are also more likely to be influential if they are seen to be acting from principle, not out of self-interest, if they are similar to the majority in terms of class, age, and gender, and if they advocate views that are consistent with current social trends
• Cognitive conflict (cognitive dissonance)


  The mental conflict that occurs when a person's behaviors and beliefs do not align.
• Social cryptomamensia


  Our failure to give credit to minorities for their role in provoking social change.
• The snowball effect


  The process where something grows in significance or size at an increasingly faster rate.
• Stages of social change


  1. Drawing attention to an issue

  2. Cognitive conflict

  3. Consistency of position

  4. The augmentation principle

  5. The snowball effect

  6. Social cryptoamnesia
• Bashir et al (2013) found that participants were less likely to behave in environmentally friendly ways because they did not want to be associated with stereotypical and minority environmentalists.
• Nolan et al (2008) and Shultz (2007) found that people are more willing to change their habits if they believed a majority of others had done so too, demonstrating the role of majority influence in social change.