Social Influence Flashcards
Key features of non-conformity
Independence- lack of consistent movement either towards or away from social expectancy. ‘doing our own thing.’
Anti-conformity- consistent movement away from social conformity like adopting the behaviour and norms of the minority.
Social support
1.When other people in social situations defy attempts to make them conform and obey, it becomes easier to resist.
2.The presence of others who dissent creates strong sources of defiance.
3.A dissenter- an example of social support because it represents another person who then makes it easier for other people to also dissent.
Resistance to SI
1.In Asch’s (1951) line judgement task, if the dissenter answered correctly from the start of the study, conformity levels dropped from 32% to 5.5%.
2.If the dissenter answered correctly later in the study, conformity levels dropped to 8.5%. This shows that social support received earlier is more effective than support received later.
Milgram
In Milgram’s study, when two confederates who were paired with real participants left, saying that they wouldn’t continue, only 10% of participants gave the maximum 450-volt shock.
So the creation of disobedient group norms puts more pressure on participants to conform.
Locus of control
1.Rotter (1966) designed a 13-part questionnaire to measure internal and external locus of control.
2.Scores range from 0 to 13.
3.A low score indicates an internal control.
4.A high score indicates external control.
Locus of control description
1.Locus of control (LoC) is the extent to which people think they’re in control of their own lives.
Spector 1983
1.Spector (1983) found that participants with high external LoC conformed more than those with low external LoC, but only in situations involving normative social pressure.
2.Neither group (high or low external LoC) conformed in situations of information social influence.
3.This shows that feeling like we don’t need to be accepted into a social group increases our ability to resist social influence.
Cultural differences
1.Moghaddam (1998) found that Japanese people conform more easily than Americans and also have a more external LoC.
2.This shows that cultural differences in conformity can be explained by differences in LoC.
LOC and obedience
1.Holland and Blass (1967, 1991) found that those with internal LoC were better at resisting obedience than those with an external LoC.
2.Those with higher internal LoC are more able to resist if they are forced or when they suspect manipulation.
3.These findings show that aspects of personal control in a situation play an important role in obedience
Authoritarian personality traits
- Tend to be especially obedient to authority
2.Respect to authority and submissivness
3.Inflexible in their outlook- there are no “grey areas”
4.Uncomfortable with the uncertainty
Authoritarian personality origin
1.Formed in childhood- harsh parenting, extreme discipline, severe criticism of failings
2.Conditional love- paren’t affection depends on the behaviour
The F scale
- Adorno et al
- To see the extend in which the person follows authoritarian principles
Factors of the F scale
- Fixed and conventional ideas of right and wrong
- Can’t deal with ambiguity- needs everything to be “black and white”
3.Willing to be bossed about by those with authority
The F scale evaluation
1.Inludes statements that the person with auth. personality would and would not agree with- to eliminate bias and increase internal validity by ensuring people don’t randomly guess
2. Issues: demand characteristics, leading questions, social desirability bias
Allen and Levine: Asch type replication
- Participants had no support(Asch type study)- 95% conformity
2.Participants had a supporter with normal vision who gave correct answers- 35% conformity - Participants had a supporter with very poor vision who were very think glasses and gave some incorrect answers(not the same as confederates)- 64% conformity
Role of social support- resistance still increases, even despite being supported by an unreliable source
Oliner and Oliner 1998 LOC
- Interviewed non-jewish survivors of the WW2
2.Compared those who had resisted orders and protected Jewish people in comparison with those who didn’t.
3.406 “rescuers” were likely to have high internal LOC
4.126 followed orders- high external LOC
High internal LoC causes people to:
- Actively seek information that may be useful to them, thus are less reliant on others
2.Be more achievement orientated and consequently wanting to be leaders
Be able to better resist coercion from others, especially under pressure
Minority influence definition
When individual or a small group of people influence a larger group to change their attitude or behaviour towards an issue
Moscovici 1969 procedure
- Participants were given an eye test to ensure they were not colour-blind
2.Placed in groups of 4 participants and 2 confederates
3.Shown 36 slides which were clearly different shades of blue
4.Asked to state each colour out loud
Moscovici 1969 Confederates conditions
- 2 confederates answered green for each of 36 slides, totally consistent (8.42% of participants were influenced)
2.Answered green 24 times and blue 12 times. Inconsistent answers(1.25% participants influenced)
A third (32%) said green at least once
Moscovici 1969 evaluation
- Shows that minorities can influence majority if they are consistent
- The participants don’t know each other(not emotionally included) and are doing an artificial task. Members of animal rights group operate in different setting, constraints, are more determined and often know each other
- Lacks mundane realism- unusual task and lab conditions
Social change step 1
- Drawing attention- minority must start by attracting majority’s attention, thus creating a cognitive conflict as their views differ from what they are hearing. The majority are motivated to reduce this cognitive conflict(protest/strike; leaflets for non-extreme)
Social change step 2
- Cognitive conflict- The minority creates conflict btw what majority groups currently believe and the position advocated by the minority. Doesn’t necessarily result in a move towards the minority, but means that the majority think deeply about the issues challenged( meetings, posters)
Social change step 3
1.Consistency- Arguments are more effective if they are consistent over time(Diachronic) and between people in the group( Synchronic)
Types of consistency
- Diachronic- over time
2.Synchronic- between the members of the group
Social change step 4
- Augmentation principle- if a minority appears willing to suffer for their views, they are seen as more committed so are taken seriously (Mandela’s imprisonment; suffragettes)
Social change step 5
The snowball effect- this means that more and more people adopt the minority view until a “tipping point”(10% of the majority) when wide-scale social change occurs
Cryptomnesia is
A view so widely accepted that people forget when or where it has originated
Why do minorities often stay minorities?
1.Not being committed enough and flexible(to reach augmentation principle) will reduce the minority’s influence and among 10% of the majority less likely to be influenced(snowball effect
2. If a group is deviant people are less likely to want to align with them
Nemeth 2010
- Claims that it is still difficult to convince people of the value of dissent.
2.People accept the principle only on the surface(they appear tolerant but quickly become irritated by a dissenting view that persists)
3.They may also fear criticism of lack of harmony within the group by welcoming dissent or made to fear repercussions( being ridiculed for being associated with a deviant point of view)
4.Thus, the majority point persist and minority influence suffers
Schultz et al 2007- boomerang effect
- Social norms are aimed at those with undesirable behaviour but those with desirable behaviour also receive the message
2.For those who already engage in the constructive behaviour a normative message may spur to increasing the aspects of their behaviour to be more in line with the norm - Boomerang effect- Social norms campaign may influence people who under consume electricity to consume more to be more in line with the norm
Internal LoC
1.Internal LoC is the belief that things happen as a result of our choices and decisions.
2.Individuals with an internal locus of control are less likely to conform than those with an external locus of control.
External LoC
1.External LoC is the belief that things happen because of luck, fate or other external forces beyond the control of the individual.
Compliance is:
To gain approval of the majority, the ideas are displayed publicly but doesn’t change underlying attitude
Internalisation is:
Going with the majority because agree with their views publicly and privately
Identification is:
Want to be associated with the group. Elements of compliance and internalisation- believing that something is right to fit in
Normative social influence is:
- Compliance
- Must believe that India. is under surveillance of a group- tend to take the majority position, but not internalise(Neil 1986)
- To fit in
Information social influence is:
- When evidence about reality is accepted
- If facts can not be checked/ambiguous situation- get influenced because not confident
- Not just compliance but internalisation
It is difficult to distinguish between compliance and internalisation because (AO3)
Top: there is difficulty in knowing when each is taking place
Point: If it is assumed that a person agrees with a majority yet disagrees with them in private must be demonstrating compliance and not internalisation. However, the acceptance of group view occurs in public and dissipates in private
Tail: Could be because the information is forgotten or new information is received. This demonstrates the difficulty in determining what is compliance and internalisation.
Research support for Normative influence (AO3)
Top: US research has supported the important role played by normative beliefs in shaping behaviours like smoking and energy conservation.
Point: Linkenbach and Perkins (2003) found that teenagers exposed the message that the majority of their peers didn’t smoke were less likely to take up smoking.
Schulz et al (2008)- hotel guests, exposed to message that 75% reused their towel every day reduced their own use by 25%
Tail: support the claim that people shape their behaviours out of desire to fit in with their reference group ad demonstrate power of normative influence
Research support for informational influence (AO3):
Top: exposure to other people’s beliefs can shape many aspects of social behaviours
Point: Wittenbrick and Henley (1996)- ppts posed to negative information about African Americans (which they were led to believe was the view of the majority) later reported more negative attitudes towards black individuals.
Fein et al (2007)- ppts saw what was supposedly the reaction of other ppts to the presidential debate
Tail: this information produced large shifts in candidate’s performance
Why normative influence may not be detected (AO3):
Top: Normative social influence may not be recognised as a causal factor in their own behaviour
Point: Nolan et al (2008)- when ppts were asked about the factors that influenced their energy conservation, people believed that the behaviour of neighbours had the least impact, but the studies show that it had the strongest impact.
Tail: suggests that people rely on beliefs about what should motivate their behaviour and so under-detect the impact of normative influence
Informational social influence is moderated by a task (AO3):
Top: Features of the task moderate the impact of majority influence. For some judgements there are clear physical criteria for validation, for some there is not
Point: deciding whether Bristol is the most highly-populated city can be determined through objective( physically) by using statistics, census records. Bit, determining wether Bristol is the most fun city can’t be done using the objective criteria as such criteria doesn’t exist- only social consensus
Tail: majorities should exert greater influence on issues of social rather than physical reality (Laughin 1999)
Asch (1956) procedure:
- 123 male US undergraduates
- seated around a table and asked to look at 3 lines of different length
- take turns in calling out which line matches the “standard” line
- naive participant always answering second to last
- on 12 of 18 trials the confederates gave the same incorrect answer
Asch (1956) findings:
- 12 critical trials= the conformity rate was 33%
- individual differences affect conformity
- one quarter never conformed
- half conformed on 6 or more trials
- 1 in 20 conformed in all trials
Majority still trusted their own perceptions privately but changed their public behaviour (compliance).
Variables affecting conformity (Asch)
- Group size: 3+= 30% more conformity. But more than this has no difference
- Unanimity of the majority: if given support of a confederate or a real ppts( even giving the wrong answer) conformity dropped from 33% to 5.5% or 9%(if incorrect answer given)
- Difficulty of the task: More ambiguous- more conformity
Lucas et al (2006)- if self-efficacy affects the influence of task difficulty. Thus, situational and individual factors are important
Asch’s research may be a “child of it’s time” AO3
Top: Asch’s findings are unique because the research took place in a particular period of US history when conformity was more important.
Point: In 1956, the US was in a strong anti-Communist period when people were scared to go against the majority and so more likely to conform.
Perrin and Spencer (1980) attempted to repeat Asch’s study in the UK. In their initial study they obtained only one conforming response out of 396 trials where a majority unanimously gave the same wrong answer.
But, in a study, where they used youths on probation as participants and probation officers as the confederates, they found similar levels of conformity to those found by Asch back in the 1950s.
Tail: This confirmed that conformity is more likely if the perceived costs of not conforming are high, which would have been the case during the McCarthy era in the US.
Asch: Problems with determining the effect of group size AO3
Top: Bond (2005)- a limitation of research in conformity is that studies have used only a limited range of majority sizes.
Point: Asch concluded that a majority size of three was a sufficient number for maximal influence and most subsequent studies using the Asch procedure have used three as the majority size. Bond states that no studies other than Asch have used a majority size greater than nine, and in other studies of conformity the range of majority sizes used is much narrower, typically between two and four.
Tail: Suggests that we know very little about the effect of larger majority sizes on conformity levels.
Asch Independent behaviour rather than conformity AO3
Top: In Asch’s study, only one-third of the trials where the majority unanimously gave the same wrong answer produced a conforming response.
Point: Thus, in two-thirds of these trials the participants resolutely stuck to their original judgement despite being faced with an overwhelming majority expressing a totally different view.
Tail: Asch believed that, rather than showing human beings to be overly conformist, his study had actually demonstrated a commendable tendency for participants to stick to what they believed to be the correct judgement, i.e. to show independent behaviour.
Asch Confederates may be unconvincing AO3
Top: it would have been difficult for confederates to act convincingly when giving the wrong answer, something that would pose serious problems for the validity of the study.
Point: Mori and Arai (2010) overcame the confederate problem by using a technique where participants wore glasses with special polarising filters. Three participants in each group wore identical glasses and a fourth wore a different set with a different filter. This meant that each participant viewed the same stimuli but one participant saw them differently, causing them to judge that a different (to the rest of the group) comparison line matched the standard line. For female participants specifically, the results closely matched those of the original Asch study.
Tail: This suggests that the confederates in the original study had acted convincingly, reinforcing the validity of Asch’s findings.
Asch Cultural differences AO3
Top: Cultural differences in conformity
Research suggests that there are important cultural differences in conformity, and we might therefore expect different results dependent on the culture in which a study takes place.
Point: Smith et al. (2006) analysed the results of Asch-type studies across a number of different cultures. The average conformity rate across the different cultures was 31.2%. The average conformity rate for individualist cultures (e.g. in Europe and the US) was 25%, for collectivist cultures in Africa, Asia and South America it was at 37%.
Tail: Markus and Kitayama (1991) suggest that the reason that a higher level of conformity arises in collectivist cultures is because it is viewed more favourably, a form of ‘social glue’ that binds communities together.
Jenness’ Bean Jar Experiment AO1
A study into conformity
Procedure: participants were asked to estimate how many beans they thought were in a jar. Each participant had to make an individual estimate, and then do the same as a group.
Findings: when the task was carried out in a social group, the participants would report estimates of roughly the same value (even though they had previously reported quite different estimates as individuals).
Use: The study was successful in showing majority influence, thus proving that individuals” behavior and beliefs can be influenced by a group.
Additionally, this is likely to be an example of informational social influence as participants would be uncertain about the actual number of beans in the jar.
Factors affcting conformity (group size)
Asch altered the number of confederates in his study to see how this effected conformity. The bigger the majority group (number of
confederates), the more people conformed, but only up to a certain point.
With one other person (i.e., confederate) in the group conformity was 3%, with two others it increased to 13%, and with three or more it was 32% (or 1/3). However, conformity did not increase much after the group size was about 4/5.
Because conformity does not seem to increase in groups larger than four, this is considered the optimal group size.
