Social influence

• Evaluation for resisting social influence: social support (conformity)

  Research support:

  . Asch found that giving participants an ally decreased conformity to 5.5%

  . Allen and levine replicated Asch study and found that an ally decreased conformity even when there was a reason to question their judgment (thick glasses)
• Evaluation for resistance to social influence: locus of control

  • Spector found a correlation between those with an internal locus of control and the resistance of conformity. However, found that this way only the case for normative social influence not informational social influence
• Evaluation for resistance to social influence: Locus of control

  • Avtgis carried out a meta analysis of studies of the relationship between locus of control and different forms of social influence, including conformity. Found postive correlation of 0.37 between people that have external locus of control and conformity rates. Means conformity rates were therefore lower for those with an internal locus of control. However, correlation only shows relations not causations.
• Evaluations of resistance to social influence: social support (obedience)

  • Able to explain real world applications: Martin Luther King. Protest against racist Jim crow laws.
  • Mallen et al looked at jaywalkers. He found that people were more likely to jaywalk if there were others doing the same.
• Evaluations of resistance to social influence: social support (obedience)

  • Power and Geen found people follow a disobedient model only if the disobedient model seemed calm. If they seemed nervous, not influenced. Suggests we won't mimic disobedient model if we think there could be negative consequences.
• Key study: Elms and Milgram ( Authoritarian personality) 


  Follow up of Milgram's study. 20 obedient and 20 disobedient Pps completed the California F scale. Also asked about their relationship with their parents during childhood, their view on experimenter and learner. Found higher levels of authoritarianism among those obedient Pps. Also saw the experimenter more admirable and the learner less so.
• Evaluations of Authoritarian Personality 


  . Alternative explanations: agentic state and legitimacy authority

  . Flawed scale: No item were reverse scored

  . Self report: social desirability bias especially since they knew the previous aim of obedience

  .Deterministic: self fulling prophecy, the ability of free will not considered.
• Evaluations of authoritarian personality 


  . Contradicting belief: Found that the obedient Pps had good relationship with parents and didn't have strict ones. Not want the Personality suggests. Other facts at play like situational variables like Milgram suggested in his original study.
• Evaluation for minority influence

  • Independent behaviours shown for Moscovici et al results: only 8%. Small percentage. Unreliable
  • Moscovici et al study lacks mundane realism. Artificial task to identify colours can't be generalised to explain the importance that consistency has for minority influence like protesting for woman rights. Lacks ecological validity.
• Moscovici et al (consistency) 


  Each group had 4 naïve Pps and minority of 2 confederates. Showed varied intensities of blue slides. Consistent condition confederates said the slides were green. In inconsistent condition 2/3 the confederate said the slides were green. Found consistent condition 8% influenced but inconsistent condition little difference from control group.
• Wood et al 


  Meta analysis of 97 studies into this area. Found consistent minorities particularly influential.
• Johnny Rocco study 


  Group of college students asked to read a case study about Johnny Rocco who was a juvenile delinquent. Most believed he should receive a mix of love and discipline but there ones one confederate to disagree against the group and belive he should receive harsh punishment. Confederate was ignored. Example of real world application were consistently was not effective.
• Nemeth et al (flexibility) 


  Mock jury for victims of ski accident. 1 confederate 3 Pps. Condition 1, confederate consistently argued for compensation. Condition 2 took on board some arguments and found middle ground. Condition 2 successful
• Maas and Clark (committed)

  gay minority less successful in arguing rights than straight minority. Had more of a vested interest.