Social influence Flashcards
Aschs Procedure
Asses what extent people will conform to other people’s opinions
123 American men, match the correct line to line x, one was clearly the same length. Testing in groups of 6-8, only 1 was genuine participant, always seated last two, the rest were confederates had to give the same incorrect answer
Aschs finding
Agreed with incorrect answers 36.8% of the time
25% never gave a wrong answer
Variable investigated by asch
Group size
Unanimity
Task difficulty
Group size
Varied confederates from 1-15. Conformity increased with group size up to a point. 3 confederates conformity was 31.8% more confederates made little difference
Unanimity
presence of non-conforming present. Conformity decreased less than 1/4 of the level when it was anonymous
Task difficulty
Lines closer together, conformity increased, informative social influence
Evaluation of aschs
- Artificial situation and task
- Limited application
- research support
artificial situation and task
- participants knew they were in study- demand characteristics
- fiske- groups dont resemble groups in real life
- findings dont relate to real life
limited application
- all participants american men
- US individualist culture (more concerned about themself)
- similar studies done in collectivist culture (social group more important)found conformity rates higher
research support
- todd lucas - asked participants to solve easy to hard maths problems
- conformity rates higher for harder questions
research support counterpoint
- study found conformity more complex than asch
- participants with high confidence in maths conformed less
- shows an individual-level factor can influence conformity by interacting with situational variables
Asch ethical issues
Participants were deceived,
Types of conformity
Internalisation
Identification
Compliance
Internalisation
Person genuinely accepts groups norms, private and public change of opinion
Identification
Publicly change opinions to be accepted by a group
Compliance
Going alone with others in public but privately not changing personal opinions
Only superficial change
Informational influence
Follow behaviour of the group because they want to be right
Cognitive process
Informative influence strength
Todd Lucas found participant conformed when questions were harder, they didn’t want to be wrong so relied on answers they were given.
informative influence weakness
- Unclear where NSI and ISI work in research studies or real life
- Asch found conformity reduced when there is one other dissenting participant, may reduce the power of ISI or NSI
- Hard to separate ISI and NSI and both operate together in real world situations
Normative social influence
Gain social approval rather than be rejected, temporary change in options/ behaviour
Emotional process
Normative social influence strength
- Aschs interview states some said they conformed because they felt self-conscious, and afraid of disapproval
- when answers written down conformity dropped 12.5% - no normative group pressure
normative social influence weakness
- Doesn’t predict conformity in every case
- McGhee and Teevan – found students who were nAffiliators were more likely to conform
- NSI underlines conformity for some people more than it does for others
Zimbardo procedure
- mock prison experiment in Stanford uni
- 21 men emotionally stable, randomly assigned either guard or prisoner
- Prisoners encouraged to conform to social roles
- Uniforms - Prisoners identified as numbers, creates loss of personal identity (de-individualisation)
Zimbardos findings
- Within 2 days prisoners rebelled, guards harassed prisoners
- 1 prisoner was released for symptoms of physchological disturbance
- 2 more released on 4th day.
- Guards behaviour became increasingly brutal and aggressive some enjoying the power
- Study ended on day 6 instead of 14
Zimbardos conclusion
Social roles have strong influence over behaviour
Zimbardos evaluation
Control
Lack of realism
Exaggerates the power of role
Control
-selection of participants (choosing emotionally stable) ruled out individual personality differences
- randomly assigned a role
- increased internal validity
Lack of realism
- Not like a real prison
- Banuazizi and Movahedi (1975) argued participants were play-acting and confirming to a role
- Performance was based on stereotypes
- one guard said perfomance based on film cool hand luke
lack of realism counterpoint
- McDermott argues participants behaved as itwas to real to them
- 90% of prisoners convos were ab prison life
- 1 prisoner believed prison was real but run by psychologists
- study replicated the social roles of prisoners and guards in real prison, giving study high internal validity
Exaggerates the power of roles
- Only 1/3 of guards actually behaved in a brutal manner
- 1/3 tried to apply rules fairly. - rest sympathies with the prisoners
- most guards able to resist situational pressure to conform
- zimbardo overstated his view
Milgram procedure
- 40 American men aged 20-50
- Learner was trapped in a chair and wired up who had to remember pairs of words
- Each time he made an error the teacher had to deliver a shock getting stronger each time
- when reach 300v learner banged on the wall, 315v was silent
- All shocks were fake
Milgrams findings
- Every participants delivered the shock up to 300
- 12.5% stopped at 300
- 65% continued to highest level (450)
- Participants were seen to sweat, 3 had seizures
- Predicted only 3% would continue to 450 showing results were unexpected
Milgrams conclusion
German people are not different, participants were willing to obey orders even when it may harm others
Milgrams evaluations
Research support
Low internal validity
Alternative interpretation of findings
Research support
- Replicated in french documentary
- participants were paid to give fake electric shocks to other participants
- 80% reached top 460v almost identical to milgrams behaviour
Low internal validity
- Orne and Holland argued participants believed it was fake so play acted
- Perry listened to tapes of participants around 1/2 believe shocks were real
- 2/3 of them were disobedient
- participants may be responding to demand characteristics
low internal validity counterpoint
- sheridan and King study like Milgram
- participant gave real shock to puppy in response to orders from experimenter
- 54%men 100% women gave fatal shock
- Milgram was genuine similar results when shocks were real
Alternative interpretation of findings
- Haslam showed obeyed when experimenter gave verbal prods
- According to social identity theory participants only obeyed when they identified with the scientific aims of the research
Situational variables
Proximity
Location
Uniform
Proximity
- When teacher and learner in the same room obedience dropped dropped from 65% to 40%
- When experimenter left the room obedience reduced to 20.5%
- Decreased proximity allowed people to psychologically distance themselves from the consequences of their actions
Location
- When milgram was in a rundown office obedience fell to 47.5%,
- When in Yale uni gave study legitimacy and authority
Uniform
- Experimenter wore lab coat to show authority
- When role of experimenter was taken by a random member of the public obedience fell to 20%
Situational variables evaluation
Research support
Cross-cultural replication
Low internal validity
Research support
- NY study (1974) 3 confederates dressed in different outfits - jacket and tie, milkman, security guard
- asked members of the public to pick up litter
- people twice as likely to listen to security guard
Cross cultural replication
- Findings were replicated in other cultures
- Dutch study - asked to say stressful things in a job interview
- 90% obeyed
Low internal validity
- Participants may been aware experiment was fake
- Study is unclear whether the findings are genuinely due to obedience or because they play acted, responding to demand characteristics
Agentic state
Mental state where we feel no personal responsibility for our behaviour
autonomous state
- Behave according to their own principles and feels a sense of responsibility for their own actions
agentic shift
- shift from autonomy to agency
- Milgram suggested this occurs when a person perceives someone else as an authority figure have greater power because they are higher in social hierarchy
binding factors
- Aspects of the situation that allow the person to ignore or minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour and reduce moral strain they are feeling
- Eg shifting blame onto someone else
- Milgram participants said they wanted to stop but seemed powerless to do so
agentic state evaluation
- research support
- limited explanation
research support
- milgram support role of the agentic state in obedience
- most participants resisted giving shocks at some point
- who is responsible - asked participants, experimenter responded i am
- participant carried on
- shows once participant perceived they were no longer responsible for own behaviour they acted more easily
limited explanation
- agenicshift doesnt explain many findings about obedience
- rank and Jacobsons study - 1618 hospital nurses disobeyed orders from doctor to administer excessive drug dose to patient
- doctor - authority figure
- nurse remained autonomous
- suggest agentic shift can only account for some situations of obedience
legitimacy of authority
- Certain positions hold authority
- authority figures exercise social power over others as this allows society to function smoothly
- Consequence – people are granted the power to punish others
destructive authority
- Powerful leaders can use their legitimate powers for destructive purposes, ordering people to behave in ways that are cruel
- Milgram’s study – experimenter used prods to order participants to behave in ways that went against their consciences
legitimacy of authority evaluation
- explains cultural differences
- cant explain instances of disobedience
explains cultural differences
- Many studies show that countries differ in the degree to which people are obedient to authority
- Kilham and Mann found 16% of Australian women went all the way up to 450v in Milgram’s study
- Mantell found German participants 85%
- Shows that in some cultures authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimate and entitled to demand obedience from individuals
- Reflects way that different societies are structured and how children perceive authority figures
cant explain all instances of disobedience
- Rank and Jacobson study- most were disobedient despite working in a rigidly hierarchical authority structure
- Significant minority of Milgram’s participants disobeyed despite recognising the experimenters scientific authority
- Suggests that some people may just be more/less obedient than others
- It is possible that innate tendencies to obey or disobey have a greater influence on the behaviour than legitimacy of an authority figure
authoritarian personality and obedience
- Adorno et al argued people with authoritarian personality show extreme respect for authority
- view society as weaker than once was so believe need strong leaders to enforce traditional values
- show contempt for those of inferior status - inflexible outlook
origins of the authoritarian personality
- form in childhood, mostly from harsh parenting
- strict discipline, high expectations , parents give conditional love
- create resentment cant be expressed to parent so is displaced onto those weaker than them -psychodynamic explanation
adorno et al research
- studied 2000 middle class white americans and their unconscious attitudes towards ethnic groups
- F scale to measure authoritarian personality
- those who scored high identified with strong people, contemptuous of the weak, conciosu of their status
- found they had a cognitive style - black and white thinking
authoritarian personality
- research support
- limited explanation
- political bias
research support
- milgram and Elms interviewed small sample of people who had participated in the obedience studies and been fully obedient
- completed the F scale
- scored significantly higher than disobedient
- obedient people may well show similar characteristics to people who have authoritarian personality
counterpoint
- when analysed individual subscales of F scale found obedient participants had a number of characteristics that were unusual for authoritarians
- milgrams participants didnt glorify their dads
- link between obedience and authoritarianism is complex
limited explanation
- authoritarianism cant explain obedient behaviour in the majority of a countries population
- prewar germany - millions showed obedient behaviour
- even though personalities differed
- unlikely they could all possess authoritarian personality
- alternative approach that they identified with anti-Semitic nazi state and scapegoated the ‘outgroup’ of jews a social identity theory approach
- alternative explanation is more realistic
political bias
- f scale only measures the tendency towards an extream form of right wing ideology
- Christie and Jahoda argues the F scale is a politically biased interpretation of authoritarian personality
- left wing authoritarianism in shape of Russian Bolshevism
- means adornos theory isnt comprehensive dispositional explanations that accounts for obedience to authority across the whole political spectrum
resistance to social influence
- social support
- locus of control
social support
- resisting conformity - if other people present who arent conforming, enables naive participant to be free to follow their own conscious, confederate acts as model of independent behaviour
- resisting obedience - another person disobeys, milgram obedience fell from 65% to 10%, acts as model of dissent for the participant to copy and frees him from his own conscious
social support evaluation
- real world research support
- research support for dissenting peers
real world research support
- Albrecht et al evaluated teen fresh start USA, an 8 week program to help pregnant 14-19 yr resist pressure to smoke
- social support offered by older buddy
- end of program those with buddy were less likely to smoke than control group
research support for dissenting peers
- Gamson et al participants were told to produce evidence that would be used to help oil company run campaign
- higher levels of resistance in their study than in milgrams
- participant were in groups so could discuss
- 88% groups rebelled against orders
- shows peer support can lead to disobedience by undermining the legitimacy of an authoritarian figure
locus of control
- sense of what directs events in our lives
- external - outside of their control
- internal - controlled by themselves
LOC continuum
- people are a mix of both
- somewhere along the scale
resistance to social influence
- Internals more likely to resist pressure, base their decisions on their own beliefs
- Internals – more self confident, more achievement- orientated – traits lead to higher resistance to social influence
LOC evaluation
- research support
-contradictory research
research support
- holland repeated milgram measured whether participants were internal or external
- 37% internal didnt continue to highest shock - 23% externals
- increase validity of LOC as explanation of SI
contradictory research
- Challenges the link between LOC and resistance
- Twenge analysed data from American LOC studies
- 40+ years people became more resistant to obedience and external
- if resistance is linked to LOC we would expect more people to be internal
- not valid explanation of how people resist Si
minority influence
- person/small group influence beliefs and behaviour
- lead to internalisation
minority influence factors
- consistency
- commitment
- flexibility
consistency
- increases interest from others
- can be synchronic consistency or diachronic consistency
- consistent minority makes people start to rethink their own view
commitment
- demonstrates dedication to their position - eg making personal sacrifice
- majority group pay more attention - argumentation principle, and shows minority isnt acting out of self-interest
flexibility
- relentless consistency could be counter-productive if its seen as unreasonable
- repeating same arguments may viewed as rigid
- show flexibility by accepting compromise
- balance between flexibility and consistency
explaining the process of change
- if you hear something new you are more likely to think about it more deeply
- more people that convert, faster rate of conversion - snowball effect- minority becomes the majority
minority influence evaluation
- research support for consistency
- research support for deeper processing
-artificial task
research support for consistency
- Moscovici blue/ green slide study
- Group of 6 view set of 36 blue slides and asked whether its blue or green,2 confederates who said were green, participant gave wrong answer 8% of time, second group had inconsistent minority participant dropped to 1.25% , third group no confederates 0.25%
- Showed that a consistent minority opinion had greater effect on changing the views than inconsistent opinion
- Wood carried out meta analysis of 100 similar studies and found minorities who consistent more influential
- Presenting consistent view is a minimum requirement for minority trying to influence decision
research support for deeper processing
- Martin presented supporting viewpoint and measured participants agreement
- 1 group then heard majority group agree with it
- Participants were exposed to conflict view and attitudes measured again
- People less willing to change opinion if listened to minority group than majority group
- Suggests minority message was more deeply processed and had more enduing effect
research support for deeper processing counterpoint
- Study make clear distinctions between majority and minority
- Doing this in real life situation very complicated
- Majorities usually have more power and status
- Minorities more committed- often face very hostile oppositions
- Theses features usually absent from minority influence research
- Martins findings very limited in what they can tell us about minority influence
artificial task
- Moscovici was artificial study
- Research is far removed from how minorities attempt to change the behaviour of majorities in real life
- Eg jury decision making the outcomes important
- Means findings of minority influence are lacking in external validity and limited in what they can tell us about how minority influence works in real life social situations
social influence
individuals/groups change each other’s behaviour and attitudes
social change
whole societies rather than just individuals adopt new attitudes and beliefs
lessons from minority influence
- drawing attention through social proof
- consistency
- deeper processing of the issue
- the argumentation principle
- snowball effect
- social cryptomnesia
lessons from conformity research
- When 1 confederate gave the correct answer in Asch variation influenced the majority to do the same – lead to social change
- Environmental and health campaigns utilise normative social influence – ‘most of us don’t drink and drive’
lessons from obedience research
- Zimbardo suggests gradual commitment is important – once a small instruction is obeyed it becomes much harder to resist a bigger one
social influence and social change evaluation
- research support for normative influences
- minority influence explains change
- role of deeper processing
- barriers to social change
research support for normative influences
- nolan - see if people could change energy use habits
- hung messages on the front doors of houses every week for a month
- saying most people tyring to reduce their energy - control group didnt mention other people
- significant decrease compared to control
- conformity can lead to social change
counterpoint
- NSI doesnt always lead to change
- 70 studies where social norms approach on student drinking
- no effect on freq of drinking, little effect on amount
- using normative influence doesnt always produce LT social change
minority influence explains change
- nemth - social change due to thinking that minorities inspire
- when consider minority arguments they engage in divergent thinking
- ague this leads to better decisions and creative solutions to social issues
- shows why dissenting minorities are valuable - new ideas and opens mind
role of deeper processing change
- bashir - people still resist social change
- found participants were less likely to behave environmentally friendly because they didn’t want to be associated with stereotypical and minority environmentalist
- described environmental activist in negative way
- able to suggest ways in which minorities can overcome barriers to social change
