Social Influence Flashcards
CONFORMITY: TYPES AND EXPLANATIONS
Name the 3 types of conformity
internalisation
identification
compliance
CONFORMITY: TYPES AND EXPLANATIONS
Outline Internalisation as a type of conformity
INTERNALISATION
- person genuinely accepts group norms
- public and private change in opinions/behaviour
- permanent change because the person has adopted/internalised attitudes
CONFORMITY: TYPES AND EXPLANATIONS
Outline Identification as a type of conformity
IDENTIFICATION
- conforming to group because we value the group and are prepared to change views to be accepted by it
- part-time change
CONFORMITY: TYPES AND EXPLANATIONS
Outline Compliance as a type of conformity
COMPLIANCE
- publically holding group views while privately maintaining own views
CONFORMITY: TYPES AND EXPLANATIONS
Name the two explanations for conformity
informative social influence (ISI)
normative social influence (NSI)
CONFORMITY: TYPES AND EXPLANATIONS
Outline Informative Social Influence (ISI) as an explanation for conformity
Informative Social Influence (ISI)
- we agree with the group because we believe they are more likely to be correct than we are
- more likely when we’re unsure in a crisis/urgent situation where a majority decision must be made
- internalisation
- THE NEED TO BE RIGHT
CONFORMITY: TYPES AND EXPLANATIONS
Outline Normative Social Influence (ISI) as an explanation for conformity
Normative Social Influence (ISI)
- agreeing with the group because we want to gain social approval rather than be rejected
- more likely to occur with strangers (from whom we desire acceptance/fear rejection) or friends (whose rejection we fear the most) and often in a stressful situation where we have a greater need for social support
- compliance (to norms)
- THE NEED TO BE LIKED
CONFORMITY: TYPES AND EXPLANATIONS
Outline one strength of the explanations of conformity, regarding research support for ISI.
P: One strength of the explanations of conformity is that there is supportive research for informational social influence (ISI).
E: For example, Lucas et al (2006) asked students to give answers for mathematical problems of increasing difficulty. There was greater conformity to incorrect answers when they were difficult than when they were easy. This was truer still for those students of lower mathematical ability.
E: This is a strength because the study shows that people are more likely to conform when they are unsure of an answer and feel that someone else knows more or has more information than them. This suggests that they look to the more knowledgeable individuals because they assume they know better and, therefore, must be right.
E: However, there is some uncertainty about whether ISI or NSI is at work. For example in Asch’s (1955) conformity study, conformity was reduced in the presence of a dissenter, but a dissenter could either reduce the power of NSI by providing social support or reduce the power of ISI by providing an alternative source of information. This lack of clarity threatens the internal validity of Lucas et al’s supportive research of the ISI explanation of conformity. CHANGE FOR METHODOLOGICAL EXTEND POINT
L: As a result, the credibility of the explanations of conformity is strengthened but only to a certain extent, because of uncertainty over the real-world difference between ISI and NSI.
CONFORMITY: TYPES AND EXPLANATIONS
Outline one strength of explanations of conformity, regarding research support for NSI.
P: One strength of explanations of conformity is that there is supportive research for normative social influence (NSI).
E: For example, Asch (1951) found that many participants went along with a clearly wrong answer just because other people did. When they were asked why they did this, the participants said they felt self-conscious about giving the correct answer and they were afraid of disapproval. When Asch repeated the study but asked participants to write down their answers instead of saying them out loud, conformity rates fell to 12.5% (from 37%).
E: This is a strength because it shows people were more prepared to give the wrong answer just to be liked and approved of rather than to give the correct answer, as suggested by NSI.
E: However, NSI fails to appreciate individual differences since NSI doesn’t necessarily affect everyone in the same way. McGhee and Teevan (1967) found that students high in need of affiliation were more likely to conform, concluding that the desire to be liked underlies conformity for some more than others. This is a weakness because NSI falsely generalises conformity by explaining that everyone conforms because of the need to be liked (known as ‘affiliators’), when some (known as ‘nAffiliators’) don’t. CHANGE FOR METHODOLOGICAL EXTEND POINT
L: As a result, the credibility of NSI as an explanation of conformity is reduced due to low population validity.
E: However, there is some uncertainty about whether ISI or NSI is at work. For example in Asch’s (1955) conformity study, conformity was reduced in the presence of a dissenter, but a dissenter could either reduce the power of NSI by providing social support or reduce the power of ISI by providing an alternative source of information. This lack of clarity threatens the internal validity of Lucas et al’s supportive research of the ISI explanation of conformity.
E: However, NSI fails to appreciate individual differences since NSI doesn’t necessarily affect everyone in the same way. McGhee and Teevan (1967) found that students high in need of affiliation were more likely to conform, concluding that the desire to be liked underlies conformity for some more than others. This is a weakness because NSI falsely generalises conformity by explaining that everyone conforms because of the need to be liked (known as ‘affiliators’), when some (known as ‘nAffiliators’) don’t.
CONFORMITY
Outline the aim of Asch’s (1951) study
AIM: to assess to what extent people will conform to the opinion of others, even in a situation where the answer is certain/unambiguous
CONFORMITY
Outline the baseline procedure of Asch’s (1951) study on conformity
PROCEDURE:
- 123 American men
- groups with 5-7 confederates (one naive ptp per group)
- confederates gave the same, incorrect answer on some trials/rounds
- ptps had to choose which of the 3 lines (A, B and C) were the same as line X
- one of the lines was clearly the same as X and the other two clearly wrong
CONFORMITY
Outline the baseline findings of Asch’s (1951) study on conformity
FINDINGS:
- naive ptps conformed around 37% of the time
- 25% of ptps never conformed
CONFORMITY
Name the three variables of Asch’s (1955) research on conformity
VARIATIONS:
- group size
- unanimity
- task difficulty
CONFORMITY
Outline the procedure and findings of the ‘group size’ variable of Asch’s (1955) research on conformity
PROCEDURE:
- varied number of confederates from 1-15
FINDINGS:
- curvilinear relationship between group size and conformity rate (conformity increased with group size but only to a certain point)
- 3 confederates: conformity to the wrong answer rose to 31.8%
- more than 3 confeds made little difference and conformity rates soon levelled off (curvilinear relationship) (inverted L)
CONFORMITY
Outline the procedure and findings of the ‘unanimity’ variable of Asch’s (1955) research on conformity
PROCEDURE:
- dissenter introduced who disagreed with other confeds, by either going the correct answer or a different wrong one
FINDINGS:
- naive ptps conformed less often in presence of a dissenter (appeared to free them to behave naturally)
CONFORMITY
Outline the procedure and findings of the ‘task difficulty’ variable of Asch’s (1955) research on conformity
PROCEDURE:
- increased difficulty (comparison lines more similar to line X)
FINDINGS:
- conformity increased (natural to look to others for guidance and/or assume they are right and you’re wrong (informative social influence))
CONFORMITY
Outline one strength of Asch’s research on conformity, regarding research support for task difficulty.
STRENGTH: research support for task difficulty
- Lucas et al (2006): ptps to solve ‘easy’ and ‘hard’ maths problems
- ptps given answers from 3 other students (confeds)
- pts conformed more often when problems were harder
~~> supports Asch’s theory that task difficulty affects conformity
HOWEVER: Lucas et al’s study found conformity to be more complex than Asch suggested
- ptps with higher confidence in math ability conformed less on hard tasks than those with low confidence
~~> individual factors can affect conformity rates in varying task difficulty (but Asch didn’t research this)
THEREFORE: Asch offers a limited explanation of conformity => credibility is reduced
CONFORMITY
Outline one limitation of Asch’s research on conformity, regarding the artificial situation and task.
LIMITATION: artificial situation and task
- possibility of demand characteristics (ptps aware they were taking part in a study)
- trivial task, no reason not to conform (no real consequence since it’s unimportant)
- Fiske (2014): “Asch’s groups weren’t very groupy” (i.e. didn’t resemble groups we’d see in everyday life)
~~> findings not generalisable to real-world situations (low ecological validity), especially in situations where consequences of conformity might be important
FURTHERMORE: low temporal validity
- Perrin and Spencer (1980, 30 years later) repeated Asch’s original study with engineering students in the UK
- only 1 student conformed in a total of 396 trials.
- so findings are different today than they were when Asch did his research
- no longer valid?
THEREFORE: crebility is reduced due to low internal validity and low temporal validity
CONFORMITY
Outline one limitation of Asch’s research on conformity, regarding generalisability.
LIMITATION: gender bias
- all male, American ptps
- other research (Neto (1995)) suggests women might be more conformist (desire for social acceptance)
- but Asch didn’t research this so he offers a limited explanation of conformity
FURTHERMORE: culture bias
- US = individualist culture (more concerned about themselves than a social group) => potentially lower conformity rates than we’d expect to find in collectivist cultures (where group opinion matters more) (Bond and Smith (1996))
~~> Asch’s findings tell us little about conformity in women and other cultures
THEREFORE: credibility reduced due to low population validity and therefore limited generalisability, so Asch offers an insufficient explanation of conformity
CONFORMITY TO SOCIAL ROLES
Outline the aim of Zimbardo’s (1973) Stanford Prison experiment
AIM: to investigate the extent to which people would conform to social roles of a prisoner or guard when placed in a mock prison environment
CONFORMITY TO SOCIAL ROLES
Outline the procedure of Zimbardo’s (1973) Stanford Prison experiment
PROCEDURE:
- 21 male student volunteers who tested as ‘emotionally stable’
- randomly assigned to ‘prisoner’ or ‘guard’
- uniforms: prisoners wore a loose smock, cap to cover hair, identified by their numbers (never names); guards carried wooden club, handcuffs, mirror shades
- uniforms created de-individualisation (loss of personal identity)
- behaviour instructions: guards reminded they have complete power over prisoners
CONFORMITY TO SOCIAL ROLES
Outline the findings of Zimbardo’s (1973) Stanford Prison experiment
FINDINGS:
- guards treated prisoners harshly; harassed them constantly (e.g. headcount at night by registering their numbers); created opportunities to force rules and administer punishments to highlight differences in their social roles
- prisoners rebelled after 2 days; rebellion failed; many prisoners became subdued, depressed, anxious
- one was released due to symptoms of psychological disturbance and two more on day 4
- one went on hunger strike
- study stopped after 6 days rather than the planned 14 days
CONFORMITY TO SOCIAL ROLES
Outline the conclusions of Zimbardo’s (1973) Stanford Prison experiment
CONCLUSIONS:
- social roles have a strong influence on behaviour: brutal guards and submissive prisoners
- social roles can easily be adopted (e.g. by volunteers such as ‘prison chaplain’)
CONFORMITY TO SOCIAL ROLES
Outline one strength of Zimbardo’s (1973) Stanford Prison experiment (SPE) , regarding validity (control over variables, debate over internal validity or not). (whopper!! extended twice)
STRENGTH: control over variables
- ptps randomly selected as prisoner or guard + ptps were emotionally stable
- => ruled out individual differences as an explanation for findings
- therefore their behaviour was due to the role itself
~~> increased validity of results/conclusions
HOWEVER: lack of realism of true prison
- Banuazizi and Movahedi (1975): ptps were play-acting rather than genuinely conforming to a role
- ptps performances were based on their stereotypes of their roles
- could explain why prisoners rioted: what they assumed real prisoners would do
~~> low internal validity, tells us little about conformity to social roles in actual situations
HOWEVER (again): McDermott (2019) argues they were behaving as if the prison was real to them
- 90% of convos in prison was about prison life
- e.g. “impossible to leave before our sentences are over”
- ‘Prisoner 416’ later explained how he believed the prison was a real one, but run by psychologists rather than the government
THEREFORE: SPE did replicate social roles of prisoners and guards in a real prison => high internal validity
CONFORMITY TO SOCIAL ROLES
Outline one limitation of Zimbardo’s (1973) Stanford Prison experiment, regarding ethical issues.
LIMITATION: ETHICS
- operating before ethics, retrospective label, cannot be redone to replicate findings/ to test applicability in day-to-day scenario
(- not fully consented (didn’t know they were going to be arrested from their house), psychological harm (!!), right to withdraw)
FURTHERMORE: bias findings
- Zimbardo played the leader/boss/superintendent in the prison and kept it going even after suggestions of stopping it
- put own interests before the welfare of the ptps, he was motivated to keep study going (wasn’t detached)
THEREFORE: credibility reduced due to unethical and biased nature of research
CONFORMITY TO SOCIAL ROLES
Outline one limitation of Zimbardo’s (1973) Stanford Prison experiment, regarding the exaggeration the power of social roles.
LIMITATION: exaggerates power of roles to influence behaviour
- only 1/3 guards actually behaved brutally
- 1/3 tried to apply rules fairly
- the rest tried to help support the prisoners (sympathised, offered cigarettes and reinstated privileges)
- most guards were able to resist situational pressures to conform to a brutal role
~~> Zimbardo overstated his view that SPE ptps were conforming to social roles and minimised the influence of dispositional factors (e.g. personality)
HOWEVER: real world examples : Abu Ghraib prison
- guards treated Iraqi prisoners cruelly, posing with ‘thumbs-up’ next to a pile of bodies, viral photo of prisoner hooked up to electrical wires being tortured
- people do display this extreme behaviour within their social role in real life
THEREFORE: credibility increased due to real world examples of conformity to social roles
OBEDIENCE
Outline the aim of Milgram’s (1963) research
AIM: to assess obedience levels of ordinary citizens when given an unjust order from an authority figure, and inflict pain on another person because they were instructed to
OBEDIENCE
Outline the baseline procedure of Milgram’s (1963) research
BASELINE PROCEDURE:
- 40 American male volunteers
- rigged: teacher was always the real ptp and learner was confed
- shocks increased by 15 volts with each incorrect answer on a memory test, up to 450 volts (fake)
OBEDIENCE
Outline the baseline findings of Milgram’s (1963) research
BASELINE FINDINGS:
- 65% went all the way to 450V (a prior prediction survey said 3% would obey all the way)
- 100% ptps went up to 300V
- 12.5% (5 ptps) stopped at 300V
- many showed signs of stress, most objected but continued anyway
- ptps debriefed afterwards and 84% said they were glad to have participated
OBEDIENCE
Outline the conclusions of Milgram’s (1963) research
CONCLUSIONS:
- German people were not ‘different’ as people assumed (after Nazi Germany)
- Americans in the study were willing to obey orders even when they believed they might hurt another person
- conducted further studies to investigate situational variables
OBEDIENCE
Evaluate Milgram’s (1963) research
STRENGTH: research support
- findings were replicated in a French documentary made about reality tv (game show) (Beauvois et al (2012))
- ‘contestants’ paid to give (fake) shocks ordered by presenter to other ptps (confeds) in front of an audience
- 80% ptps went to max voltage (460V) to an apparently unconscious man
- behaviours almost identical to those in Milgram experiment
~~> supports Milgram’s original findings about obedience to authority, demonstrates findings were not just due to special circumstances
LIMITATION: low internal validity
- only 75% ptps believed shocks were genuine
- Orne and Holland (1968) argued that ptps behaved as they did because they didn’t really believe in the setup, so they were ‘play-acting’
- Perry (2013): concluded from tape recording of Milgram’s experiment that 1/2 ptps believed shocks were real, and 2/3 of these ptps were disobedient
~~> suggests ptps may have been responding to demand characteristics
——————–> COUNTERPOINT: Sheridan and King (1972) conducted a study using a procedure like Milgram’s
- ptps (students) gave real shocks to a puppy in response to orders from an experimenter
- despite the real stress of the puppy, 54% of the men and 100% of the women gave what they thought was a fatal shock
~~> suggests effects in Milgram’s study were genuine because ppl behaved obediently even when shocks were real
LIMITATION: alternative interpretation of findings
- Milgram’s conclusions about blind obedience may not be justified
- Haslam et al (2014): showed Milgram’s ptps only obeyed when experimenter delivered the first 3 verbal prods (all concerning the requirements of the experiment)
- prod 4 (“you have no other choice, you must go on): without exception ptps disobeyed
- social identity theory (SIT): ptps only obeyed when they identified with the scientific aims of the research
- when ordered to blindly obey an authority figure, they refused
~~> SIT may provide a more valid interpretation of Milgram’s findings (he said himself “identifying ith the science is a reason for obedience)
OBEDIENCE
Outline one strength of Milgram’s (1963) research on obedience, regarding supportive research.
STRENGTH: research support
- findings were replicated in a French documentary made about reality tv (game show) (Beauvois et al (2012))
- ‘contestants’ paid to give (fake) shocks ordered by presenter to other ptps (confeds) in front of an audience
- 80% ptps went to max voltage (460V) to an apparently unconscious man
- behaviours almost identical to those in Milgram experiment
~~> supports Milgram’s original findings about obedience to authority, demonstrates findings were not just due to special circumstances
HOWEVER: both Milgram and Beauvois studied western, individualist cultures, where obedience to authority is a bigger part of the culture due to the desire for social support
THEREFORE: reduced credibility
OBEDIENCE
Outline one limitation of Milgram’s (1963) research on obedience, regarding low internal validity.
LIMITATION: low internal validity
- only 75% ptps believed shocks were genuine
- Orne and Holland (1968) argued that ptps behaved as they did because they didn’t really believe in the setup, so they were ‘play-acting’
- Perry (2013): concluded from tape recording of Milgram’s experiment that 1/2 ptps believed shocks were real, and 2/3 of these ptps were disobedient
~~> suggests ptps may have been responding to demand characteristics
HOWEVER: Sheridan and King (1972) conducted a study using a procedure like Milgram’s
- ptps (students) gave real shocks to a puppy in response to orders from an experimenter
- despite the real stress of the puppy, 54% of the men and 100% of the women gave what they thought was a fatal shock
~~> suggests effects in Milgram’s study were genuine because ppl behaved obediently even when shocks were real
THEREFORE: increased cred due to supportive evidence
OBEDIENCE
Outline one limitation of Milgram’s (1963) research on obedience, regarding alternative interpretations of findings.
LIMITATION: alternative interpretation of findings
- Milgram’s conclusions about blind obedience may not be justified
- Haslam et al (2014): showed Milgram’s ptps only obeyed when experimenter delivered the first 3 verbal prods (all concerning the requirements of the experiment)
- prod 4 (“you have no other choice, you must go on): without exception ptps disobeyed
- social identity theory (SIT): ptps only obeyed when they identified with the scientific aims of the research
- when ordered to blindly obey an authority figure, they refused
~~> SIT may provide a more valid interpretation of Milgram’s findings (he said himself “identifying with the science is a reason for obedience)
FURTHERMORE: ethics
OBEDIENCE: SITUATIONAL VARIABLES
Name the 3 situational variables that Milgram investigated after his baseline study on obedience
proximity
location
uniform
OBEDIENCE: SITUATIONAL VARIABLES
How did Milgram measure the effect of proximity on obedience?
How did the rate of obedience change?
Include the two variations of proximity
PROXIMITY:
- teacher was in the same room as learner (as opposed to hearing but not seeing him)
- obedience rate dropped to 40% (from original 65%)
TOUCH PROXIMITY VARIATION:
- teacher had to force learner’s hand onto an “electroshock plate’ if learner refused to put it there himself after giving a wrong answer
- obedience dropped further to 30%
REMOTE INSTRUCTION VARIATION:
- experimenter left the room and gave instructions to teacher by telephone
- obedience reduced to 20.5%
- some ptps frequently pretended to give shocks
OBEDIENCE: SITUATIONAL VARIABLES
Explain Milgram’s findings about the effect of proximity on obedience
decreased proximity allowed people to psychologically distance themselves from the consequences of their actions
e.g. when teacher and learner were physically separated (as in baseline study), the teacher was less aware of the harm they were causing => more obedient
OBEDIENCE: SITUATIONAL VARIABLES
How did Milgram measure the effect of location on obedience?
How did the rate of obedience change?
LOCATION:
- conducted study in a run-down office block rather than the prestigious Yale University setting
- obedience fell to 47.5% from 65%
OBEDIENCE: SITUATIONAL VARIABLES
Explain Milgram’s findings about the effect of location on obedience
- prestigious University gave the study legitimacy and authority
- ptps assumed the experimenter was just as legitimate => ptps felt obedience was expected
- however obedience was still quite high in the office block because the ptps saw the scientific nature of the procedure
OBEDIENCE: SITUATIONAL VARIABLES
How did Milgram measure the effect of uniform on obedience?
How did the rate of obedience change?
UNIFORM:
- baseline study: experimenter wore a white lab coat as a symbol of authority (uniform)
- in variation, experimenter ‘had to’ leave the room and was replaced by an ‘ordinary member of the public’ (confed) in everyday clothes
- obedience rate dropped to 20% (lowest of all variations)
OBEDIENCE: SITUATIONAL VARIABLES
Explain Milgram’s findings about the effect of uniform on obedience
- uniforms ‘encourage’ obedience because they are widely recognised as symbols of authority
- we accept that someone in a uniform is entitled to expect obedience because their authority is legitimate (granted by society)
- someone without a uniform has less right to expect our obedience
OBEDIENCE: SITUATIONAL VARIABLES
Evaluate Milgram’s situational variables
STRENGTH: research support
- field experiment in NYC by Bickman (1974): 3 confeds dressed in different uniforms: milkman, suit and tie, security guard
- confeds individually asked passers-by on the street to perform tasks (picking up litter etc)
- people were twice as likely to obey ‘security guard’ than ‘suit and tie’
~~> situational variables (uniform) do affect obedience
STRENGTH: findings replicated in other cultures
- Meeus and Raaijmakers (1986): (Dutch) (more realistic procedure than Milgram’s) ptps ordered to say stressful things in an interview to someone (confed) desperate for a job- 90% ptps obeyed
- they also replicated Milgram’s finding on proximity: when person giving orders wasn’t present, obedience fell dramatically
~~> Milgram’s findings weren’t just limited to American men, but also valid across cultures and with women too
——————> COUNTERPOINT: replications of Milgram’s research weren’t very ‘cross-cultural’
- Bond (1998) identified just two ‘cross-cultural replications’ in India and Jordan (which are culturally quite different to US) vs the other countries: Spain, Australia and Scotland and others which are culturally similar to US
- findings aren’t really ‘cross-cultural’ if they were mostly done in similar cultures to original study
~~> not appropriate to conclude Milgram’s findings apply to people in all or most cultures
LIMITATION: low internal validity
- Orne and Holland (1968): criticised Milgram’s baseline study for extraneous variables (demand characteristics)
- e.g. uniform variation: experimenter is replaced by a member of the public; even Milgram said it was obviously planned and ptps could have worked it out
~~> unclear whether findings were due to obedience or responded to demand characteristics (saw through the deception and play-acted)
OBEDIENCE: SITUATIONAL EXPLANATIONS
What is the agentic state within the agentic state explanation of obedience?
agentic state: state of feeling no personal responsibility for our behaviour because we believe ourselves to be acting as an ‘AGENT’ for an authority figure
- not an unfeeling puppet; we still experience high anxiety (moral strain) in this state; aware what they’re doing Is wrong but feel powerless to disobey
OBEDIENCE: SITUATIONAL EXPLANATIONS
What is the autonomous state within the agentic state explanation of obedience?
autonomous state: person is FREE to behave according to their own principles and feels a sense of responsibility for their actions
- ‘autonomy’ is to be independent or FREE
OBEDIENCE: SITUATIONAL EXPLANATIONS
What is the ‘agentic shift’ within the agentic state explanation of obedience?
agentic shift: shifting from autonomous state to agentic state
- occurs when person perceives another person as an authority figure, who has greater power (higher position in the social hierarchy)
OBEDIENCE: SITUATIONAL EXPLANATIONS
What are binding factors within the agentic state explanation of obedience?
binding factors: aspects of the situation that allow the person to ignore or minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour, thus reducing the moral strain they feel
e.g.) shifting responsibility to victim (“they were foolish to volunteer”) or denying damage they were doing to the victims
OBEDIENCE: SITUATIONAL EXPLANATIONS
Evaluate (one strength, one limitation) the agentic state explanation of obedience
STRENGTH: research support
- Milgram’s studies support role of agentic state
- often, when ptps were told that the experimenter was responsible for any ‘harm’ to learner, they no longer objected and continued with procedure
~~> once they perceived they weren’t responsible for own actions, they acted more easily as the experimenter’s agent, as Milgram suggested
LIMITATION: a limited explanation
- doesn’t explain findings of Rank and Jacobson’s (1977) nurse study, where 16/18 nurses disobeyed orders from a (confed) doctor to administer an overdose of drug to a patient (against rules)
- doctor was an authority figure but nurses remained autonomous, as did many of Milgram’s ptps
~~> at best, agentic shift can only account for some situations of obedience
OBEDIENCE: SITUATIONAL EXPLANATIONS
Explain what is meant by legitimacy of authority. What are the consequences of this?
LEGITIMACY OF AUTHORITY:
- explanation of obedience: we are more likely to obey someone who we perceive to have authority over us. this authority is justified by the individual’s position of power within a social hierarchy
- we learn acceptance of legitimacy of authority from childhood: parents then teachers and then adults generally
CONSEQUENCES:
- people are granted power to punish others (society agrees that police + courts can have the power to punish wrongdoers)
- destructive authority: people can use their legitimate authority for destructive purposes (ordering people to behave in cruel and dangerous ways, evident in Milgram’s study)
OBEDIENCE: SITUATIONAL EXPLANATIONS
Evaluate (one strength, one limitation) the legitimacy of authority explanation of obedience
STRENGTH: explains cultural differences
- obedience rates differ across cultures
- Kilham and Mann (1974): 16% Australian women went all the way to 450V
- Mantell (1971): 85% Germans went all the way to 450V
~~> in some cultures, authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimate and entitled to demand obedience from individuals; this reflects how societies are structured and how they raise children to perceive authority figures
LIMITATION: cannot explain all (dis)obedience (like instances of disobedience in a hierarchy where legitimacy of authority is clear and accepted)
- includes Rank and Jacobson’s nurse study (16/18 nurses obeyed order from a (confed) doctor to overdose a drug to a patient): disobedience despite working in a rigidly hierarchal authority structure
- also, significant minority disobeyed despite recognising experimenter’s scientific authority
~~> people may just be more (or less) obedient than others; possible that innate tendencies to obey or disobey have greater influence on behaviour than legitimacy of an authority figure
OBEDIENCE: DISPOSITIONAL EXPLANATION
Describe the Authoritarian Personality, as suggested by Adorno.
(5 characteristics)
- extreme respect for(and submissiveness to) authority
- view society as weaker than it once was => believe we need strong leaders to enforce traditional values (love of a country and family)
- show contempt for those of inferior status
- (above is fueled by) inflexible outlook on the world: there are no ‘grey areas’ (everything is either right or wrong and they’re very uncomfortable with uncertainty
- believe that people who are ‘other’ (e.g. different ethnic groups) are responsible for the ills of society => ‘other’ people are a convenient target for authoritarians who are likely to obey even destructive orders from authority (e.g. Nazi Germany)
OBEDIENCE: DISPOSITIONAL EXPLANATION
Outline the origin of the authoritarian personality, as suggested by Adorno.
What is scapegoating?
- forms in childhood, mostly as a result of harsh parenting
- e.g. extremely strict discipline, expectation of absolute loyalty, impossibly high standards, severe criticism of perceived failings, conditional love
- these childhood experiences create resentment and hostility in a child, but cannot express this to parents for fear of punishment => their fears are displaced onto others whom they perceive to be weaker (a process known as SCAPEGOATING)
OBEDIENCE: DISPOSITIONAL EXPLANATION
Outline the procedure of Adorno et al’s (1950) research on the Authoritarian Personality.
PROCEDURE:
- 2000 middle-class white Americans
- used various scales including F-scale, used to measure Authoritarian Personality (ptps had to say how far they agreed with 9 statements
OBEDIENCE: DISPOSITIONAL EXPLANATION
Outline the findings of Adorno et al’s (1950) research on the Authoritarian Personality.
FINDINGS:
- high scorers on F-scale identified with ‘strong’ people and were generally contemptuous of the ‘weak’
- they were very conscious of status (their own and others’) and showed extreme respect, deference (like compliance) and servility ((too) eager to serve or please someone else) to those of higher status
- authoritarian people have a certain cognitive style (way of perceiving others): black-and-white thinking; had fixed stereotypes about other groups
- positive correlation between authoritarianism and prejudice
OBEDIENCE: DISPOSITIONAL EXPLANATION
Evaluate (one strength, 3 limitations) the Dispositional explanation for obedience (authoritarian personality).
STRENGTH: research support
- Milgram and Elms (1966): interviewed 20 of the OG ptps from Milgram study and had them all complete the F-scale
- these 20 obedient ptps scored significantly higher on F-scale than a comparison group of 20 disobedient ones
~~> findings support Adorno et al’s view that obedient people may well show similar characteristics to authoritarian people
———————> COUNTERPOINT: non-authoritarian characteristics
- after analysing individual subscales of F-scale, they found that obedient ptps had several characteristics that were unusual for authoritarians
- e.g. unlike authoritarian, Milgram’s obedient ptps didn’t glorify their fathers, didn’t experience unusual levels of punishment in childhood and didn’t have hostile attitudes towards their mothers
~~> link between authoritarianism and obedience is complex; obedient ptps were unlike authoritarians in so many ways that authoritarianism is unlikely to be a useful predictor of obedience
LIMITATION: limited explanation (doesn’t explain majority of a country’s population)
- pre-war Germany: millions displayed obedient and anti-semitic behaviour, despite differing personalities
- unlikely they were all authoritarians
- alternative view (social identity theory): majority of Germans identified with the anti-Semitic Nazi state and scapegoated the ‘outgroup’ of Jews
~~> Adorno’s theory is limited because other explanations are more realistic
LIMITATION: political bias
- F-scale only measures tendencies towards extreme right-wing ideology
- Christie and Jahoda (1954): point out the reality of left-wing authoritarianism in the shape of Russian Bolshevism or Chinese Maoism
- extreme left-wing and right-wing ideologies have a lot in common: both emphasise importance of obedience to political authority
~~> Adorno’s theory isn’t a comprehensive dispositional explanation that accounts for obedience to authority across the whole political spectrum
RESISTANCE TO SOCIAL INFLUENCE
How can social support help in resisting conformity?
- pressure to conform is reduced in the presence of a dissenter
- As seen in Asch’s research, dissenter doesn’t even have to give the right answer to help the ptp to resist social influence
- social support (someone else not following the majority) => enables individual to be free to follow their own conscience
- dissenter prompts more dissent: majority is no longer unanimous
RESISTANCE TO SOCIAL INFLUENCE
How can social support help in resisting obedience?
- pressure to obey is reduced in presence of dissenter/another who disobeys
- as seen in Milgram’s research, obedience dropped from 65% to 10% when genuine ptp was joined by a disobedient confed
- social support (someone else disobeying) => enables individual to be free to follow their own conscience
- other disobedient people prompt more disobedience: majority is no longer unanimous
RESISTANCE TO SOCIAL INFLUENCE
What is the difference between an internal locus of control and an external locus of control (LOC), as proposed by Rotter (1966)?
Are we strictly one or the other?
Internals: things that happen to them are largely controlled by themselves, e.g. if you do well in an exam it’s because you worked hard, if you don’t do well then it’s because you didn’t work hard enough
Externals: things that happen are outside their control, e.g. if they did well in an exam then it was because they used excellent textbooks, if they failed then they’d blame it on the textbook or blame it on bad luck because the questions were hard
LOC CONTINUUM:
- LOC is a scale/spectrum
- high internal on one end, high external on the other
- low internal and low external lie in between
RESISTANCE TO SOCIAL INFLUENCE
How can having a high LOC help in resisting social influence?
high internal LOC => more able to resist pressures to conform or obey since internals take responsibility for their own actions and experiences, so they tend to base their decisions on their own beliefs rather than depending on the opinions of others
or
high internal LOC => often more self-confident, more achievement-orientated and more intelligent => greater resistance to social influence + these are characteristics of leaders, who have much less need for social approval than followers
RESISTANCE TO SOCIAL INFLUENCE
Evaluate (two strengths) social support in resisting social influence
STRENGTH: real-world research support (RESISTING CONFORMITY)
- Albrecht et al (2006): evaluated Teen Fresh Start USA (8-wk programme designed to help pregnant adolescents resist peer pressure to smoke)
- social support was provided by a slightly older mentor or ‘buddy’
- at end of programme, those who had a ‘buddy’ were significantly less likely to smoke than a control group of no ‘buddy’
~~> shows social support can help young people resist social influence
STRENGTH: research support for dissenting peers (RESISTING OBEDIENCE)
- Gamson et al (1982): ptps told to produce evidence for an oil company to use in a smear campaign (trying to damage someone else’s/another company’s reputation)
- higher levels of resistance than in Milgram’s study, possibly because ptps could discuss it with one another
- 88% rebelled against the order
~~> shows peer support can lead to disobedience by undermining the legitimacy of an authority figure
RESISTANCE TO SOCIAL INFLUENCE
Evaluate (one strength, one limitation) LOC in resisting social influence
STRENGTH: research support
- Holland (1967) repeated Milgram’s baseline study and measured whether ptps were externals or internals
- 37% internals didn’t continue to highest shock level (i.e. showed higher resistance)
- 23% externals didn’t continue to highest shock level
~~>shows resistance is at least partly related to LOC; increases validity of LOC as an explanation of disobedience/resistance to social influence
LIMITATION: contradictory research
- Twenge (2004): meta-analysis of American LOC studies conducted over a 40-year period
- over time span, people became more resistant to obedience but also more external… surprising outcome
- if resistance is linked to an internal LOC then we’d expect people to become more internal
~~> LOC isn’t a valid explanation of how people resist social influence
MINORITY INFLUENCE
What is minority influence?
- situations where one person or a small group of people (i.e. a minority) influence the beliefs and behaviour of other people
- different from conformity where the majority influence the minority
- can lead to internalisation (both public behaviour and private beliefs are changed by the process)
MINORITY INFLUENCE
Name the 3 factors that must be present for minority influence to occur
consistency (synchronic and diachronic)
commitment (augmentation principle)
flexibility
MINORITY INFLUENCE
How and why must a minority demonstrate consistency?
CONSISTENCY:
- minority must be consistent in their views => over time increases amount of interest from other people
- synchronic consistency: agreement between people in the group (all saying the same thing)
- diachronic consistency: consistency over time (been saying the same thing for a while now
- consistent minority makes people start to rethink their own views (“maybe they’ve got a point if they all think this way/if they keep saying it”)
MINORITY INFLUENCE
How and why must a minority demonstrate commitment?
COMMITMENT:
- minority must demonstrate commitment to their cause
- sometimes quite extreme activities to draw attention to their views
- important that these extreme activities present some risk to minority => shows greater commitment
- majority then pays even more attention (“wow, she must really believe in what she’s saying so perhaps I ought to consider her view”)
- this is called the augmentation principle (escalating commitment to the cause)
MINORITY INFLUENCE
How and why must a minority demonstrate flexibility?
FLEXIBILITY:
- consistency by itself can be off-putting: someone who is extremely consistent and repeats the same arguments/behaviours, again and again, can be seen as rigid, unbending and dogmatic
- flexibility = being prepared to adapt own view and accept reasonable and valid counterarguments
- the key is to strike a balance between consistency and flexibility
MINORITY INFLUENCE
Explain the change that occurs when a minority influences a majority
- hearing something you already agree with doesn’t make you stop and think, but hearing something new will make you think more deeply about it, especially if the source of this other view is committed and flexible
- this deeper processing => conversion to a different, minority viewpoint
- over time, increasing numbers of people switch from the majority position to the minority position (i.e. they have become ‘converted’)
- snowball effect: the more people get converted, the faster the conversion rate becomes
- gradually the minority view has become the majority view and a change has occurred
MINORITY INFLUENCE
Outline the research done by Moscovici et al (1969)
blue/green slide study
PROCEDURE:
- groups of 6 people were asked to view a set of blue-coloured slides that varied in intensity and state whether they were blue or green
- each group had 2 confeds
- one group exposed to consistent minority (confeds): said they were green every time
- second group exposed to inconsistent minority (confeds): sometimes said green, sometimes said blue
FINDINGS:
- group 1: ptps agreed (incorrectly) with consistent minority on 8.42% of the trials
- group 2: ptps said it was green (incorrect) on 1.25% of the trials
- control group (no confeds): incorrectly identified colour (said it was green) on only 0.25% of trials
MINORITY INFLUENCE
Evaluate minority influence
STRENGTH: research support for consistency
- Moscovici et al (1969): showed that a consistent minority opinion had a greater effect on changing majority views than an inconsistent opinion
FURTHERMORE: Wood et al (1994): meta-analysis of 100 similar studies; found that consistent minorities were most influential
THEREFORE: consistent view is minimum requirement for a minority to influence a majority
STRENGTH: research support for deeper processing
- Martin et al (2003): presented a message supporting a particular viewpoint and measured ptps agreement
- one group then heard a majority agree with the message, another heard a minority agree with it
- ptps then exposed to a conflicting view and attitudes were measured again
- people were less willing to change their opinion if they had listened to a minority group than if they had listened to a majority group
~~> minority message had been more deeply processed and had a more enduring effect; supports central idea of how minority influence works
HOWEVER: minorities and majorities are more complicated in real life
- minorities: have to be very committed to their cause because they often face very hostile opposition
- majorities often have more power and status than minorities
- these features are normally absent in minority influence research; the minority is simply the smaller group
THEREFORE: Martin et al’s findings are therefore very limited in what they can tell us about minority influence in real-world situations, so the support for deeper processing is reduced
LIMITATION: artificial tasks
- in jury decision-making and political campaigning, outcomes are vastly more important than they were in Moscovici’s study
~~> findings of minority influence studies lack external validity; limited in what they can tell us about minority influence in real-life
SOCIAL INFLUENCE AND SOCIAL CHANGE
Name the 6 steps in how minority influence creates social change
1) drawing attention
2) consistency
3) deeper processing
4) augmentation principle
5) snowball effect
6) social cryptomnesia
SOCIAL INFLUENCE AND SOCIAL CHANGE
Outline how minority influence creates social change through steps 1-3, with reference to the example of the African-American civil rights movement.
1) drawing attention through social proof: civil rights movement DREW ATTENTION to the black and white segregation in the South, providing SOCIAL PROOF of the problem
2) consistency: millions took part in many marches over several years, always presenting the SAME, non-aggressive messages
3) deeper processing: activism => many people who had simply accepted the status quo began to THINK DEEPLY about the unjustness of it
SOCIAL INFLUENCE AND SOCIAL CHANGE
Outline how minority influence creates social change through steps 4-6, with reference to the example of the African-American civil rights movement
4) augmentation principle: “Freedom Riders” were a mixed ethnic group who boarded buses in the South, challenging racial segregation on transport. many were beaten => personal risk => strong beliefs => AUGMENTS their message
5) snowball effect: activists (MLK) gradually got the attention of US government. in 1964, the US Civil Rights Act prohibited discrimination, marking a change from minority to majority support for civil rights
6) social cryptomnesia: people remember a change has occurred, but not how it was brought about. clearly change did occur in the South => different place now
SOCIAL INFLUENCE AND SOCIAL CHANGE
How can conformity research help bring about social change?
- Asch’s research showed that presence of a dissenter broke the power of the majority and therefore encouraged others to do likewise
- => such dissent can ultimately lead to social change
- or we can exploit conformity by appealing to NSI by providing info about what other people are doing (e.g. signs on bins: “Bin it - others do”, telling young people that ‘most other young people don’t smoke’ to prevent them from doing so)
- => social change is encouraged by drawing attention to what the majority are actually doing
SOCIAL INFLUENCE AND SOCIAL CHANGE
How can obedience research help bring about social change?
- Milgram’s research demonstrates importance of disobedient role models
- the variation where another (confed) teacher refuses to give shocks led to decreased obedience of real ptp
- Zimbardo suggests how obedience can be used for social change through the process of gradual commitment (once one small instruction was obeyed, it made it more difficult to disobey a bigger one); people essentially drift into a new kind of behaviour
SOCIAL INFLUENCE AND SOCIAL CHANGE
Evaluate social influence and social change
STRENGTH: research support for normative influences
- Nolan et al (2008): hung messages on front doors in San Diego every week for a month, with key message “most residents are trying to reduce their energy usage”
- control: some messages just asked residents to reduce energy usage with no reference to other people
- significant decreases in energy usage in the first group compared with the second
~~> majority influence/conformity can lead to social change through the operation of normative social influence (valid explanation)
—————-> COUNTERPOINT: not always the case
- Foxcroft et al (2015): reviewed 70 studies where the social norms approach found only a small reduction in student drinking quantity and no effect on drinking frequency
~~> NSI doesn’t always produce long-term social change; credibility of explanation reduced
STRENGTH: minority influence explains change
- Nemeth (2009): claims social change is due to the type of thinking minorities inspire
- deeper processing is broad (thinker actively searches for info and weighs up more options) => leads to better decisions and more creative solutions to social issues
~~> shows why dissenting minorities are valuable: they stimulate new ideas and open minds in a way a majority cannot
LIMITATION: role of deeper processing
- Mackie (1987) disagrees with effect of deeper processing; presents evidence that it’s majority influence that creates deeper processing if you do not share their views
- we like to believe that others share our views and thought processes
- when a majority thinks something different, we are forced to think long and hard about why that is
~~> central element of minority influence has been challenged, casting doubt on its validity as an explanation of social change
