Paper 1 - 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
• Kelman's three levels of conformity

  • Compliance (shallow)
  • Identification (intermediate)
  • Internalisation (deep)
• Compliance

  Agreeing with the group but keeping personal opinions just to 'fit in' / be accepted. Public change but no private change. Superficial change only shown in presence of group. Weak form of conformity.
• Compliance

  • Crossing road with crowd in traffic as embarrassed to be the only one to not cross
• Identification

  Adjust behaviour and opinions to the group that we value because membership of that group is desirable. Public change even though we do not privately agree with all the group stands for. Temporary change not maintained when individuals leave group.
• Identification

  • Smart dresser wears casual clothes on 'Dress Down Friday' at work to not appear standoffish to colleagues
• Internalisation

  Personal opinions genuinely change to match the group as the majority view has been accepted as correct. Public and private change. Permanent change even without the presence of the group.
• Internalisation

  • Slows down to 30mph at speed zone as believes it's wrong to drive faster there
• Deutsch and Gerard's 'Two Process Theory'

  Two main reasons why people conform: Informational Social Influence (ISI) - The need to be right, Normative Social Influence (NSI) - The need to be liked
• The 'Two Process Theory' is oversimplified as more often both processes work together and are involved when explaining behaviour
• Informational Social Influence (ISI)

  In situations where the correct behaviour is uncertain, we look to the majority for guidance on how to behave because we want to be correct. Cognitive process involving seeking information and altering opinions/behaviour based on new information. Has evolutionary value as looking to others for guidance in new situations leads to survival. Most likely to lead to internalisation - permanently adopting views of majority.
• Informational Social Influence (ISI)

  • Lucas et al (2006) found greater conformity to incorrect answers when the maths questions were difficult, mostly true for students who rated their maths ability as poor
• Informational Social Influence (ISI)

  • Jenness (1932) found individuals' second guess would move closer to groups guess, demonstrating ISI
• Normative Social Influence (NSI)

  In situations when the individual wants to appear normal and be one of the majority, so they are approved and not rejected. Concerns what is 'normal'. Emotional rather than cognitive process. Most likely to lead to compliance.
• Normative Social Influence (NSI)

  • Asch (1951) found participants would choose the incorrect answer was selected by confederates to avoid rejection from others
• People who are less concerned about being liked are less affected by NSI
• Asch's Conformity Study

  • Investigated the degree to which individuals would conform to majority who gave obviously wrong answers. 32% conformity rate to wrong answers on 12 critical trials, 75% naive participants confirmed to at least one wrong answer, 5% confirmed to all 12 wrong answers and 25% never confirmed at all.
• Asch's Conformity Study

  Judgements of individuals are affected by majority opinions, even if wrong, motivated by normative social influence (NSI) as individuals conform to avoid rejection / gain acceptance. Most participants conformed publicly but not privately.
• Asch's Investigation Into Situational Variables Affecting Conformity

  • Increased group size increased conformity, presence of another non-conforming person decreased conformity, increased task difficulty increased conformity
• Social Roles

  Parts individuals play as members of a social group, which meet expectations of that society. Individuals learn how to behave by looking at social roles play in situations and conform to them. Learned roles allow us to behave appropriately in settings and are only conformed to while in that particular social role.
• Zimbardo's Prison Study (1973)

  • Investigated the extent to which people would conform to the roles of guard and prisoner in a role-playing simulation of prison life and test the dispositional (internal) vs situational (external) hypotheses that saw prison violence as either due to the sadistic personalities of guards and prisoners, or to the brutal conditions of the prison environment. Both guards and prisoners settled quickly after initial prisoner 'rebellion', dehumanisation increasingly apparent and guards more sadistic, 4 prisoner released because of psychological stress, cancelled after 6 days due to increasingly aggressive behaviour.
• Mundane realism

  • Similar to real situation
  • Can be generalised to other prisons to understand behaviour
• Good internal validity

  • Random assignment of roles rules out individual differences
• Volunteer sample

  • Volunteers eager to please
• Sample bias

  • All male university students so findings can not be generalised to females or other ages
• Individual differences

  • Not all guards behaved brutally
  • Prisoner behaviour not identical
• Unethical

  • Psychological harm - as prisoners then stripped and clothed in numbered smocks while guards given handcuffs, keys etc in study planned to run for 2 weeks but cancelled after 6 days
• Both settled quickly after initial prisoner 'rebellion' dehumanisation increasingly apparent and guards more sadistic, 4 prisoner released because of psychological stress, cancelled after 6 days due to increasingly aggressive behaviour of guards
• Situational hypothesis favoured over dispositional (external over internal) - environment of mock prison and social roles led to unusual unprecedented behaviour, individuals conform readily to social roles demanded in situation from what they have seen / learned
• Zimbardo's dual role

  • Influence on participant behaviour to please researcher
• Lack of mundane realism

  • Participants could be acting to their social role not actually conforming
• Reicher & Haslam 2011 recreated Zimbardo's study however in this version, prisoners became disobedient to guards who were unable to control their behaviour
• Milgram's Shock Study (1963) tested obedience
• Find out how far people would go in obeying an instruction if it involved harming another person and why Hitler's orders had been followed in WW2
• 40 male paid volunteers, aged 20-50, told it was a study investigating learning at Yale Laboratory. Roles rigged so 'experimenter' dressed in lab coat and 'learner' were always confederates while naive participants were always 'teacher'. 'Learner', old man, strapped in electric chair in one room while 'experimenter' and 'teacher' (NP) in another room with electric shock generator. Participant told to give electric shock every time the 'learner' answers a question wrong (purposely most of the time), increasing the level of shock by 15 volts each time, up to 450 volts. At 300 volts, 'learner' made noise refusing to go on, at 315 volts, 'learner' made no noise, indiciating unconsciousness / death. When 'teacher' refused to shock, experimenter gave prods to ensure they continued, like 'you must continue, you have no other choice.
• All participants continued to 300 volts and 65% continues to highest level of 450 volts
• Aspects of situation may have influenced their behaviour : formality of the location, behaviour and authority of the experimenter
• Ordinary people likely to follow orders given by authority figure, even if morally wrong
• Agentic State: Idea that individual believes they don't have responsibility for their behaviour as they are an agent of an authority figure
• Allows individuals to commit acts they personally morally oppose