social influence

• Aschs 1956 line experiment

  123 male americans

  75% conformed 1/3 of the time

  unanimity: 1 confederate: conformity 32% to 5%

  task difficulty: more difficult, more conformity

  group size: 2 confederates= 12.8%, 3= 32%

  • S: research support: Lucas et al, harder maths questions = more conformity HOWEVER found confomity is more complex than suggested (high confidence= less conformity)
  • W: artifacial lab experiment - demands characteristics + trivial task (no reason to conform)
  • W: generalisability: Neto- women more likely to conform + US individualist country
  • W: ethics - participants decieved
• types of conformity

  Kelman suggest 3 ways

  internalisatoon: publicly changing, privately agreeing

  compliance: publicly changing, privately disagreeing

  identification: public changing, privately agreeing in prescene of group
• explaining conformity

  informaitonal social influence: need to be right, believe majority are correct, cognitive process, new/ambiguous situations

  normative social influence: need to be liked, seeking approval, emotional process, concerns about rejection

  • S: NSI support: Asch’s p‘s self conscious - write down answer, conformity fell to 12.5%
  • S: ISI support: Lucas et al, high confidence, low conformity HOWEVER: hard to separate ISI and NSI in real life
  • W: individual differences: McGhee + Teevan - nAffiliators = more conformity, stronger need for approval
• conformity to social roles

  Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison experiment

  10 prisoners, 11 guards randomly assigned all wear uniform + treated according to their role

  guards= more brutal, prisoners = more depressed

  4 prisoners removed for signs of depression/ emotional disorder

  intended to last 14 days, stopped after 6

  supports situational > dispositional explanation

  deindividuation = more confomity if we’re not an individual
• social roles evaluation

  • S: realistic, 90% of prisoner talk about prison life+ prisoner 416 beleived it was real + McDermott: participants acted as though it was real - high internal validity HOWEVER lacked realism: roles based on stereotypes, guard said he based his role on a character from cool hand luke - not accurate
  • S: selection of participants: randomly assigned, tested for mental stability - high validity + accuracy + rules out individual factors
  • W: exaggeration: 1/3 gaurds acted brutally, 1/3 fairly, 1/3 tried to help prisoners
• obedience - Milgram

  learners (actors) strapped to electric chair, teacher (participant) gave fake electric shocks to leaner when incorrect answer given

  15V to 450V incriments of 30

  100% to 300V

  65% went to 450V (predicted 3%)

  many showed signs of anxiety (sweating, trembling, stuttering)
• obedience (Milgrams) evaluations

  • S: research support: Beauvois at al ‘Game of Death‘ paid participants to give electric shocksto audience, 80% to 460V + Sheridan King replicated on a puppy - 54% men, 100% women went to fatal shock
  • W: low internal validity: Orne + Holland - participants knew shocks were fake + Percy - only 50% believed it was real (Milgrams said 75%)
  • W: Baumrind: decieving has serious consequences
  • W: Mandel offers excuse for evil behaviour
• situational variables

  proximity: orders over phone = 20.5% to 450V - high proximity, high obedience

  location: symbol of power, run down office = 47.5%

  uniform: lab coat = 65%, normal clothes = 20%

  • S: Bickman: suit, milkman, secularity guard - small tasks (pick up litter) in public, 2 x more likely to obey security guard HOWEVER Orne + Holland: use of stranger asking is too unrealistic, people work it out (demand characteristics)
  • S: Meeus + Raajmakers: replicated in Holland, proximity had same effects HOWEVER Smith + Bond: cross-cultural research conducted in culturally similar countries
• agentic state

  acting in place of someone in greater power

  autonomous state: opposite of agentic, shift from autonomous to agentic= agentic shift - happens when perceiving someone as an authority figure

  binding factors: allows person to minimise anxiety/moral strain while in agentic state

  • S: Milgram‘s study supports: when participants knew experimenter was responsible, they continued
  • W: doesn’t plain all obedience: Rank + Jacobson, 16/18 nurses disobeyed doctors to give excessive drug dose to patient - not a comprehensive definition
• legitimacy of authority

  societies structured in hierarchy, authority legitimate if agreed upon by most of society + learnt in childhood (accepted as people aware authority figures are needed in society) - some given power to punish

  destructive authority: Hitler + Milgram’s study when experimenter uses prods
• legitimacy of authority evaluations

  • S: explains cultural differences: Kilham + Mann 16% Australians, Mantell: 68% Germany to 450V went to 450V - different views on perception of authority figures
  • S: real- world appplication: My Lai Masscare - clearer hierarchy of authority
  • W: doesn’t explain all disobedience: Rank + Jacobson’s nurses + some of Milgram’s participants recognised experimenters authority + disobeyed
• authoritarian personality

  extreme respect, view society as weak, contempt for inferior classes, prejudice + inflexible outlook

  derives from excessively strict discipline in childhood

  Adorno’s research: 2000 m/c americans observed, F-scale (fascism potential), high f-scale = authoritarian personality, often held prejudice, black + white thinking
• authoritarian personality evaluations

  • S: Milgrams + Elms: those fully obedient in Milgram’s study scored high on F-scale HOWEVER further analysis showed they had characterist unusual to authoritarian personality (glorifying fathers) - unlikely to be a useful predictor of obedience
  • W: unlikely all of Germany has authoritarian personality, social idenity theory more realistic
  • W: political bias: Christie + Jahoda, F-scale ignored left wing - not comprehensive dispositional explanation
  • W: Greenstein: “comedy of methodological errors” - response bias effects results
• social support

  resisting confomity: Asch’s study, unanimity effects conformity, 1 persons dissent gives rise to more dissent - shows majority isn’t unanimous

  resisitng obedience: Milgram’s study, obedience 65% to 10% when watching someone disobey, model of dissent allows conscience
• social support evaluations

  • S: Albrecht et al: Teen Fresh Start USA (smoking programme) - those with older mentor more likely to stop smoking than those without
  • S: Gamson et al: 88% refused to ‘help’ oil company run a smear campaign, participants in groups to discuss
  • S: Allen + Levine: dissenter in Asch’s study had good eyesight: 64% resist (compared to original 3%) HOWEVER if dissenter has poor eyesight (thick glasses) 36% resist - social support doesn’t help
• locos of control

  Rotter - LOC= continuum

  internal LOC: things that happen largely controlled by themselves, high resistance (self-confident + achievement orientated)

  external LOC: things that happen largely outside of their control, more likely to conform/ obey

  • S: Holland: Milgram’s participants identified as internal or external, 37% internals, 23% externals resisted
  • W: Twenge et al: 1960-2002, external LOC increased + resistance increased - not valid explanation
  • W: Rotter: LOC only a factor in new situation, past obedience = future obedience
• minority influence

  consistency: synchronic= agreement in minority group, diachronic= agreement over time

  flexibility: overly consistent behaviour= dogmatic - minority should adapt behaviour

  commitment: minority engage in extreme activities, argumentation principle

  process of change = snowball effects
• minority influence evaluations

  • S: Martin et al: views measured, listen to a minority group - less likely to change view HOWEVER real world is different: majority usually hold more power + minorities more committed
  • S: Moscovici et al: blue-green slides - consistent minority opinion > inconsistent + Wendy Wood et al: meta analysis of 100 studies, consistent minority is more influential HOWEVER: artificial tasks, Moscovici’s slides lack external validity + limited in real life
• social change

  1. draw attention
  2. consistency
  3. deeper processing
  4. argumentation principle
  5. snowball effect
  6. social cryptomnesia

  conformity research: dissent encourages dissent, NSI for change: “bin it - others do” - draw attention to majority

  obedience research: Milgram: dissenter = plummet in obedience, Zimbardo: gradual commitment (past obedience = future obedience)
• social change evaluations

  • S: Nolan et al: “others trying to reduce energy“ vs “save energy“ - NSI is effective + valid HOWEVER Foxcraft et al: 70 studies used social norms approach - small decerase in drinking quantity, no change in frequency, not long-term
  • S: Nemath: minorities use divergent thinking (broad) + thinker actively searches for information HOWEVER Mackie: majority thinking is deeper if we don’t share views - central elemet of minority influence questioned
  • Bashir: people resist social change for fears of negative stereotypes