Section 1: Social Influence Flashcards
What is conformity
It’s majority influence.
The tendency to change what we do, think and say
In response to the influence of real/imagined pressure from others
What are the three types of conformity
— compliance
Outside, we conform (public agreement)
But don’t agree inside (private disagreement)
-> behaviour change is temporary
-> a specific behaviour/opinion stops as soon as group pressure stops
— internalisation
Outside, we conform (public agreement)
And we do agree internally (private agreement)
-> likely to lead to permanent behaviour change
-> attitudes are internalised, so behaviour persists even when pressure stops
— identification
Outside, we conform (public agreement)
Inside, we have no opinion (part of a group and that’s what they follow)
-> likely to be temporary behaviour change
-> when pressure stops, we leave the opinions/behaviour behind
What are explanations for conformity
These are an identification of the reasons why ppl conform.
- Informational social influence (isi)
About abt who knows more - you or rest of group
- often we’re unsure of what behaviours are right and wrong, as we feel we lack info wch the majority have
- eg. You may not know answer to a question in class, but if most of class agrees to one answer, you accept as you think they’re more likely to be right
- the reason ppl follow behaviour of rest of group(majority) is bc they want to be right
Isi is a mental/cognitive process AND leads to internalisation
Most likely to happen in situations new to a person
Or where there is ambiguity
Or where decisions have to be made fast
Or where one group/person is regarded as expert
..
- Normative social influence (nsi)
About norms ; what’s normal/typical behaviour for a social group
- norms regulate behaviour of groups/individuals, wch is why we pay attention to them
- ppl prefer to gain social approval and fit in than rejected
Nsi is an emotional process AND leads to compliance
Most likely to happen with strangers, concerned abt rejection
Or ppl you know as we want social approval from friends
Or stressful situations where ppl need more social support
What was jenness’ study
Investigated whether group size affects isi taking place
Method..
- ppts as individuals estimated number of beans in bottle
- then discussed estimates either in large or small group (Individuals realised they differed widely in their estimates)
- group estimates arrived at then individuals made a second estimate by themselves
Results
There was a significant convergence towards group estimate
Average change if opinion was greater among females
Conc..
- judgements of individuals are affected by majority opinions
- Especially in ambiguous situations
Discussions only effective in changing opinion only if there are differences in others’ opinions
What was asch’s study (just method)
He investigated NSI (and potentially ISI)
Method:
- tested conformity by showing ppts two large white cards
- one card had a standard line; other had three comparison lines
- one of the three lines was same as standard
- and others wee clearly substantially different (Unambiguous)
The ppt was then asked which line matched standard
-
- the ppts were 123 male american undergraduates
- each naive ppt was tested individually within a group of 6-8 stooges
- the first few trials all cfds made right answers, then made errors
- all confederates were instructed to give wrong answers on 12 critical trials
- 18 trials were in total for each ppt
Also was a control group = 36 ppts, 20 trials each
What were the results of aschs study
Control group had an error rate of 0.4%
Ppts gave wrong answer 32% of the time.
— Overall 25% didn’t conform once, meaning 75% did
The arch effect describes this result
Wch is the extent to which ppl conform in unambiguous situations
- most said they conformed to avoid judgement
- some said they doubted their own eyes
AO3 on conformity explanations
+ research support for ISI = jenness’ study/asch
When made a second individual estimate after a group estimate of number of beans
There was a significant convergence to group estimate
—> judgments of individuals are affected by majority ops (esp ambiguous)
———
Another experiment (asch) supports too
As ppts doubted their vision, making ambiguous
Leading to higher conformity due to ISI
Consistency in research findings increases reliability of it
As an explanation for conformity
.
+ research support for NSI = smoking study/asch
US research shows relationship between ppl’s
normative beliefs and lkehood of takin up smoking
- adolescents exposed to message that majority their age don’t smoke
- were less likely to smoke
———
Asch’s study shows the asch effect, where they conform when answers obvious
Supporting NSI as explanation
Consistency in research findings increases reliability
As an explanation for conformity
.
— artificial situations and tasks
Most research fo conformity in under laboratory conditions
Reducing ecological validity as behaviour isn’t realistic,
As know they’re taking part in research
Also may suffer from demand characteristics (lacks internal validity)
What are variables affecting conformity (variants of aschs study)
- Group size
Wanted to know if group size we be more important than the agreement of a group
- the more cfds saying wrong answer, the higher conformity rate
- he found three cfds conforming to wrong answer leads to 32% conformity
After that, the more cfds made little difference - Unanimity (agreement)
Wanted to know if prescience of one other non conforming person
Would affect naive ppt’s conformity rate (introduced cfd to disagree with majority)
—> sometimes that cfd give wrong or right answer
-
- dissenting cfd led to reduced conformity,
- whether the dissenter said right to wrong answer, enabling ppt to act independently
This suggests influence of majority depends whether group is unanimous - Task difficulty
He made standard and comparison lines more similar
- conformity increased in these conditions
- ISI plays greater role when task is harder/ambiguous (so look for guidance)
Ao3 of asch’s research on variables affecting conformity
— lack temporal validity
Asch’s original study was repeated in 80s (engineering students in UK)
Only one conformed in 400 trials
- the 50s was a conformist time in America hence
- made sense to conform to social norms
- society’s changed a great deal since then no possibly less conformist
- or maybe is biased due to sample being of engineering students
- more confident about reading lies than in original sample so less conformist
— gender differences
Only men tested by asch
Other research shows women as more conformist
As more concerned abt social relationships
—> supported by jenness
Hence asch’s result cannot be generalised to everyone
— independent behaviour, rather than conformity
Only one third of trials where majority unanimously gave wring answer
Made a conforming response
Ie, two thirds of these trials the ppts stuck to original judgement
Spite the overwhelming majority
-
- his study also demonstrated a tendency for ppl to stick with own judgement
- showing independent , so conclusion is incorrect and findings contradict
What was zimbardo’s study - Stanford prison experiment ? (Method)
He wanted to answer the question-
Do prison guards behave brutally due to sadistic personalities
Or is it the situation that creates this?
-> to investigate whether social roles affect the behaviour/whether they conform to behaviour expected
Method..
Set up mock prison in basement of Stanford uni, having volunteer sample of students
And the ones chosen were ‘emotionally stable’ after psychological tests
- randomly assigned roles of guards/prisoners
- were arrested at homes, blindfolded, stripped, deloused, given uniform and number
to increase realism
- prisoners daily routines wee heavily regulated
- had 16 rules to folllow (enforced by guards, 3 at a time in shifts9
- ## numbers used instead of names
- guards had own uniform with wooden club, handcuffs, keys, and mirror shades
- they had complete power over prisoners, even choosing when to go toilet
SPE results
The guards played their roles with enthusiasm
And their behaviour became a threat to the prisoner’s psychological and physical health
—> stopped after 6 days instead of 14
Within 2 days, prisoners rebelled against harsh treatment
- ripping uniforms , shouting and swearing at guards,
Guards retaliated with fire extinguisher, adopting divide and rule tactics
Harassing prisoners constantly to remind them they’re being monitored
- eg. Conducting frequent headcounts like in middle of the night
-Guards highlighted differences in social roles by creating lots of opportunities to enforce rules
And even punishing smallest accidents
After rebellion, prisoners became depressed and anxious
- one was released on the first day due to symptoms of psychological disturbance
- two more released on fourth day
- one went on a hunger strike (was force fed and punished by putting him in ‘the hole’)
Guards identified more and more closely with their role
With behaviour becoming more brutal and aggressive, some enjoying the power they had
What was the bbc study, a more modern version of SPE
Men were randomly assigned guard or prisoner and behaviour
was examinated in a specially created prison
- 15 male ppts were in a matched pair design
- were divided into 5 groups, matched closely on key personality variables
- one in each group = guard; other two = prisoners
Study was to run for 8 days
Results..
- Ppts didn’t conform automatically to their social role like in SPE
Over study, the prisoners increasingly identified as a group
—> worked collectively to challenge guard authority (wanted egalitarian set of social relations in prison)
- Guards failed to identify with their role , making them reluctant to show authority over prisoners
- Leading to shift in power and collapse of prisoner-guard system
Ao3 of zimbardo’s study
— ethical issues
Include psychological and physical harm, no right to withdrawal and deception (never told all details until the end)
- impacting reliability and validity of research
- as ppts may not feel like behaving oneself due to concerns
- affecting the quality of results
— conformity roles aren’t automatic (research support in BBC study)
The conclusion says they were, saying guard had a suppression of ability to realise what they’re doing wrong
-> there were good guards who didn’t conform to social roles
- chose how to behave, not blindly conforming
MAY BE IBEDIENCE INSTEAD !!!
— deindividuation theories support
Means decreased self awareness in groups / crowds,
Leading to aggressive behaviour.
- one study says it leads to increased aggression
- Studied 500 violent attacks in NI
- 206 had disguises to hide identity, inflicting more dangerous attacks
What was milgram’s study method to explain obedience
Obedience is a form of social influence where one follows a direct order.
- the one issuing the order is usually authority figure (has power to punish when not obedient)
…
Wanted to investigate why German army followed hitler’s orders
Method:
He had 40 males (20 to 50, jobs ranged unskilled to professional) through newspaper ads/flyers.
The ad said a study about memory (deception), and offered a reasonable amt of money.
- paid outset and was a rigged draw for role:
cfd was learner and ppt was teacher
- the experimenter was another cfd in a lab coat
- ppts told they could leave anytime
- learner was strapped to a chair in another room wired to electrodes
Teacher was required to give them increasingly severe electric shocks
Issued Each time mistakes made on task.
Shocks were demonstrated to teacher (after, weren’t real) - started at 15v (slight shock) and rose through 30 lvls
- 15v each time. Was to 450v (danger- severe shock)
When teacher got to 300v (intense shock), learner pounded on wall
Giving no response to next question. Same happened at 315v
—> but no further responses
When teacher wanted guidance from experimenter
He said no response = wrong answer
If didn’t want to continue, experimenter said
1. Please go on
2. The experiment requires you to continue
3. It’s absolutely essential you continue
4. You have no choice, you must go on
What was milgram’ results
No ppts stopped below 300v
- 12.5% at 300v
- 65% went to 450v
Qualitative data was collected, showing extreme tension
Sweat, tremble, bite lips, and three had seizures.
Milgram asked psychology students predictions beforehand.
Estimated no more than 3% would go to 450v
All were debriefed, and sent a follow up questionnaire - 84% were happy to participate.
Milgram’ study AO3
+ good external validity (ecological = application)
Has bad external validity due to laboratory experiment.
BUT lab environment accurately reflects authority relationships in real life
As the study investigated relationship between authority figure
..
— ethical issues
had deception (omission) and psychological harm (risk of physical)
Did have rights to withdraw, but prods contradict and money beforehand
This perhaps makes people regret taking part, potentially leading to data withdrawal.
HOWEVER, 86% were happy they participated
Learning abt urself and how social influence affects
..
— low internal validity
Ppts doubted shocks
..
— sample
Used males of specific ages (lacks pop validity)
+ BUT control, as women are caring leading to ppts variables
- BUT results same on women in other study (65%)
What are situational variables (by milgram) and how do they explain obedience
He carried a large number of variations on his main study
To consider situational variables that might create greater or lesser obedience
• proximity (physical closeness of authority figure)
Decreases obedience the further away they are
As baseline was in same room, 65%, and decreased to 20% on phone
• location (place where order issued)
At yale was 65% and decreased to 48% at a rundown office block
• uniforms (have specific outfits demonstrating authority - to expect obedience)
Decreased from 65% in a lab coat to 20% if a civilian
AO3 of variation studies of milgram
(Can use same ao3 as original)
— none have obedience of 0%
So we don’t know why so high obedience in original
Hence is incomplete and don’t know why obedience in first place
+ BUT did find factors that slightly affect (some situational variables affect more)
—> eg uniform decreased obedience by 45%
What are social psychological factors explaining obedience as investigated by milgram
- Agentic state
It’s a mental state where we feel no responsibility for behaviour
As acting for authority figure (frees us from our conscience to accept destructive demand)
- an agent isn’t an unfeeling puppet; experiencing
moral strain when realising what they’re doing wrong, but powerless to disobey
The opposite is autonomous state ; free to behave according to own principles
Shift from autonomy to agency is agentic shift (occurs when percieves an authority figure)
Ppl remain in agentic state due to binding factors
—> aspects of sit. That allow minimising damaging effect of behaviour
and hence reduce moral strain
..
- Legitimacy of authority
An explanation of obedience that suggests were more likely
To obey those who we perceive to have more authority
—> authority is legitimate/justified by their position in social hierarchy
Eg. Parents, police, teachers
In milgram’s study, the experimenter demonstrates high position
Due to lab coat in yale,indicates high scientific position
AO3 of social psychological factors
Agentic state
+ supporting evidence from milgram
As responsibility of ppt given to experimenter
(Demonstrates agentic state as 65% went to 450v)
— fails to explain gradual and irreversible shift of German doctors in auschwitz
(From doctors caring for patients to doing vile and deadly experiments on prisoners)
.
Legitimacy of authority
+ can be applied to reality (theory has ecological validity)
Appearance creates a legitimate authority figure (as shown in milgram’s study)
—> can lead control and prediction of societies so all behave and obey
— but can be used for harm like in milgram’s study
Enforced in military
AND MILGRAMS SITUATIONAL GIVES SUPPORT IT WORKS
What’s the dispositional explanation for obedience
Adorno came with a different conclusion to milgram’s, saying high obedience was a type of psychological disorder.
They tried to locate its cause in individual’s personality
• Authoritarian personality
— characteristics
- have extreme respect for authority - are submissive to it
- show anger to those with a low social status
- traditional attitudes to race, sex and gender
- inflexible in outlooks/see in black and white (uncomfortable with uncertainty)
— origins
- formed in childhood - harsh parenting (expect absolute loyalty, severe criticism)
- create resentment and hostility in the child (can’t be expressed)
- fears displaced onto those perceived weaker - scapegoating
Explains central trait of obedience to higher authority
Wch is a hatred for those socially inferior(or other social groups)
—> this is a psychodynamic explanation
— measurement of authoritarian personality
Developed self report technique - the f (fascist) scale
- saying how much they agree with statements
(Eg. Ppl are divided into two classes, weak and strong)
-
High scores (agreeing to more) indicate a very authoritarian personality
AO3 of authoritarian personality
— research against
Milgram’s further research did interviews with fully obedient ppts (high on f scale)
Believ8ng there may be link between
—> just a correlation
A third factor may be involved. Other studies showed obedience and authoritarian
Are associated with low levels of education (not linked at all)
.
— more research against
Some differences between fully obedient ppts and authoritarian ps
—> when asked abt their upbringing, many fully obedient
Had good relationships with parents (contradicting)
Implausible that given large numbers obedient in milgram’s study,
All wdve had a bad relationship with parents
..
— situational variables not taken into account
Changing IV by uniform, proximity and location has more impact
As said in variation studies of milgram
-> consider situational
What is social support as explanations for resistance to SI (conformity and obedience wise)
Social support refers to when presence of ppl resisting
pressures to conform/obey can help others do also
— conformity
Pressure to conform is reduced if others there not conforming
- as asch demonstrated they don’t need to say right answer
- but simply not following majority let’s one feel free to follow own conscience
Other non conforming person acts as a model
BUT if non conforming starts to conform, ppt does too
So effect of dissent is not long lasting
..
— obedience
Pressure to obey is reduced if another is seen to disobey
- in one of milgram’s variations, obedience went from 65% to 10%
- when ppt joined by disobedient cfd
- ppt may not follow cfds disobedient behaviour
But persons disobedience acts as a model for ppt to copy
Freeing them to act from own conscience
Ao3 social support
+ research support - resistance to conformity
Studies found conformity decreased when one dissenter in asch type study
- occurred even if wore thick glasses and said he couldn’t see
- could not judge line length
Meaning resistance isn’t motivated by what someone else says
Enabling freedom from group pressure by just the fact they’re not conforming
+ research support - resistance to obedience
Another study found higher resistance levels in study than milgram
Bc ppts in this study were in groups
(Having to produce evidence to help an oil company smear campaign)
- 88% rebelled
What’s the second explanation of resistance to social influence (LOC)
Locus of control is a concept concerned with internal bs external control
- some are internals, believing things happening to them
Are largely controlled by themselves (responisible)
Eg, doing well in a test is bc you worked hard and vice versa
-
- externals believe things happen outside their control (outside forces)
Eg. Doing good in tests was bc they used a good textbook/lucky and vice versa
Ppl differ in ways they explain successes and failures.
There’s a continuum (scale) with high internal and high
external at each end with low internal and external in between
—> ppl fall anywhere on the continuum
..
Internals likely to resist to conform or obey.
- if a person takes responsibility for their actions and experiences
They’re more likely to base decisions on own beliefs
(thus resist pressures)
- also internals are seemed to be more self confident,
More intelligent, achievement oriented,
less need for social approval
Suggesting more resistance to social influence
Locus of control AO3
+ research support
A study repeated milgram’s baseline study (Holland)
And measured whether ppts were internals/externals
- 37% of internals didn’t continue to 450v
- 23% of externals didn’t continue
So internals showed greater resistance , supporting
.
— contradictory research
Another study analysed data from American obedience studies
Over a 40 year period (twenge et al)
- ppl have become more resistant to obedience,
but more external contradicting with Rotter’s LOC theory
As we’ expect more internals if more resistance
.
— LOC may be exaggerated
- Rotter who made theory said only relevant in new sits.
Little influence in familiar, where
prev. Experiences = more important
This suggests LOC explains limited range of sits.
Where ppl might resist SI
What is minority influence and what behaviours must minorities adapt to allow this
It’s where minority try converting majority to adopt
A consistent and committed approach/behaviour/opinion
- other ppl try to thoroughly examine message itself
- wondering why they hold this position
Conversion to minority position leads to
deeper and longer lasting as ppl internalise this pov
Minorities must adopt a particular behaviour
Of being consistent, committed and flexible in arguments
To persuade.
Why should minorities become more consistant, committed and flexible to spread a pov
• consistency
When ppl first expose to minority with diff pov
It’s assumed they’re wrong.
-
- if minority have consistent approach, situation is reassessed
- and opinion/behaviour’s considered more carefully
Must be a reason why minority takes position
And is confident enough to maintain over time
..
• commitment
difficult to dismiss minority if it
adapts consistent commitment to its pov
-
- it suggests certainty, confidence and courage
In face of hostile majority
- minority has a greater cost than majority,
Showing greater degree of commitment
- hence showing it’s the right way
Eg, suffragettes were committed in going against majority
By burning buildings, not eating, striking
..
• flexibility
As minorities are typically powerless to majority, they
Must negotiate their position, not enforcing it
-
- mugny says rigid minority refusing to compromise
Shows minority as narrow minded and
refusing to consider other opinions
- but too flexible and prepared to compromise
Risks being seen as inconsistent and not committed
—> but some flexibility is better than none
what was the moscovici study?
the aim was to study whether consistency in minorities was more influential than having less consistency.
method
- the sample was undergraduate women, who were checked for colourblindness beforehand.
- they were split into 3 groups; 6 in each group (control, inconsistent (2 cfds) and consistent (2 cfds))
-
- all groups were shown many slides, all diff shades of blue, and were asked to judged colour.
- for consistent, two cfds called blue slides green on all 36 trials.
- for inconsistent, they said green for 2/3 of the trials.
what was the results of the moscovici study
in the control,the slides were called blue all throughout, showing the task is unambiguous.
- for the inconsistent minority, 1.25% of the time, people conformed saying green
- for the consistent condition, 8.42% of responses were green.
in conclusion…
evidence is provide that a minority can influence a majority
AND consistency is a supported method to influence; a consistent minority is more influential than not.
minority influence ao3
+ research support (flexibility)
- Nemeth studied flexibility in a simulated jury sit. where members discussed the amt of compensation in an accident
– when a cfd said to give a low compensation, and refused to change position, this had no effect on other group members
– a cfd who initially said a low compensation, but showed some degrees to shift did exert more influence (flexibility)
..
— it’s hard for minority to achieve consistency and flexibility
(this is said to must be achieved in order to influence successfully)
– very consistent shows that theyre inflexible and wont negotiate pov
– very flexible shows they arent consistent in their views, showing less commitment overall too.
..
— do we rlly process the minority’s message more?
– a psychologist said that views of minority dont lead to greater processing
– but the majority who are more likely to create greater message processing
– we tend to belive majority has similar pov to ours
-> if majority considers a diff one, we must also consider carefully
-> the majority try to influence fewer ppl at a time, eventually becoming the majority
ao3 moscovici’s study
– The sample
- a limitation is that there’s only undergraduate women in the sample.
- no men or women outside university can be measured, so cant be generalised for everyone
- HOWEVER men tend to be colourblind , so is a benefit that women are used
» control and high internal validity - it measures what it claims to.
..
+ independent measures design
- this is good as no order effects can take place, as participate in one condition each.
-so practice effects and fatigue effects cannot take place, reducing the validity of results
- BUT there are ppt variables, meaning that the results in one condition may differ from the other
- due to the ppts having different personalities, so cant be generalised as the results dont measure what they claim (lacking internal v)
..
– lacks mundane realism
The task of colour recognition doesnt represent real life
- this is bad because it cant be generalised
- in support of this, real life is more complex ( more factors affecting minority influence)
» if minority is more powerful, influence is easier
» increases in power and size due to snowball effect (lacks internal too)
Whats social change and how has it happened through minority influence
It occurs when whole societies adopt new beliefs, attitudes and ways of doing things
Social influence process invlove conformity and obedience and minority influence
Be prepared to apply concepts to an example provided , or own example
–
Minority influence
- consistency
- commitment
- flexibility
A combo of these factors may lead to deeper processing of the issue
> this means many more ppl who just accepted status quo begin to think more of its unjustness
»_space; spreads more widely as more and more think of issues being promoted
Becoming bigger and bigger
How has social change happened through conformity and obedience (social processes)
Conformity
If the snowball effect is powerful enogh the minority may become new majority
- NSI
- ISI
Oebedience
- legitimate authority (perceived as higher class = obey)
–
social change can be explained through these processes , and a combo of all these
If social change occurs there may be a point where they experience social cryptomnesia (having a memory change occured but dont know how it happened)
Ao3 social change
•Being perceived as ‘deviant’ limits the influence of minorities
The potential for minorities to influence social change is limited; they are seen as ‘deviant’ in the eyes of the majority.
- majority may avoid aligning themselves with the minority pov - do not want to be seen as deviant themselves.
- The message of minority =little impact (the focus of attention is source) rather than the message itself.
- minorities face the double challenge of (avoiding seen as deviants and directly embracing position.
.
•Social change through minority influence may be very gradual
- strong tendency for human beings to conform to the majority position, groups= likely to maintain status quo instead.
- The influence of a minority, so latent /concealed than direct (i.e. creates the potential for change)
.
• Role of deeper processing
- a psychologist disagrees with view that minority influence causes deeper processing of a message
- instead its the majority influence that creates deeper processing if you do not share their views.
- When we find that a majority believes something different, we are forced to think long about it and why.
