Social Influence

Question 1

Types of conformity: compliance

Answer 1

People conform as they want to fit in / gain approval or avoid disapproval
Change of attitude is public
Change is NOT permanent

Question 2

Types of conformity: Internalisation

Answer 2

Conforming with group as you believe they are right and it is appropriate
Change is public + private
Change is permanent - continues to be person’s view even if group is no longer present

Question 3

Types of conformity: Identification

Answer 3

Conforming because there is something about the group that is valued and one wants to be a part of
Change is public + doesn’t necessarily agree with every aspect of group

Question 4

Explanations for conformity: Normative Social Influence

Answer 4

Example of compliance
What is typical behaviour in a social group
Happens when we are most concerned about rejection / social approval / stressful situations when we need social support
Emotional rather than cognitive process

Question 5

Evaluate NSI (1+)

Answer 5

+
Research support
Schultz et al (2008) - door hanger informing guests of environmental benefits of reusing towels: “75% of guests do actually reuse their towels for day 2”

Guests who received message reduced need for fresh towels by 25% - want to be perceived as normal
NSI can change people’s behaviours in positive ways

Question 6

Evaluate NSI (2-)

Answer 6

_
NSI does not apply to all people equally
McGhee - people less concerned with being liked not as influenced by NSI as those who care more (nAffiliators), as they have greater need for affiliation (need for being in a relationship with others)
So they’re more likely to conform - shows the desire to be liked underlies conformity for some more than others.
Limits NSI - there are individual differences in the way people respond.

Question 7

Explanations for conformity: Informational Social Influence

Answer 7

Example of internalisation
Humans want their beliefs + perceptions of a situation to be accurate
People go along with others as they believe them to be right when they’re unsure
Changes to behaviour + actual belief held
Occurs when situation is ambiguous (unclear right choice) / crisis / we think others are experts
Cognitive process

Question 8

Evaluate ISI (1+)

Answer 8

+
Fein et al (2007) - US Presidential Candidates Debate
If people saw reactions of studio audience on screen, their own views were more likely to reflect this
Supports ISI - influences the beliefs people hold as audience at home believe studio audience are better informed than them
ISI can explain conformity of people in everyday situations

Question 9

Evaluate NSI + ISI (2+)

Answer 9

+
Some researchers say NSI + ISI can be considered separately
But others suggest the two work together and influence levels of conformity
This is called the dual-process-dependency model (Turner 1991)
Suggests that people conform for 2 reasons: approval and information due to their dependency on others

Question 10

Outline research on conformity

Answer 10

Asch
123 American male undergraduates

Each naive ppt took part in 18 trials + tested individually with group between 6-8 confederates

Showed pps two white cards: standard line + comparison lines
Asked which line on comparison card was same as standard line

First few trials all confederates gave right answer but then purposefully made errors on 12/ 18 trials

75% conformed at least once - interview after most said they conformed to avoid rejection (NSI)

Question 11

Evaluate Asch’s research (1-)

Answer 11

_
A child of it’s time - 1950’s America in the era of McCarthyism ( strongly communist )
People more likely to be conformist
Suggests that Asch effect may not be consistent across time so not fundamental aspect of human behaviour
Temporal validity

Question 12

Evaluate Asch’s research (2-)

Answer 12

_
Artificial task and situation
Low ecological validity - doesn’t represent conformity in everyday situations
Trivial task - no consequence regardless of whether they conform or not
Pps aware they were in research study - may have subjected to demand characteristics

Question 13

Evaluate Asch’s research (3-)

Answer 13

_
Limited application
Fails to study conformity across gender / culture
Neto (1995) - women may be more conformist in realistic situations as more concerned than men about social relationships + being accepted
America is individualistic culture - people more concerned about self`
So may not apply to collectivist e.g. China - rates of conformity may be even higher

Question 14

Outline research into conformity to social roles

Answer 14

Zimbardo - volunteer sampled emotionally stable pps
Set up mock prison in Stanford Uni basement

Pps randomly assigned to prison guard / prisoner
Prisoners arrested in home, brought to prison, blindfolded, strip-searched, given uniform + number
Guards had own uniform, wooden club, handcuffs etc - complete power over prisoners e.g. decide when they could go to the toilet.

Guards took role with enthusiasm - became threat to prisoner’s psych + physical health
Harassed constantly e.g. frequent headcounts at night, punishing for small mistake

Study stopped after 6 days instead of 14
Within 2 days prisoners retaliated against harsh treatment - after, prisoners depressed
One released on first day - showed signs of psych disturbance

Question 15

Evaluate Zimbardo’s research (1+)

Answer 15

+
Control over selection of pps - emotionally stable + randomly assigned to roles
Rules out individual personality differences as explanation for finds - guards + prisoners behaved differently but in roles by chance - behaviour must be due to situational pressure
Increased internal validity - more confident in drawing conclusions about influence of roles on behaviour

Question 16

Evaluate Zimbardo’s research (2-)

Answer 16

_
Ethical issues - Zimbardo’s dual role in study
Responded to those who wanted to be released as superintendent rather than researcher with responsibilities towards pps
Pps not protected from psych harm - humiliation, distress, one released in 36h as uncontrollable bursts of screaming, crying, anger
Major limitation - lowers research status

Question 17

Evaluate Zimbardo’s research (3-)

Answer 17

_
Role of dispositional influences
Fromm accused Zimbardo of exaggerating power of situation to influence behaviour + minimising role of personality factors
1/3 prison guards behaved brutally, 1/3 applied rules fairly, rest sympathised with prisoners e.g. offered cigarettes + reinstated privileges
Zimbardo’s conclusion may be over-stated - guards different behaviour means they could make right + wrong choices despite situational pressure to conform to role

Question 18

Outline research into obedience

Answer 18

Milgram - Yale Uni
Volunteer sampled 40 males, 20-50 years old - could leave at anytime

Confederate Mr Wallace always learner, naïve ppt always teacher
Teacher gave learner (fake) electric shock each time wrong answer given on learning task
30 shock levels: slight shock - 15V to danger-severe shock - 450V
At 300V - learner pounded on wall with no response till 315V when pounds again

4 prods given to pps to continue, last was: “You have no other choice, you must go on”

100% went to 300V
65% went to highest level 450V
Qualitative data thru observations: sweat, tremble, biting nails - signs of extreme tension
Before study, 14 psych students asked to predict pps behaviour - said no more than 3% would continue to 450V, so real findings not expected
All pps debriefed + assured behaviour was normal
Follow up questionnaire - 84% glad they participated

Question 19

Evaluate Milgram’s research (1-)

Answer 19

_
Low internal validity
It’s suggested that pps didn’t really believe shocks were real - explains why all delivered serious shock + most gave the highest voltage.
Perry (2013) listened to the tapes of pps - found examples of this from them
Limit the validity - results may not reflect what the actual findings may have been if the internal validity was higher.

Question 20

Evaluate Milgram’s research (2+)

Answer 20

+
But Sheridan + King conducted similar study where real shocks given to puppy
Yet 54% of male pps + 100% of female pps delivered fatal shock.
Suggests Milgram’s study was genuine - pps behaved the same when shocks were real
Milgram also reported that 70% of his pps did believe shocks were real - supports his and Sheridan + Kings findings in their experiments.

Question 21

Evaluate Milgram’s research (3+)

Answer 21

+
Supporting replication
‘Le Jeu de la Mort’ - documentary about reality TV
Included replication of Milgram’s study – pps thought they were contestants for new game show ‘La Zone Xtrême’ + would be paid to give (fake) electric shocks to other pps when ordered by presenter in front of studio audience.
80% gave max shock of 460V - behaviour almost identical to Milgram’s pps
Observations were same as well: nervous laughter + nail biting.
Milgram’s findings still relevant today + hold validity - proven once more that his results were not due to chance occurrence

Question 22

Outline the social psychological factors

Answer 22

Agentic State
- mental state when person believes they are acting on behalf of authority figure
- person not restricted by conscience

Legitimate Authority
- belief that authority figure has right to be giving orders given the social hierarchy and power it gives them

Agentic state more likely when we think person holds LA

Autonomous State
- being independent / free
- person feels responsible for own actions

Agentic Shift
- change from autonomous state to agentic state

Question 23

Evaluate the social psychological factors (1+)

Answer 23

+
Research support.
Blass and Schmitt (2001) - showed group of students film of Milgram’s study + asked them to identify who they thought was responsible for harming Mr Wallace
Students blamed experimenter - responsibility due to legitimate + expert authority.
Strength - recognition of legitimate authority supports explanation that it is a cause of obedience for why the naïve pps behaved in that way

Question 24

Evaluate the social psychological factors (2+)

Answer 24

+
LA can explain how obedience leads to war crimes
Kelman + Hamilton (1989) - My Lai Massacre (504 unarmed civilians killed by US soldiers)
Massacre understood by power hierarchy of US army - soldiers argued they were just following orders
Same response as Nazis - shows obedience has led to numerous war crimes

Question 25

Evaluate the social psychological factors (3-)

Answer 25

_
Evidence Nazi’s behaviour can’t be explained in terms of LA + agentic state
Mandel (1998) - German Rescue Police Battalion 101
Men obeyed orders to shoot civilians in small Polish town despite the fact they had choice to be assigned to other duties if they preferred - no direct orders
Their behaviour challenges agentic state explanation - no force has been presented for the shooting by authority

Question 26

Outline situational variables that have been shown by Milgram to affect obedience to authority

Answer 26

Proximity:
Baseline exp, teacher + learner in adjoining rooms - teacher could hear but not see learner.
In one variation teacher + learner in same room - obedience dropped from 65% to 40%
In another, experimenter gave instructions through telephone - further reduction to 20.5% - pps pretended to give shocks / gave weaker ones than ordered to

Uniform:
Baseline study experimenter wore grey lab coat as symbol of authority, but in this variation, experimenter seen to be called away + replaced by ‘an ordinary member of the public’ confederate wearing everyday clothing: obedience rates dropped to 20% - lowest of all the conditions.

Location:
Milgram changed location of study from prestigious university (Yale) to run-down building so experimenter had less authority
Obedience fell to 47.5% from original 65% in the baseline exp - obedience still high tho

Question 27

Evaluate the impact of situational variables on obedience rates (1+)

Answer 27

+
Research support
Bickman (1974) - field experiment in New York with three confederates: jacket + tie, security guard, milkman.
Instructed to stand in street + ask people to pick up litter / other general tasks.
People were twice as likely to obey security guard confederate than jacket and tie
Supports Milgram’s conclusion - uniform conveys authority of wearer so this situational factor is likely to produce obedience.

Question 28

Evaluate the impact of situational variables on obedience rates (2-)

Answer 28

_
Mandel (1998) - impact due to ‘obedience alibi’
Milgram’s findings from variations do support situational explanation for obedience through proximity of researcher, location of study + presence of uniform but Mandel says it offers excuse / ‘alibi’ for evil behaviour.
Could be offensive to e.g. survivors of Holocaust to say that Nazis were simply obeying orders + were victims themselves of situational factors beyond their control.
Major limitation - obedience alibi can have implications on legal system + how we conduct justice for sufferers.

Question 29

Evaluate the impact of situational variables on obedience rates (3-)

Answer 29

_
Lack of internal validity.
Orne and Holland criticised Milgram’s study - believed many pps worked out the exp was fake.
Primarily due to extra manipulation particularly in variation involving replacement of experimenter with member of public.
Milgram himself recognised that situation was contrived so a high chance pps worked out the truth.
Serious limitation - unclear whether results of studies are genuinely due to operation of obedience / if pps saw through deception + so acted accordingly.

Question 30

Outline the authoritarian personality

Answer 30

Susceptible to obeying people in authority + dismissive those inferior to them.

Humanistic explanation - parenting styles of strict discipline, impossible high standards + severe criticism at failing in childhood are main cause - all aspects of conditional love.
Psychodynamic explanation - backs this, these childhood experiences create hostility in child as, unable to express feelings directly against parents, (due to fear of reprisal), fear is displaced onto those seen as weaker / inferior (scapegoating).

Adorno - 2000 middle-class white Americans + test unconscious attitudes towards other racial groups.
Made several scales including potential for fascism scale / F-scale.
Those who scored high on F-scale also identified with ‘strong’ people + were particularly contemptuous of ‘weak’.
They showed excessive amount of respect to people of higher status - shows strong correlation between authoritarianism and prejudice.

Question 31

Evaluate the authoritarianism personality (1+)

Answer 31

+
Research support
Milgram + Elm (1996) - 20 obedient + 20 defiant pps to take the F-scale.
Pps asked open questions about relationship with parents, their childhood + attitudes towards experimenter and learner.
Obedient pps obtained higher levels of authoritarianism + relationship with their parents was more negative as well. Most obedient pps had more admiration for experimenter (who held authority) than learner (inferior).
Results support authoritarian personality as valid explanation

Question 32

Evaluate the authoritarianism personality (2-)

Answer 32

_
Limited explanation
Clear differences between authoritarianism + obedient participants, as many who were fully obedient + went to 450V had positive family experiences rather than harsh upbringing we expect with authoritarian personality.
So obedience does not seem to be explained by this personality.
Also not everyone with antisemitic views in Nazi Germany had authoritarian personality type as there would be hundreds of variations.
Limits authoritarian personality - perhaps other explanations e.g. social identity theory are better to explain obedience.

Question 33

Evaluate the authoritarianism personality (3-)

Answer 33

_
Methodological issues
Greenstein found that every question on F-scale was worded in same direction - easy to get high authoritarianism score just by suspecting to acquiescence bias.
Jackson (1961) rephrased questions to give opposite meanings - also found evidence of this acquiescence bias: pps were given original + rephrased versions of F-scale - in the end led to a positive correlation.
Major limitation - suggests that authoritarian personality could more likely correlate with obedience rather than cause it as initially thought.

Question 34

Outline resistance to social influence (LOC)

Answer 34

Locus of control - refers to the sense we each have about what directs events in our lives

Internal LOC: believe they are mainly responsible for what happens to them
More likely to resist pressures to conform as take responsibility for actions (good / bad) - more likely to base decisions on own beliefs
More self confident, achievement oriented, intelligence

External LOC: believe it is mainly a matter of luck or other external forces

LOC is continuum - high external / internal at each end + low external / internal in middle

Question 35

Evaluate resistance to social influence (LOC) (1+)

Answer 35

+
Supporting Research
Holland (1967) repeated Milgram’s exp but measured pps LOC beforehand - knew who was internal / external
37% of internals showed some resistance to give shock compared to 23% of externals
Meets our expectations that internals are more likely to resist pressure to conform than externals - provides support for explanation

Question 36

Evaluate resistance to social influence (LOC) (2-)

Answer 36

_
Contradictory research
Twinge et al (2004) - meta-analysis: over 40 years people have become more likely to resist pressure to obey
So we expect more internal people in world if we accept positive correlation between internal + resistance but this is not true - more externals in world now
Explanation does not make sense any more - loses credibility

Question 37

Evaluate resistance to social influence (LOC) (3-)

Answer 37

_
Limited role
LOC has most influence in new situations - rest of the time, person’s experience of situation / similar one is more important
So role of LOC is exaggerated - if person conformed / obeyed in previous situation they are likely to do it again even if they have high internal LOC

Question 38

Outline resistance to social influence (Social Support)

Answer 38

Pressure to conform can be reduced if other people don’t conform
E.g. in Asch’s research opposing figure does not necessarily have to be right, but the fact that someone else is not following majority allows person to be free to follow own conscience - person acts as a model

If non-conforming person beings to conform again, so does naïve ppt - effect of dissent not long-lasting.

Can also help resist obedience as pressure is reduced if another is disobeying
E.g. in one variation of Milgram’s exp rate of obedience fell from 65% to 10% when genuine ppt is joined by disobedient confederate - effects of this mirror that of conformity.

Question 39

Evaluate resistance to social influence (Social Support) (1+)

Answer 39

+
Research to support resistance to conformity
Findings - conformity decreased when there was one dissenter in Asch-type study + occurred even if dissenter wore thick glasses + said he had difficulty with vision (no position to judge length of lines)
Supports view that resistance is not just motivated by following what someone else says but also enables someone to be free from group pressures

Question 40

Evaluate resistance to social influence (social support) (2+)

Answer 40

+
Research to support resistance to obedience
Gamson et al (1982) - higher levels of resistance in their study compared to Milgram’s’. Most likely because ppts were in groups who had to produce evidence to help oil company run smear campaign.
29 of the 33 groups (88%) of ppts rebelled - peer support linked to greater resistance.

Question 41

Outline minority influence

Answer 41

Form of social influence where small group of ppl influence beliefs + behaviours of others - most likely lead to internalisation

Consistency:
over time consistency in minority view increases amount of interest from others
between ppl in minority group (synchronic) and / or over time (diachronic)

Commitment:
minorities may engage in extreme activities to draw attention to their views - risk shows dedication
majority pay more attention - augmentation principle

Flexibility:
Nemeth (1986) - relentless consistency could be counter-productive - seen as unreasonable by majority
minority influence more effective if willing to compromise / adapt their POV

Question 42

Evaluate minority influence (1+)

Answer 42

+
Supporting evidence
Moscovici (1969) - colour slide task blue / green
Consistent minority opinion better effect on others (32%) than inconsistent (1.25%)
Consistency is major factor in minority influence
Wood (1994) supports this with meta-analysis of 100 similar studies

Question 43

Evaluate minority influence (2-)

Answer 43

_
Artificial roles
Identifying colour of slides is just as artificial as Asch line task - far from minorities trying to change majority behaviour in real life e.g. jury
Lacks external validity

Question 44

Evaluate minority influence (3+)

Answer 44

+
Research support for internalisation
Variation of Moscovici study - pps wrote answers down privately instead of saying them
Private agreement with minority greater in these circumstances
Majorities views were changing but hesitant to admit this publicly - dont want to be considered radical / weird
Supports study

Question 45

Outline social change

Answer 45

Occurs when society as a whole adopts a new way of behaving which then becomes widely accepted as the norm - often occurs via minority influence

Drawing attention: minority brings awareness to their issue by spreading info about cause e.g. civil rights marches in Washington D.C.

Consistency: staying consistent with message that minority is advocating for + intent -one message said consistently over time increases amount of interest from majority

Deeper processing: begin to rethink their own values + analyse message being said / minority’s POV

Augmentation principle: minority takes risks to show commitment to cause e.g. Suffragette hunger strikes - allows majority to really consider minority’s argument due to their dedication

The snowball effect: majority take minority side along with lots of other people, making minority cause into majority cause with all the new support

Social cryptomnesia: when social change has occurred + been established for some time so we forget how change happened in the first place

Question 46

Evaluate social change (1+)

Answer 46

+
Research support for normative influences
Schultz et al (2008) - door hanger informing guests of environmental benefits of reusing towels: “75% of guests do actually reuse their towels for day 2”

Guests who received message reduced need for fresh towels by 25% - want to be perceived as normal
Normative influences can change people’s behaviours in positive ways

Question 47

Evaluate social change (2-)

Answer 47

_
Indirectly effective
Nemeth (1986) - majority often only influenced on matters related to issue at hand e.g. creating law to stop smoking in certain areas rather than banning smoking altogether
Nemeth also raises the idea that minority influence can have delayed effects that may not be seen for some time e.g. shifting attitudes towards smoking + spreading awareness about how dangerous it is for one’s health.
Limitation - effects of minority influence proven to be fragile + lack a valid contribution to social influence as a whole.

Question 48

Evaluate social change (3-)

Answer 48

_
There are certain barriers before social change can occur
Bashir (2013) investigated why people often resist social change even if they agree with cause itself.
E.g. many people hesitant to admit publicly they support saving the environment or are feminists - do not want to be associated with negative connotations + stereotypes of agreeing with view.
Social change through minority influence takes much longer to effectively be established - limited influence on society.