Social Influence Flashcards
Social influence
Social influence is the scientific study of the ways in which people’s thoughts, feelings and behaviour are affected by other people
What is conformity?
Conformity is the tendency to change what we do, think or say in response to the influence of real or imagined pressure from others
3 types of conformity
Types of conformity:
-Compliance
-Identification
-Internalisation
Compliance
Compliance - conforming publicly but continuing privately to disagree - shallowest form of conformity
Identification
Identification - morderate form of conformity where we act the same as the group because we share their values and want to be accepted. The change of belief or behaviour is often temporary
Internalisation
Internalisation - deep type of conformity where a person conforms publicly and privately because they have internalised and accepted the views of the group - the deepest form of conformity
Explanations for conformity
Explanations for conformity:
-Normative social influence
-informational social influence
Deutsch and Gerard (1955)
Deutsch and Gerad (1955) developed a two-process theory which proposes that there are two main reasons why people conform. Based on two central human needs:
-They need to be liked
-They need to be right
Normative social influence
Normative social influence occurs when we want to be liked by the majority, so we go along even if we disagree (followng a crowd to fit the norm)
Informational social influence
Informational social influence occcurs when we look to the majority group for information as we are unsure about the way in which to behave.
Supporting research for normative influence
Supporting research for noamtive influence:
Schultz et al (2008) found hotel guests exposed to normative message that 75% guests re used their towels every day reduced their own towl use by 25% suggesting that people shape their behaviour out of a desire to fit in with a group.
Supporting research of informational influence
Supporting research of informational influence:
Wittenbrink and Henley (1996) found that Pps exposed to negative information about african americans later reported more negative beliefs about a black individual
Zimbardo Stanford prison experiment (1973) procedure
Zimbardo stanford prison experiment (1973) procedure:
-Mock prison in basement of psych depart at Stanford Uni to investigate effect of social roles on conformity
-21 male volunteers that were ‘emotionally stable’
-Volunteers randomly allocated to guard or prisoner
-Stopped after 6 days (planned was 14 days)
What were the two routes in the Zimbardo experiment that encouraged social roles?
-Uniform: prisoners strip searched, given uniform and number, encouraged de-indiviualisation
-Instructions about behaviour: prisoners were told they could not leave but would have to ask for parole, guards told they had power over prisoners
Conclusions/Findings of the Zimbardo experiment
Conclusions/findings of the zimbardo experiment:
-Guards played their roles enthusiastically and treated prisoners harshly
-Prisoners rebelled within 2 day - ripped uniforms, shout and swore at guards
-Guards retaliated with fire extinguishers and harassed prisoners
-Social roles are powerful influences on behaviour
-guards became brutal, prisoners became submissive
How did the guards behaviour threaten the prisoners psychological and physical health?
-Prisoners subdued, anxious and depressed after rebellion was put down
-3 prisoners were released early because of signs of psychological disturbance
-One prisoner went on hunger strike - prisoners punished him by putting him in ‘the hole’
Srength of the stanford prison experiment
Strengths of the stanford prison experiment:
-Emotionally stable parts were used and randomly allocated > roles given by chance - so behaviour is down to role and not personalities > increased internal validity
Limitations of the stanford prison experiment
Limitations of the stanford prison experiment:
-It was suggest that parts were play-acting eg basing roles on characters from media eg films > suggests the SPE tells little about conformity to social roles in actual prisons
-Power of social rules influencing behaviour may have been exaggerated > there was variety in the behaviours > suggests the SPE overstates the view that the guards were conforming to a brutal role and minimised dispositional influences
Lucas et al (2006)
Lucas _et al _(2006) found that when presented with difficult maths problems to solve, participants were more likely to conform to the majority answer, showing that people will conform due to the need for information (ISI).
Asch (1951)
Asch (1951) found that people conformed to a majority, even giving an obviously wrong answer. This supports that people will conform in order to fit in with a group (NSI).
Assumptions of normative social influence and informational social influence
Individual differences are not considered- the explanations assume everyone is affected by ISI and NSI in the same way. Some people do not wish to fit in with a group, due to their personality- these explanations do not account for this.
Aim of Asch’s research (1951)
Asch’s aim: to see if people will conform to a majority even with an obvious answer
Asch (1951) procedure
Asch procedure:
-Lab experiment
-123 male parts > volunteer sampling
-6-8 confederates (aware of the experiment)
-18 trials (12 critical - confederates give wrong answer)
Task for Asch experiment
Asch task = identify which line matches one on the comparison card
Findings of the Asch experiment
Asch experiment findings:
-36.8% of clinical trials, conformity took place
-75% of parts conformed at least once
-25% of parts never conformed
Conclusion of the Asch experiment
Conclusion of the Asch experiment:
-Findings imply that an individual will conform to a majority as a result of imagined group pressure even if they know privately it is wrong
-Findings suggest that compliance took place and parts were influenced by normative social influence
Positive evaluation of Asch experiment
Positive evaluation of Asch experiment:
-Lab experiment > controlled environment > eliminates extraneous variables > replicable > more reliable (counter: artificial setting > demand characteristics > invalid)
Negative evaluation of Asch experiment
Negative evaluation of Asch experiment:
-Ethical issue > lack of informed consent > parts unaware of true aim > deception due to confederates (counter = deception needed to prevent parts changing + to get realistic results > parts were debriefed after)
-Sample > only males > biased > unrepresentative > issues of generalisation > lacks population validity
What is obediance?
Obediance is a form of social influence where an individual follows a direct order, usually given by an authority figure
Aim of Milgram’s obediance study
The aim was to investigate how far people would go in obeying an instruction from an authority figure even if it involved harming others
Procedure of Milgram’s obediance study
Procedure:
-Lab experiment in Yale university
-40 male participants, volunteers through newspaper ads
-Paid $4.50 to participants
-Participants decieved - told roles were allocated, but parts always given teacher role and confederates always given learner role
-They were told to give shocks to the learners when they made mistake, from 15V to 450V
-Told they could leave but pressured to stay: 4 prods: must continue, essential to continue
Findings of Milgram’s study into obediance
Findings:
Quantitative: 100% went to 300V, 12.5% stopped at 300V, 65% went to 450V
Qualitiative: parts showed tension and stress, with three even having seizures
Conclusion of Milgram’s study into obediance
Conclusion: Ordinary people are likely to follow orders given by an authority figure, even to the extent of killing an innocent human being (even if it goes against common sense and humanity)
Negatives of Milgram’s study into obediance
Milgram negatives:
-Ethical issues - parts were decieved, udnergone psychological harm and pressured to stay > questions findings
-Unrepresentative sample, can’t be generalised (cultural + beta bias)
Positives of Milgram’s study into obediance
Milgram positives:
-Tried to deal with ethical concerns: debriefing, sharing results, checkups on parts
–Supporting research: Hofing’s hospital experiment + Sheridan&King’s puppy experiment - backed up his findings
-Practical application - ie soldiers
-Lab experiment> controled extraneous variables > measurable, replicable, reliable
Variations implemented by Milgram to show how situational variables can influence levels of obediance
Variations implemented by Milgram:
-Changing location to a run-down office (47.5% went to 450V)
-Teacher and learner in same room (40% went to 450V)
-Teacher forces learners hand onto a plate to recieve shock (30% to 450V)
-Experimenter gave orders by phone (20.5% went to 450V)
-Experimenter played my member of public (no lab coat) (20.5% went to 450V)
Examples of situational variables that affect obedience
Situational variables that affect obedience:
-Proximity
-Uniform
-Location
-Cultural variation
-Consequences
-Gradual commitment
Proximity as a situational variable that affects obedience
Proximity as a situational variable that affects obedience:
-The physical closeness of the authority figure directly impacts obedience
-Positive correlation = closer authority figure is, higher obedience
-Visible authority figures increase obedience due to fear of consequences and more psychological pressures to obey
Uniform as a situational variable that affects obedience
Uniform as a situational variable the affects obedience:
-Acts as a visible symbol of authority
-Reinforces status
-Can be seen through clothing or titles eg Dr/Police uniform
-Eg BIckman experiment
Bickman experiment
Bickman experiment:
-Litter study in New York -> 3 confederates dressed differently -> policeman, tie and jacket, milkman -> security guard more obedience -> uniform affects obedience
Evaluation of the Bickman experiment (litter study that investigated obedience)
Bickman experiment evaluation:
+ = Field experiment -> high ecological validity, true to life, reflects every day behaviour
+ = Reduction in dc, natural setting, unaware of research, more valid
- = Ethical issues > parts decieved but was necessary
- = Field -> no control over extraneous variables
Factors that affect individual’s perception of an authority figure
Factors that affect individual’s perception of an authority figure:
-Socialisation process (upbringing)
-Polarity of roles eg doctor/nurse, teacher/pupil
-Hierarchy
Location as a situational variable that affects obedience
Location as a situational variable that affects obedience:
-Where obedience takes place eg Milgram changing location from Yale to run-down office decreased obedience
-More legitimate place = more obedience
-Higher obedience in instutionalised settings where obedience is instilled due to socialisation eg employer/employee
Cultural variations as a situational factor in obedience
Cultural variations as a situational factor in obedience:
-Cultural upbringings influence obedience
-Eg Kelman and Mantell (Australians less obedient than Germans)
-Eg Smith + Bond (individualistic = more obedient, collectivist = more obedient)
Consequences as a situational variable in obedience
Consequences as a situational variable in obedience:
-Consequences such as harm/death can influence obedience, eg soldiers are buffered from consequences
Gradual commitment as a situational variable
Gradual commitment refers to when an individual has gone so far, that they believe they ‘may as well carry on’ - eg Milgram’s increasing shock generator
Social-phsychological explanations for obediance
Socio-pyschological explanations for obedience: sometimes individuals may obey because of a combination of situational and psychological factors - eg Milgram’s agency theory
Milgram’s agency theory
Milgram’s agency theory:
Individuals learn from an early age (socialisation) that obedience to rules is necessary and important for stability in society - individual has to give up free will to do this
Agentic state
Agentic state - when an individual obeys because they perceive themselves as an agent of others - therefore more likely to obey
-Individual will have no conscience/responsibility for acts of obedience due to being free of conscience
-State of de-individualisation - > loses sense of identity -> easier to obey
Examples of agentic state within experiments
Agentic state examples:
~Milgram - teacher - responsible for situation
~Hofling - nurses - nurses obeys because they were agents of the doctors
Where does agentic theory believe obediance occurs?
Agentic theory - obedience occurs in hierarchical situations - more likely to obey an individual of a higher rank - they have greater power
Autonomous state
Autonomous state - opposite of agentic shift
-Individual is independant, responsible for their actions and has free will - less likely to obey unless chosen to
-Eg: Milgram’s variation where the participant forces hand on plate
Differences between compliance and internalisation
Compliance - Superficial, stops when there are no group pressures to conform, conformity occurs only at a public levels and not a private level
Internalisation - true conformity, involves genuine acceptance of group norms and so conformity occurs at both a public and a private level
The Authoritarian Personality
The authoritarian personality - proposed by Adorno et al - concluded that people with an authoritarian personality are especially obediant to authority as they:
-Have exaggerated respect for authority and submissiveness to it
-Express contempt for people of inferior social status
-They tend to follow orders and view ‘other’ groups as responsible for society’s problems
Origin of the authoritarian personality
Authoritarian personality forms in childhood through harsh parenting - extremely strict discipline, expectation of absolute loyalty, impossibly high standards, and severe criticism
Scapegoating
Scapegoating - psychodynamic explanation - feelings that cannot be expressed to parents due to feared reprisals cause them to displace their feelings onto those who are weaker
Adorno et al (1950) experiment on the Authoritarian personality - AIM
Adorno et al (1950) experiment on the Authoritarian personality - AIM:
The study investigated unconscious attitudes towards other ethnic groups of more than 2000 middle-class white Americans
Adorno et al (1950) experiment on the Authoritarian personality - PROCEDURE
Adorno et al (1950) experiment on the Authoritarian personality - PROCEDURE:
-Several scales - including F-scale (Potential for fascism scale)
-‘Obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtues for children to learn’
-‘There is hardly anything lower than a person who does not feel great love, gratitude and respect for his parents’
Adorno et al (1950) experiment on the Authoritarian personality - FINDINGS
Adorno et al (1950) experiment on the Authoritarian personality - FINDINGS:
-Authoritarians (who scared high on the F-scale and other measures) identified with ‘strong’ people and were contemptuous of the ‘weak’ -> conscious of own and other’s status - excessive respect and defence for those of higher satus
-Authoritarian people had a cognitive style -> fixed and distinctive stereotypes (predjudices) against other groups
Positive evaluation of the authoritarian personality as a dispositional explanation for obedience
Positive evaluation of the authoritarian personality as a dispositional explanation for obedience:
-Authoritarians are obedient -> supported by Milgram’s research -> scored high on the F-scale -> suggests obedient people may share many characteristics of people with an authoritarian personality
(Counter: there is a complex link as obedients parts on the F-scale had characteristics unusual for authoritarians)
Negative evaluation of the authoritarian personality as a dispositional explanation for obedience
Negative evaluation of the authoritarian personality as a dispositional explanation for obedience:
-Doesn’t explain a whole country’s behaviour -> eg during Nazi Germany -> social identity theory may be a better explanation
-F-scale is politically biased -> aimed towards extreme right-wing ideology although left-wind ideology also believes in authoritarian obedience
Social identity theory as an explanation for obedience
Social identity theory as an explanation for obedience:
The view that our behaviour and attitudes are strongly influenced by those of the groups we identify with
Reasons why people resist social influence
Reasons why people resist social influence:
-Social support
-Locus of control (LOC)
Social support as a reason as to why people resist social influence
Social support:
-Having an ally - someone to support their point of view
-Can build confidence and allow individuals to remain independant - no longer feel rediciules - avoids NSI
-Less likely to obey orders and are able to resist pressure
Social support evaluation
Social support evaluation:
-Supporting research = Asch’s variations - confederate gives right answer all throughout - conformity dropped to 5% - shows social support makes people more likely to resist pressure to conform
-Supporting research = Milgram’s variations - real participant paired with two additional confeds who played as teachers who refused and withdrew from the experiment = conformity to 450V dropped from 65% to 10%
Locus of control definition
Locus of control - the extent to which people believe they have control over their own lives
Internal locus of control
Internal locus of control - believes what happens in their life is largely the result of their own behaviour and they have control over their life - more independant and find it easier to resist pressure to conform or obey
External locus of control
External locus of control - believes what happens to them is controlled by external factors and that they don’t have complete control over their life - more likely to succumb to pressure to conform
Locus of control positive evaluation
Locus of control positive evaluation:
+ = Supporting research - Rotter’s locus of contorl scale used by Spector (1983) - found people with high internal LOC less likely to conform than those with high external LOC but only in situations of NSI
+ = Supporting research - Oliner and Oliner (1998)
Locus of control negative evaluation
Locus of control negative evaluation:
- = Contradictory evidence - Twenge et al (1967) conducted meta-analysis of studies - found that over time people have become more external in their locus of control but also more resistant to obedience
Factors that can enhance the effectiveness of a minority
Factors that can enhance the effectiveness of a minority:
-Consistency
-Commitment
-Flexibility
Consistency in enhancing the effectiveness of minority influence
Consistency refers to the way in which minority influence is more likely to occur when the minority members share the same belief and retain it over time
Experiment that studied into minority influence
Moscovici (1969) studied into minority influence
Aim of Moscovici’s 1969 minority influence study
Aim of Moscovici’s 1969 minority influence study:
To see if a consistent minority could influence a majority to give an incorrect answer, in a colour perception task
Procedure of Moscovici’s 1969 minority influence study
Procedure of Moscovici’s 1969 minority influence study:
172 female participants who were told that they were taking part in a colour perception task, participants were placed in groups of sic and shown 36 slides which were all varying shades of blue, participants had to state out loud the colour of each slide.
2 of the 6 participants were confederates, and in one condition (consistent) the two confederates said that all 36 slides were green; in the second condition (inconsistent) the confederates said that 24 of the slides were green and 12 were blue
Findings of Moscovici’s 1969 minority influence experiment
Findings of Moscovici’s 1969 minority influence experiment:
Moscovici found that in the consistent condition, the real participants agreed on 8.2% of the trials, whereas in the inconsistent condition, the real participants only agreed on 1.25% of the trials.
Conclusion of Moscovici’s 1969 minority influence experiment
Conclusion of Moscovici’s 1969 minority influence experiment:
: Moscovici’s results show that a consistent minority is 6.95% more effective than an inconsistent minority and that consistency is an important factor in exerting minority influence
Commitment as a factor that enhances minority influence
Commitment:
-Engaging in risky/extreme behaviour in order to draw attention to their views
Augmentation principle
Augmentation principle = minorities placing themselves at risk to demonstrate commitment to their cause in order for the majority to then in turn pay more attention to the actions being taken and therefore integrate it into their personal views
Flexibility as a factor that enhances minority influence
Flexibility = refres to the way in which minority influence is more likely to occur when the minority is willing to compromise - this means they cannot be viewed as dogmatic and unreasonable
Aim of Nemeth 1986 minority influence experiment
Aim of Nemeth’s 1986 minority influence experiment:
Nemeth believed that consistency was not the most important factor in minority influence, suggesting that it can be often misinterpreted as a negative trait - she set about investigating the idea of flexbility as a key characteristic of sucessful minorities who exert pressure
Procedure of Nemeth’s 1986 minority influence experiment
Procedure of Nemeth’s 1986 minority influence experiment:
: Participants, in groups of four, had to agree on the amount of compensation they would give to a victim of a ski-lift accident.
One of the participants in each group was a confederate and there were two conditions:
1 – when the minority argued for a low rate of compensation and refused to change their position (inflexibile)
2- when the minority argued for a low rate of compensation but compromised by offering a slightly higher rate of compensation (flexible)
Results of Nemeth’s 1986 minority influence experiment
Results of Nemeth’s 1986 minority influence experiment:
Nemeth found that in the inflexible condition, the minority had little or no effect on the majority; however, in the flexible condition, the majority members were much more likely to also compromise and change their view
His results supports ISI as in one of his variation, parts wrote down their answers and found that more agreed with the minority when doing is privately
Conclusion of Nemeth’s 1986 minority influence study
Conclusion of Nemeth’s 1986 minority influence study:
Nemeth’s research highlights the importance of flexibility, and questions the idea of consistency, suggesting that striking a balance between the two is the most successful strategy for a minority to adopt
Evaluation of Nemeth’s 1986 minority influence study
Evaluation of Nemeth’s 1986 minority influence study:
- = Biased sample of 172 female participants from America – unable to generalise the results – low validity
- = Breaks ethical guidelines – deceived his participants – therefore did not gain fully informed consent – however it was crucial for the experiment that they were deceived in order for them to not show demanded characteristics
- Methodological issues with research into minority influence – artificial tasks that lacks mundane realism since it is not something that occur everyday – lacks external validity
Social change
Social change refers to the ways in which a society (rather than an individual) develops over time to replace beliefs, attitudes and behaviour with new norms and expectations
Examples of social change in real life
Examples of social change in real life: Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, Rosa Park, Suffragettes
Processes that explain social change
Processes that explain social change:
-Consistency = beneficial in bring social change as consistency makes a message appear more credible and helps to convince a majority
-Deeper processing = people thinking more about the issue at hand
-Drawing attention = majority must be made aware of the need for change
-The augementation principle
-The snow ball effect = one minority gains attention of majority, it gains attention of others
-Social cryptoamnesia - source of social change has been dissociated and therefore does not know how social change has happened
-NSI
-Gradual commitment
Positive evaluation of social change
Positive evaluation of social change:
+ = Supporting research - Nolan’s study supports the role of NSI as a process for social change - where social change is promoted to the majority to urge them to follow in order to suit in for normative reasons eg to fit in
Negative evaluation of social change
Negative evaluation of social change:
- = Methodological issues - studies into social change generally lack generalisability and having demanded caracteristics - doubts about validity
- = Minority influence can act as a barrier to social change - Bashir found that participants did not want to be associated with stereotypical minority groups, such as environmentalists. This reduces minority influence.
3 variables that affect conformity (and how they are demonstrated in Asch’s line experiment variation)
3 variables that affect conformity (and how they are demonstrated in Asch’s line experiment variation):
-Group size ->Asch varied between 1 and 15 confeds - found lowest at 1 and highest at 3 -> shows a correlation
-Unanimity -> variation where only one confederate gave right answer all throughout -> conformity rate dropped to 5% - > demonstrates that if the participant has real support for their belief, they are more likely to resist the pressure to conform
-Task difficulty -> rate of conformity increased when difficulty of the line task increased -> likely to be the result of ISI
What would be put in a consent form?
Consent form:
-Outline the procedure
-Ask for them to sign/give consent
-Outline there is no pressure/can withdraw at any time
-Ensure them that the data will be kept confidential and anonymous
Why might stratified sampling be used?
Stratified sampling may be used because:
-It ensures that various groups are represented in terms of their proportionality in the population -> improves the generalisability of the results
Situational factors that affect conformity
Situational factors that affect conformity:
-Group size-> larger groups are more influential in conformity
-Social support -> helps individuals not conform when in presence with an ally
-Task difficulty -> more hard = more likely to conform (ISI)
Dispositional factors that affect conformity
Dispositional factors that affect conformity:
-Gender (discredited)
-Experience + expertise
Milgrams variations to investigate situational factors that influence obedience
Milgrams variations to investigate situational factors that influence obedience:
-Proximity = participant + learner in the same room -> obedience dropped -> can see the effect of their actions
-Allies -> ally who resisted obedience reduced obedience of participant
-Proximity of authority ->removed the experiment -> obedience reduced due ot having no source of visible authority
-Location = originally in yale, moved to run-down office, reduced obedience as location is ‘less credible’
-Uniform = no lab coat - less conformity
Factors that kept individuals in the agentic state
Factors that kept individuals in the agentic state:
-Reluctance to drisrupt the experiment
-Pressure of surroundings
-Pressure of authority
Ways people decide if authority is legitimate
Ways people decide if authority is legitimate:
-Legal process
-Knowledge/experience
-Social norms
Moscovici (1969) evaluation:
Moscovici (1969) evaluation::
-Lacked realism -> lacks ecological validity
-Unethical -> decieved participants
-Most of the research on minority influence is based on experiments conducted in laboratories. This raises the question of ecological validity.
-Also, Moscovici (1969) used only female students as participants (i.e., an unrepresentative sample ), so it would be wrong to generalize his result to all people
What is the snowball effect?
Snowball effect: people agree with minority -> minority exerts influence -> majority starts to agree with minority so that viewpoint is now dominant
Supporting research of LOC
Supporting research of LOC:
-Milgrams shock study
-Spector (1983) - used rotters locus of control scale - found a correlations but only in situations of NSI
