Social Influence Flashcards
Social influence definition
The process by which individuals and groups change each other’s attitudes and behaviours
Compliance definition
Publicly agreeing with a group or others to gain approval/avoid embarrassment or disapproval, while privately disagreeing. Temporary change of view.
Identification definition
A change in an individual’s behaviour and internal beliefs to that of a specific group, but only in the presence of that group. Short term.
Internalisation definition
A complete change in an individual’s behaviour and internal beliefs to conform with a group. These changes exist outside of the presence of the group and are permanent. Strongest type of conformity.
Informational social influence (ISI) definition
When an individual conforms because they want to be right and assume others are. usually leads to internalisation
EVIDENCE for ISI (president)
Fein et al - ask participants to vote for a US president. participants copied the candidate they saw others voting for bc they wanted to be correct
Normative social influence (NSI) definition
When an individual conforms because they want to be liked and accepted, driving compliance. Often occurs because someone wants to avoid embarrassment/discomfort of disagreeing with majority.
evaluation for NSI (bullying)
Evidence supporting link between NSI and bullying; real world application. Garandeau et al found a boy can be manipulated by a bully into bullying someone else to avoid disapproval
evaluation for ISI (maths)
Evidence supporting; Lucas et al (2006) found that when presented with difficult maths problems to solve, participants were more likely to conform to the majority answer
Evaluation for roles of ISI and NSI (complementary)
It may be beneficial to look at NSI and ISI as complementary not mutually exclusive. Deutsch and Gerrard’s Dual-Processing model (1955). Can be hard to separate as in many real world conformity situations they probably operate together.
Deutsch and Gerrards Dual-Processing Model reasons
Argues there were two main reasons people conform - the need to be liked and the need to be right
Limitation of NSI (McGhee)
NSI doesn’t’ predict conformity in every case. People who are very concerned with being liked called nAffilliators, have strong need for affiliation (relatability). McGhee and Teevan (1967)found nAffiliators more likely to conform. Shows NSI underlies conformity for some people more than others. INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES.
evaluation for NSI (evidence)
Asch (1951). giving answers privately meant no normative group pressure, showing at least some conformity is due to desire not to be rejected by a group for disagreeing
Schultz et al (2008)
Found that messages in hotel rooms that suggested other guests use less towels was most successful messaging in encouraging them to use less.
Asch (1951) baseline procedure
123 american men, each in group with 5-7 confederates. They saw four lines - a, b, c, and x. One clearly matched x (unambiguously) while others were clearly wrong. On each trial they were last or next to last to give answer out loud, but confederates gave the same incorrect answer each time
Asch (1951) BASELINE FINDINGS
On avg, genuine participants conformed about 1/3 of the time. There were individual differences - 25% never conformed.
Asch three variables + what was he investigating
Whether variables would lead to increase or decrease in conformity. Group size, unamity, task difficulty
Asch group size variable procedure and findings
Varied no of confederates from 1 to 15. Found curvilinear relationship - conformity increased with group size up to a point, levelled off at 7 but with 3 confederates was higher than 1. Showed people are very sensitive as just 1/2 confeds was enough to sway opinion
Asch Unamity variable procedure and findings
Introduced a confederate who disagreed with others (A DISSENTER), either giving right or other wrong answer. The participant conformed less with a dissenter, with conformity rate decreasing to less than 1/4 than when unanimous. Suggests that influence of majority depends on unanimosity, and conformity is less likely when there are cracks in majority view.
Asch task difficulty variable procedure and findings
Increased difficulty by making stimulus and comparison lines more similar, making it harder to see differences between lines. Found conformity increased - may be ISI as it was unclear what the right answer is so they look to others for guidance
Asch limitation (artificial)
Participants knew it was a study and may have gone along with expectations - demand characteristics. Trivial task with no reason not to conform. Groups didn’t resemble groups experienced in everyday life. Do not general use to real-world situations, especially when there are important consequences to conformity.
Asch limitation (participants)
Participants all American men. Can’t be applied to women (other research shows tend to be more conformist). US is individualistic and results may not be applied to collectivist cultures where conformity rates will be different. Tells us little about women and other cultures.
Asch support (research)
Research evidence to support task difficulty. Lucaset al (2006) found conformity higher with hard maths questions than easier ones when answered aloud.
Asch research support (lucas) counterpoint
Lucas et al found conformity is more complex than asch suggested - confidence was also a variable. Asch did not research roles of individual factors and differences and how they interact with other variables but Lucas showed they can influence conformity.
Milgram (1963) baseline procedure
40 US men (20-50yrs) at Yale Uni. Each volunteer introduced to another participant (actually confederate) and they did a fixed draw so real participant teacher and confederate was learner (Mr Wallace). Experimenter (confederate) was also involved, dressed in lab coat. Teacher could hear but not see ‘learner’, and had to give them electric shock if they made a mistake. Shocks were fake but labelled increasingly dangerous up to 450v fatal.
Baseline Milgram results
Every participant shocked up to 300v - 12.5% stopped there but 65% went to full ‘fatal’ 450v
How many shocked up to full voltage in Milgram baseline
65%
Milgram qualitative observation
signs of extreme tension and stress - sweating, stuttering, trembling, three even had seizures
Milgram ethical considerations
All participants fully debriefed and told their behaviour was normal. 84% said they were glad they consented
What did Milgram want to investigate
why such a high proportion of Germans obeyed Hitler’s commands to murder 11million+. Thought it might be ‘Germans are different’ and more obedient so wanted to test how obedient people could be.
Milgram conclusion
Germans not different- Americans were also highly willing to obey orders where they hurt another person.
EVALUATION - Research support for Milgram (TV Game SHOW)
Fake gameshow - Le Jeu de la Mort - found 80% of participants were willing to give lethal electric shocks to an ‘unconscious’ confederate while being cheered on by audience and presenter. Replication increases validity of original findings, supports original findings
EVALUATION - Milgram internal validity and demand characteristics.
May have had low internal validity. Milgram thought 75% of participants believed it was real. Perry (2013) listened to tapes and researched, reported only half thought they were real and most of these (2/3) were disobedient, suggesting participants may have been responding to demand characteristics
EVALUATION - counterpoint to low internal validity and demand characteristicsMilgram
Sheridan and King (1972) did similar with puppies. Low voltage but participants believed to be high and saw dog in genuine distress. 54% men and 100% of women gave ‘fatal’ shock. Suggests Milgrams study saw genuine effects
EVALUATION - Complexity Milgram
Participants given different prods reacted differently. ‘You have no other choice, you must go on’ was always disobeyed, showing conclusions about blind obedience cant be justified and Social identity theory may provide a more valid interpretation of findings
What factors did Milgram investigate?
Proximity, Location and Uniform
Milgram proximity variation to learner procedure and findings (3 conditions) and overall conclusion
Experimenter and learner in same room - 40%. (empathy)
Proximity to learner - when had to force participant’s hand on electric plate only 30% obeyed (empathy)
Additional confederate administered shocks on behalf of teacher - 92.5% obeyed
CONCLUSION - Closer proximity to authority = higher obedience.
Closer proximity to ‘victim’ = lower obedience.
Milgram location variation procedure and findings, and conclusion
Original in Yale. Variation in run down building no longer associated with Yale. Full 450v dropped from 65% to 47.5%. Shows more credible locations/more authority = higher obedience.
Milgram uniform variation procedure and findings
Experimenter called away and replaced by another participant (actually confederate). They ‘come up with’ idea of increasing every time learner makes mistake. Percentage of full 450v dropped from 65% to 20%.
Support for uniform (Bickman 1974)
field experiment new york. 3 actors - milkman, security guard, ordinary clothes. Asked members of the public to do simple tasks like picking up money or standing in certain place. Obeyed guard 76%, milkman 47%, pedestrian 30%. Suggests people more likely to obey people with sense of legitimacy and power.
STATS - BICKMAN YEAR
1974
STATS - BICKMAN GUARD OBEYED %
76%
STATS - BICKMAN MILKMAN OBEYED %
47%
STATS - BICKMAN PEDESTRIAN OBEYED %
30%
STATS - MILGRAM FULL VOLTAGE
450V
STATS- MILGRAM ORIGINAL FULL SHOCK %
65%
STATS - MILGRAM LOCATION RUN DOWN %
47.5%
STATS - MILGRAM ANOTHER CONFED GIVES SHOCK %
92.5%
STATS - MILGRAM TEACHER AND LEARNER SAME ROOM
40%
STATS - MILGRAM TEACHER FORCES LEARNER’S HAND
30%
STATS - MILGRAM INSTRUCTIONS OVER PHONE
21%
STATS - EXPERIMENTER REPLACED BY ORDINARY PERSON
20%
STATS - ASCH PARTICIPANTS
123 US MEN
STATS ASCH ALWAYS CONFORMED %
36.8%
STATS ASCH NEVER CONFORMED
25%
STATS ASCH CONFORMED AT LEAST ONCE
75%
Asch strength (internal validity)
High internal validity due to strict control over variables. Valid and reliable cause and effect relationships established and valid conclusions
Asch strength (lab)
Extraneous and confounding strictly controlled; replication easy. Replication increases reliability since reduces likelihood of one off.
Asch strength (ethical)
Researchers had to breach guideline of deception and informed consent but debriefed participants explaining normality of behaviour. Means reliability and validity isn’t changed. (used as counterpoint to weakness ethical)
Asch strength (NSI)
Supports NSI - participants reported they conformed to fit in with group, supporting NSI.
Asch weakness (ecological validity)
Lack ecological validity - simple task that doesn’t reflect complexity of real conformity where there are many other variables
Asch weakness (temporal validity)
Social context of 1950’s - anti-communist post war period where people were more scared to be different (McCarthyism)
What are two situational explanations for obedience
Agentic state, legitimacy of authority
What is agentic state
When someone believes they are acting on behalf of someone else as an agent. Frees them from demands of consciences. Experience moral strain.
What does agentic state allow for
Allows us to follow destructive authority figures, feeling unable to disobey.
Autonomous state
Opposite of agentic. Means to behave according to own principles and feel sense of responsibility for actions
Shift from autonomy to agency
Agentic shift
Who suggested that what leads to agentic shift
Milgram suggested that agentic shift occurs when someone perceives someone as an authority figure with greater power in the social hierarchy
What are binding factors (definition)
Aspects of a situation that allow a person to ignore damaging effects of their behaviour to reduce moral strain. This is why they remain in the agentic state
What is an example of a strategy individuals use to minimise/ignore effects of their behaviour
Shifting responsibility to victim ‘he was foolish to volunteer’ or denying damage done
What is legitimacy of authority
The idea that people in some positions have authority that is legitimate as in agreed by society. We accept that legitimate authority figures are allowed to exercise social power over others for the functioning of society.
What is a consequence of legitimacy of authority (1 - general)
That some people are given power to punish others i.e police and courts. WE hand control of our behaviour to people we trust (can leave people vulnerable to manipulation of trust)
How do we learn legitimate authority
We accept it from childhood - parents, teachers, being taught about police etc
What is a consequence of legitimate authority (2 - destructive authority)
People we give trust to as authority figures may be destructive. Hitler, Stalin. Charismatic and powerful leaders can use powers destructively, ordering people to behave dangerously/cruelly. Shown by milgram
Example of Destructive Authoirty. Can be used as real world evidence for Milgram
My Lai massacre in 1968 during Vietnam War, 504+ innocent people killed and village burned to ground. Soldiers said ‘only following orders’
Agentic State evaluation (research support)
Milgram studies. Participants were told that they weren’t responsible if Mr Wallace harmed, but experimenter (authority figure) was. Perceived they were no longer responsible, acted as agent.
Agentic state evaluation (limited explanation)
Doesn’t explain many research findings. Rank and Jacobson (1977) found 16/18 nurses disobeyed orders from doctor (authority figure) to give excessive drug dose. Suggests that agentic shift can not account for all situations of obedience - although nurses may have understood their personal responsibility.
Legitimacy of authority evaluation (cultural differences)
Explains cultural differences, with many studies showing different cultures and countries have different levels of obedience to authority. AUSTRALIA much lower, GERMANY much higher. Reflects how children are raised to perceive authority figures and different societies are structured.
LEgitimacy of authority evaluation (can’t explain all)
For example Rank and Jacobson (nurses). Most disobedient despite clear hierarchy. Also some of Milgram’s disobeyed despite clear authority figure. Suggests there may be some innate differences or individual differences that have influence.
What is the dispositional explanation for obedience?
Authoritarian Personality
People with Authoritarian personality show what
Extreme respect for and submissiveness to authority. Also view society as weaker than once was and see need for powerful leaders to enforce traditional values.
Why are people with AP more likely to obey orders from authority
Beleive it will bring back traditional values and societal structure
People with AP show what to ‘inferior’ social standing, and why?
contempt. They see everything as right or wrong, so ‘others’ (ethnicity, status etc) are responsible to them for problems with society. Often a convenient target for AP following orders from authority figure.
Who proposed Authoritarian personality, what did he beleive
Adorno et al, beleived that high level of obedience was psychological disorder and dispositional not situational
Where does Adorno think AP comes from
Harsh parenting in childhood - string discipline, conditional love, criticism of failings, high standards, expectations of loyalty
Why does Adorno think harsh parenting forms AP
Experiences create hostility and resntment but children can’t express so place fears on ‘weaker’, scapegoating. Leads to hatred toward socially inferior
What type of explanation is origins of authoritarian personality
Psychodynamic
How did Adorno research AP? Procedure
Studies 2000 white middle class americans and their attitudes, Developed F-Scale.
What does the F-Scale measure
Potential-for-facism
Example of item on F-Scale
‘Obedience and respect for authority are the most important values for children to learn’.
Alodrno finding
High score on F-Scale = authoritarian leanings were very contemptuous of the weak and conscious of status. Certain cognitive style, beleived fixed and distinctive stereotypes
Adorno found what type of correlation between authoritarianism and what
Strong positive correlation between authoritarianism and prejudice
Why must there be a dispositional explanation?
There is variation in results such as Milgram’s that must be explained by individual differences
AP research support
Elms and Milgram took 20 obedient and 20 disobedient participants from Milgram’s original study, found obedient scored significantly higher on the F-Scale.
three factors of minority influence
consistency, commitment and flexibility
who identified minority influence as a theory to explain changes to social norms
moscovici
what is minority influence
where one person or a small group of people influence the beliefs and behaviour of other people - distinct from conformity. most likely to lead to internalisation as both public behaviour and private beliefs are changed
how is consistency a factor in minority influence
minority must be consistent in their views - consistency increases amount of interest from others. it makes others rethink their own views
two types of consistency in minority inf.
synchronic - all saying the same thing
diachronic - saying the same thing for some time
how is commitment a factor in MI
engaging in risk to show commitment to the cause makes majority group pay more attention and consider the minority view - called the augmentation principle
how is flexibility a factor in MI
Nemeth (1986) argued that consistency is not the only important factor because it can be offputting, and the minority can be seen as rigid and dogmatic, unlikely to gain converts. adapting the point of view and accepting reasonable and valid counterarguments is flexibility, accepting compromise
for MI, the minority group need to strike a balance between ____ and _____
consistency and flexibility
what is required for the process of minority change
deeper processing by majority, thinking deeply about cause or view, is important for conversion
what is the snowball effect
over time, more and more people are converted to minority view. the more this happens, the faster the rate of conversion until the minority has become the majority view and social change has occurred
minority influence research support for consistency moscovici
moscovici blue green slides -participants shown 36 blue slides that varied in intensity and asked whether they were blue of green. where there was a consistent minority which always said green, participants answered green on 8% of trials. Where minority was inconsistent, participants answered green 1.25%.
in control with no confederates they said green 0.25%.
minority influence research support for consistency wood
wood et al (1994) carried out meta-analysis on over 100 studies and found consistent minorities were found to be most influential
minority influence research support for deeper processing
martin et al (2003) found that minority messages were more deeply processed and had a more enduring effect than majority messages, when presented with an argument and a majority group agreement or a minority group agreement
minority influence research support deeper processing COUNTERPOINT
the controlled method of martin et al (2003) is a strength but may be limited when explaining real world situations, where majority is more powerful and has higher status, and minorities are very committed. these features were absent from research
minority influence research limitation artificial
tasks were artificial and therefore removed from how minorities attempt to change behaviours in real life, where outcomes are vastly more important. studies lack external validity.
minority influence evaluation public v private views
in moscovici study, agreement with consistent minority at 8% was very low, but was higher when answers written privately, suggesting publicly expressed views are not as easy changed as private views in minority influence
