Social Influence - x

• Outline Asch's study procedure


  123 American tested.

  Lab experiment, repeated measures.

  ppts made to choose out of 3 lines, which is most similar to presented line.

  18 total trials and 12 critical trials.

  Only one genuine ppts in each group - rest were confederates who gave the wrong answer
• Asch's baseline findings


  ppts conformed to the confederates' wrong answer 36.8% of the time.

  25% of ppts never conformed

  75% conformed at least once
• Variables tested in Asch's study


  Group size

  Unanimity

  Task difficulty
• Variables tested in Asch's study - Group size


  Curvilinear relationship between group size and conformity rate.

  Conformity rose to 31.8% (with 3 ppts)

  The presence of more confederates made little difference
• Variables tested in Asch's study - Unanimity


  Conformity decreased in presence of dissenter.

  Rate of conformity decreased to less than 1/4 than it was when majority was unanimous (in agreement)
• Variables tested in Asch's study - Task difficulty


  Conformity increased with task difficulty - as the situation was more ambiguous
• Internalisation


  A person genuinely accepts the group norms. Private and public change of opinion/behaviour (even in absence of group members)
• Identification


  Conformity with a group that we identify with - we want to be apart of. Public change of opinion/behaviour even if we don't privately agree with it
• Compliance


  Simply 'going along with others in public' but not changing private opinions/behaviour.

  Behaviour stops when group pressure stops

  Temporary change of opinion
• Informational Social Influence (ISI)


  Conforming with the majority because we think they are right - conforming to be right

  A cognitive process

  Leads to internalisation
• Normative Social Influence (NSI)


  Conformity to majority to gain social approval/to fit in - conforming to be liked

  An emotional process

  Leads to compliance
• Zimbardo's study procedure


  Mock prison in basement.

  21 men (volunteers) who were 'emotionally stable'

  Randomly assigned to role of prisoner and guard

  Encouraged to conform to role via uniform and instructions about behaviour
• Stanford Prison Experiment - uniform


  Prisoners made to wear loose smocks and caps. Identified by a number

  Guards had handcuffs and sunglasses

  
  

  Creates a loss of personal identity (de-individuation) - more likely to conform to the role
• Stanford Prison Experiment - instructions of behaviour


  Instead of leaving the study early, prisoners were able to 'apply for parole'

  Guards were encouraged to conform to role by being reminded of the power they had.
• Zimbardo's study findings


  Guards - brutal, aggressive, sadistic, harassed prisoners

  Prisoners - depressed, and anxious, some left early due to symptoms of psychological disturbance.

  The study lasted 6 days instead of 14 days
• Zimbardo's study conclusion


  Social roles have strong influence on behaviour.

  All ppts conformed to their roles.

  Guards became brutal and prisoners became submissive.
• Milgram's study procedure


  Lab experiment

  40 male American volunteers aged 20-50

  Lots were drawn between 2 ppts (one genuine and one confederate) - Teacher and Learner

  The draw was fixed so genuine ppts was a teacher.

  ppts were made to shock the confederate each time they got a wrong answer. (shocks going up 15 Volts each time)

  Shocks were fake but ppts did not know.

  The experimenter (confederate) gave prompts to make ppts carry on.
• Milgram's study findings


  All ppts delivered up to 300 Volts.

  12.5% of ppts (5) stopped at 300 Volts

  65% continued to max voltage (450 Volts)

  Qualitative data collected including observation: sweat, tremble stutter.
• Milgram's study conclusions


  ppts were willing to obey even if their action are harming others.

  There were other factors affecting obedience
• Situational variables - proximity


  Teacher (T) and learner (L) in the same room - obedience dropped from 65% to 40%

  Touch proximity variation (T had to force L's hand on shock button) - obedience dropped to 30%

  Instruction variation (experimenter left room and gave T instructions via telephone) - 25%
• Situational variables - location


  Another expeiment took place in a run down office block rather than the setting of Yale University - obedience dropped from 65% to 47.5%
• Situational variables - uniform


  Experimenter wore grey lab coat. In another study, experimenter had to go away and was replaced by a person in ordinary clothing - obedience dropped to 20%.
• Agentic state


  Situational explanation

  A person is 'acting' for someone else so they do not take responsibility.
• Autonomous State


  Situational explanation

  A person is free to behave according to their own principles - they have responsibility for their actions
• Agentic shift


  Situational explanation

  Shift from autonomy to agency - occurs when a person perceives someone else as the authority figure
• Legitimacy of authority


  Situational explanation

  Authority held by certain figures which is legitimate - it is agreed by society. e.g parents, teachers, police.
• Destructive authority


  Situational explanation

  People using their authority for destructive reasons
• Dispositional explanation


  Cause of obedience lies in personality of individual rather than the situation
• Authoritarian personality


  Dispositional explanation

  A personality type that is most likely to obey people in authority.
• Origins of authoritarian personality

  Childhood - harsh parenting, strict discipline.

  Child may have resentment towards parents but does not express it due to fear of punishment. fear is displaced onto those who they think are weaker - scapegoating
• Dispositional explanation - Adorno et al's study procedure


  2000 m/c white Americans.

  Studied unconscious attitudes towards ethnic groups

  Used F scale
• Adorno et al's study finidngs


  Those who scored high on the F scale identified with the strong and looked down on the weak. showed respect towards those of higher authority

  Had fixed stereotypes of other groups

  They had black and white thinking
• Resistance to social influence - social support


  A person who is not following the majority can be seen as social support, as it allows the ppts to be free and follow their conscience
• Resistance to social influence - Locus of control


  Internal LOC - a person believe that the things that are happening to them are controlled by themselves

  External LOC - a person believes that things that happen to them are out of their control
• Resistance to social influence - LOC

  People with internal LOC are able to resist pressure to conform or obey. They take responsibility for their actions and act according to their beliefs rather than what others think.

  they tend to be more confident, and intelligent which leads to resistance to social influence.
• minority influence


  A small group of people who influence the behaviour/opinion of others. leads to internalisation
• Consistency


  The minority must be consistent in their views.

  synchronic consistency - people in the minority group are all saying the same thing

  diachronic consistency - minority should be consistent in their view overtime.

  Causes others to rethink the minority view
• Commitment


  The minority must be committed to their views. extreme activities can be taken to show commitment. creates more attention to minority views. e.g the suffragette who jumped in front of the king's horse.
• Flexibility


  Someone who is extremely consistent in their behaviour/views can seen as rigid and dogmatic. The minority should be able to accept reasonable counterarguments.
• Snowball effect


  More and more people come to accept the minority view.