social influence Flashcards
social influence
the process by which our thoughts, feelings and behaviours are influenced by others
2 types: conformity and obedience
conformity
a change in a person’s behaviour/ opinions as a result of real or imagined pressures from a person/ group
obedience
a change in a person’s behaviour to comply with a demand issued by an authority figure
internalisation
- a deep type of conformity, where we take on the majority view because we accept it as correct
- leads to a far-reaching, permanent change in behaviour, even when group is absent
identification
- a moderate type of conformity where we act in the same way as the group because we value it and want to be a part of it
- we dont necessarily agree with everything the majority believes
–> a change in behaviour to do with what’s expected to fulfil a role
compliance
- a superficial type of conformity where we outwardly go along with the majority view, but privately disagree with it
- the change in behaviour only lasts as long as the group is present
ISI
an explanation of conformity where we agree with the majority because we believe it to be correct- we accept it because we want to be correct aswell
- leads to internalisation
ISI is a cognitive process as it is what you think
NSI
an explanation of conformity where we agree with the majority because we want to be accepted, gain social approval and be liked
going along with a group to fit in
- leads to compliance
where is ISI most likely to occur
- situations new to a person
- ambiguous situations
- crisis situations where decisions must be made quickly
- when one person is more of an expert
where is NSI most likely to occur
- situations with strangers where you feel concerned about rejection
- also when wanting to gain social approval of friends
evaluation of ISI
RESEARCH SUPPORT
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCEES
research support
LUCAS ET AL
- asked students to give answers to maths problems that were easy/difficult
- there is greater conformity to incorrect answers when they were difficult
- this is most true for students who rated their own ability as poor
this shows that people conform in situations where they don’t know the answer- as predicted by ISI
- we look to others and assume they know better so must be right
individual differences
PERRIN AND SPENCER
- conducted a similar study with science and engineering students
- there was very little conformity
- more sure of their ability to make accurate observations
evaluation of NSI
RESEARCH SUPPORT
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES
research support
ASCH
- many participants went along with a clearly wrong answer, just because others did
- some felt self conscious giving the correct answer as they were afraid of disapproval
- when Asch repeated his study, but with participants writing down their answers, conformity fell to 12.5%
–> this anonymity reduced the social pressure to conform
individual differences
McGHEE AND TEEVAN
- people who are less concerned with being liked are less affected
- people who care more = affiliators- have a greater need for a relationship with others: affiliation
- students high in need of affiliation were more likely to conform
- this shows that a desire to be liked underlies conformity for some more than others
–> so individual difference
ISI and NSI working together
- the idea of Deutsch and Gerrard’s ‘two process’ approach is that behavior is either due to ISI/NSI
but more often, both processes are involved
e.g. conformity = reduced when there is one dissenting participant in the ASCH experiment
- the dissenter may reduce the power of NSI: provides social support
- they may reduce the power of ISI: alternative source of information
- lab studies may lack ecological validity as irl these processes occur at once
real life application of ISI/NSI
SCHULZ ET AL
- changed behaviour of hotel guests by using printed messages encouraging them to save energy
- the messages that suggested other guests were using fewer bath towels were most successful
research into conformity
ASCH -
NSI- conformity on an unambiguous task
+ evaluation
- lab experiment- independent group design
- groups of 8 judging line lengths by comparing to standard line
- real participant went last (but one)
- 18 trials- 12 critical , where confederates gave same wrong answer
- control group- participants judged in isolation
- in control: wrong 0.7% so easy to get right
- in critical- conformed 37%
- 75% conformed at least once
afterwards, participants said they conformed as to not appear different.
evaluation
- lab experiment: control, internal validity, low mundane realism
–> didn’t really matter to participants- no real-life consequences
SITUATIONAL FACTORS- due to social situation
- group size: 2 confederates- 14%, 3 confederates- 32%
- unanimity/social support: having a dissenter breaks unanimity- makes it easier to resist pressures to conform- 5.5%
- task difficulty- increases conformity as more unsure
- answers in private: decreases due to no social pressure
DISPOSITIONAL FACTORS- due to characteristics
- gender norms
- expertise
research into conformity
SHERIF-
ISI- conformity on an unambiguous task
+ evaluation
- lab experiment- repeated measures design
- used a visual illusion called the autokinetic effect
–> stationary spot of light in a dark room appears to move - participants had to estimate how far it had moved
1. individual estimate
2. groups of 3- others present
3. re-tested individually - when they were alone- participants developed own stable estimates
- when in group, estimates converged
- re-tested, estimates more like group estimates
- participants were influenced by estimates of other people
influenced by ISI as they were unsure of the answer
evaluation
- lab experiment: control of variables, cause+ effect, repeatable
- repeated measures: minimised participant variables, low mundane realism, low ecological validity
- ethics: deception/ embarassment
social roles- the behaviour society expects from you
ZIMBARDO
conformity to social roles
stanford prison experiment
+ evaluation
- male students- volunteer sample to act as prisoners/ guards
- random allocation
- falsely told guards they had been chosen
- prisoners arrested and taken to prison
- guards given uniform and mirrored glasses
- prisoners given clothes and assigned numbers- stripped of individuality
- Zimbardo himself played a role
- initially, guards tried to assert their authority and prisoners resisted by sticking together
- the prisoners became more passive and obedient as guards became stricter and harsher
- the experiment was abandoned after 5 days
prisoners became severely distressed - guards and prisoners adapted to their social roles quickly
–> our social role means we conform to a certain behaviour
evaluation
- controlled observation- high control of variables
- artificial environment- results cannot be generalised
- ethics- right to withdraw, protection from harm, deception
- zimbardo became too involved
- participants were paid –> incentive of financial gain increase conformity?
obedience
MILGRAM
obedience to authority
+ evaluation
- conducted many lab experiments to test factors affecting obedience
test whether people would obey orders to shock someone - took place at Yale university with 40 male volunteers
–> told they were being tested on ‘learning and memory.’ - experimenter wore grey lab coat
- confederate and participant drew (rigged) lots to determine ‘teacher’ and ‘learner’- ppt teacher
- ppt witnessed confederate strapped to chair and connected to shock generator in next room
- switches from 15V ‘slight shock’ to 450 V ‘XXX’
- participant taught learner word pairs over intercom
- when answered incorrectly, shock level increased
- after 300V, learner banged on wall then gave no further response
- if ppt hesitated: 4 prompts
1. please continue
2. the experiment requires that you continue
3. it is absolutely essential that you continue
4. you have no other choice you must go on - 65% administered 450V
- 100% at least 300V
- most will obey orders, even if it goes against their conscience
evaluation
- controlled variables- only manipulated 1 at a time
- high internal validity , cause+effect
- low ecological validity
- possible demand characteristics
many worked out procedure was faked, unrealistic when experimenter ‘called away’ and replaced by ‘member of public’ obedience –> 20%
- ethics: deception of true nature of study, right to withdraw, protection from harm
- However, extensively debriefed, 84% pleased to have taken part
- good external validity
SUPPORTING RESEARCH
HOFLING ET AL
- obedience of nurses to unjustified demands was high, 21/22
BICKMAN
- 3 confederates dressed as a milkman, office worker, and security guard- asked passers by to perform tasks
- tested the effect of uniform as a situational factor on obedience
–> more likely to obey guard
authoritarian personality
ADORNO ET AL
+ evaluation
- causes of the obedient personalty
- over 2000 white middle class American men and their unconscious attitudes towards racial groups
- developed F scale- questionnaire
e.g. ‘obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtues children should learn.’ - people with authoritarian leadings identified with ‘strong’ people and were contemptuous of the weak
- very conscious of their own and other’s status and presence
- fixed and distinctive stereotypes about groups
evaluation
- limited explanation
any explanation of obedience in terms of individual personality will find it hard to explain the majority of a pop.
- political bias
both left and right wing ideology emphasise the importance of complete obedience to political authority
- methodological problems
each question = worded in same ‘direction,’ so people who score highly may just be acquiescers
- only can see a correlation between two measured variables
resistance to social influence
ALLEN AND LEVINE
GAMSON ET AL
HOLLAND
TWENGE ET AL
*ALLEN AND LEVINE
- used same experiment as Asch
apart from there being a confederate wearing thick glasses + dissenting
- even though they had no ability to judge line lengths, the presence of a dissenting participant allowed the true participant to use their free will
–> presence of dissenter decreases pressure to conform
*GAMSON ET AL
- volunteer sample of participants to attend group discussion
- in groups of 9 + told they were conducting research for an oil company taking legal action against a manager of a petrol station
- a group discussion filmed about their views
- halfway through, cameraman ordered the participants to argue in favour of the firing so their opinions didn’t matter
32/33 groups rebelled
- in 25 groups, the majority of members refused to sign consent form
- 9 groups threatened for legal action
- people rise up against an unjust authority when they have social support
*HOLLAND
link between LOC + resistance to obedience
- holland repeated milgram’s baseline study + measured whether participants had internal/ external loc
- 37% internals did not continue to highest shock level
- 23% externals did not continue
—–> internals showed greater resistance to authority
*TWENGE ET AL- contradictory research
- analysed data from American obedience studies over 40-yr period
- over this time span, people have become more resistant to obedience but more external
–> could be due to changing society
factors affecting conformity
- related to Asch
SITUATIONAL FACTORS- due to social situation
- group size: 2 confederates- 14%, 3 confederates- 32%
- unanimity/social support: having a dissenter breaks unanimity- makes it easier to resist pressures to conform- 5.5%
- task difficulty- increases conformity as more unsure
- answers in private: decreases due to no social pressure
- status of majority group: if regarded as having more knowledge, more influential
DISPOSITIONAL FACTORS- due to characteristics
- gender norms- women = more concerned w/ group harmony, whilst asserting dominance + independence = male trait
- expertise- when Asch debriefed, common factor of confidence in non-conforming
—> if someone felt comfortable in their judgement, they could more easily resist group pressure + PERRIN + SPENCER
research into minority influence
MOSCOVICI ET AL
- the green/blue slides
- evaluation
- group of 6 people asked to view set of 36 blue-coloured slides, that varied in intensity
–> state whether slides were blue/green - 2 confederates - consistently said slides were green on 2/3 trials
- the ppts gave the same wrong answer on 8% of the trials
- 32% conformed at least once
* - a 2nd group exposed to inconsistent minority
—> agreement fell to 1%
*
3rd control group - no confederates
—> wrong answer only 0.25%
conclusion
minorities can influence majorities
–> much more influential when minority = consistent
evaluation
- artificial tasks- low mundane realism
- low external validity
- high control of variables - cause + effect, repeatable
situational factors that affect obedience
- based on Milgram’s study
- social support
- proximity
- legitimacy of authority
*presence of allies- social support
–> when there were 3 teachers (1 ppt and 2 confederates) the real ppt was less likely to obey if the other 2 refused
- having allies makes it easier to resist orders
*proximity of victim
- in standard condition, 65% gave max shock
40% when in same room, 30% when had to put learners hand on shock plate
- proximity made learner’s suffering harder to ignore
*proximity of authority
- when the authority figure gave prompts by phone from another room, obedience dropped to 23%
–> orders = easier to resist when authority figure isn’t close
*location of experiment
- when ppt told study was being run by a private company, and was moved to a set of run-down offices in a nearby town, obedience fell to 48%
—> when his association with the prestigious Yale university was removed, the authority of the experimenter seemed less legitimate, so the ppt was more likely to question it
*uniform
- in the baseline study, the experimenter wore a grey lab coat as a symbol of his authority (a uniform)
- Milgram carried out a variation where the experimenter was called away because of an inconvenient telephone call at the start of the procedure
- an ‘ordinary member of the public’ played by a confederate in everyday clothes, took over
- obedience rates fell to 20%, the LOWEST of the conditions
social identity theory as an explanation for obedience
- the key to obedience lies in group identification
- In Milgram’s study, the participants identified with the experimenter- the science of the experiment
- when obedience levels fell, this was because participants identified less with the science and more with the victim/ other group
HASLAM AND REICHER
- analysed the behaviour of participants in Milgram’s study
- looked at how a person behaved every time one of the 4 prods was used
- 1st 3 dont demand obedience, they appeal for help with the science
- 4th prod demands obedience
——-> every time 4th prod used, ppt quit
the ‘obedience alibi’ criticism
milgram’s findings from his variations support a situational explanation of obedience
i.e. proximity, location, uniform, allies
however Mandel has criticised this as an ‘alibi for evil behaviour,’
why people obey authority- Milgram’s agency theory
+ binding factors
- when people behave on behalf of an external authority, they’re in an AGENTIC STATE
–> they act as someone’s agent, rather than taking personal responsiblity for their actions - this is the opposite to behaving AUTONOMOUSLY- not following orders
- when we are someone’s agent, we feel less responsible for our actions
- this effect is seen in Milgram’s studies
some ppts were concerned for the welfare of the learner and asked who would take responsibility if they were harmed
—> when the authority took responsibility, often the ppt would continue - this agentic state was also encouraged by the experiment’s set up
–> the ppts voluntarily entered into a social contract (obligation) with the experimenter to take part and follow the procedure of the study
autonomous –> obedient = agentic shift , entered agentic state
*
Milgram claimed that there were some binding factors that might have kept his ppts in the agentic state
BINDING FACTORS: aspects of the situation that allow the person to ignore or minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour and therefore reduce the ‘moral strain’ they’re feeling, when they want to leave but seem unable to do so.
- reluctance to disrupt the experiment: ppt had already been paid, so may have felt obliged to continue
- the pressure of the surroundings- the experiment took place in a prestigious university, this made the experimenter seem like a legitimate authority
- the insistence of the authority figure- if ppts hesitated, they were told they had to continue the experiment
Milgram proposed a number of strategies that the individual uses, such as blaming the victim and shifting the responsibility onto them, or denying the damage they were doing to the victims
evaluation of agency theory
- lots of experimental evidence, Milgram’s variations
- milgram’s ppts often claimed they would not have gone as far by themselves, they were just following orders
- sometimes people resist authority: may be due to situation/ individual differences
- agency theory does not explain why some are more likely to exhibit independent behaviour more than others
i.e. 1/3 of Milgram’s ppts disobeyed
legitimacy of authority
+
Bickman
- we are socialised to recognise the authority of people e.g. parents, doctors, police officers
- they are legitimate authorities- we obey them as they have the right to tell us what to do
- legitimate authority comes from having a defined social role which people respect
- when Milgram re-ran his study in run-down offices, obedience rates were lower than when the study was ran in Yale
—> authority figure was more legitimate in Yale due to its status - In another variation, the experimenter was ‘called away’ for an important phone call at the start of the experiment
–> they were replaced by a ‘random member of the public’ in ordinary clothes
—> obedience rates fell to 20%, lowest
Bickman
- field experiment
- researchers ordered passers-by to do smth
- dressed either as a guard, milkman, businessman
- people were much more likely to obey guard
—> most legitimate authority figure
dispositional explanation definition
explanation of behaviour that highlights the importance of the individual’s personality
the authoritarian personality
- adorno’s aim
- procedure
- characteristics
- origin
authoritarian personality: a type of personalty that Adorno argued was especially susceptible to obeying people in authority. such individuals were thought to be submissive of those of higher status and dismissive of inferiors
- Adorno wanted to explain how Nazis were able to gain such a following in WWII germany
- he suggested that, rather than being due to external situational factors, the personality type of the individual was responsible for obedience
- e.g. not all of Milgram’s ppts fully obeyed, some actively rebelled, despite them experiencing identical situations and social pressures
- developed F-scale
—> 2000 white middle class american men
*AUTHORITARIAN CHARACTERISTICS
- especially obedient to authority
- extreme respect for authority and submissiveness to it
- show contempt for ‘inferior’
- highly controversial views about sex, race, gender
- think we need powerful leaders to enforce traditional values
- inflexible in their outlook- uncomfortable w uncertainty
*ORIGIN OF THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
- formed in childhood as a result of harsh parenting
- extremely strict dicipline, expectation of absolute loyalty, high standards, severe criticism of severe failings
- CONDITIONAL LOVE: love depends on how they behave
- adorno argued that these experiences create resentment and hostility in the child, that they cannot express to their parents due to a fear of reprisals
- so fears = displaced directly onto others who = percieved as weaker
–> scapegoating
- explains a central trait of obedience to higher authority, dislike for the socially inferior
resistance to social influence
the ability of people to withstand the social pressure to conform to the majority/ obey authority.
the ability to withstand social pressure = influenced by both situational + dispositional factors
social support
the presence of people who resist pressures to conform/ obey can help others do the same
these people act as models to show that resistance to SI is possible
locus of control
the sense we have about what directs events in our lives
internals: believe they are mostly responsible
externals: believe it is mainly a matter of luck or other outside forces
social support
- in conformity
- in obedience
CONFORMITY
- the pressure to conform can be reduced if there are other people present who are not conforming
- as seen in Asch’s research, the person conforming does not have to be giving the ‘right’ answer, but simply the fact that someone else is not following the majority appears to enable a person to be free to follow their own conscience!!
this other person acts as a ‘model’
OBEDIENCE
- the pressure to obey can be reduced when another person is disobeying
- in one of Milgram’s variations, the rate of obedience dropped from 65% to 10% when the genuine participant was joined by a disobedient confederate
the ppt may not follow the disobedient person’s behaviour, but the point is the other person’s disobedience acts as a ‘model’ for the ppt to copy, that frees them to act from their own conscience
why do people resist conformity
ASCH
- ISI/ NSI decrease- expertise/ internal LOC
- easy tasks
- dissenters- social support (ALLEN + LEVINE)
- gender
why do people defy authority
- internal LOC
–> they are responsible so act according to own values + resist authority
–> Holland analysis of Milgram - influence of disobedient role models - social support
–> gives ppts free will to make own decisions
–> gamson et al - lack of legitimacy of authority
–> uniform/ location
–> Milgram’s variations
locus of control
+ evaluation
internals: things that happen to them = largely controlled by themselves
externals: things happen without their own control
continuum
- people differ in the way they explain their successes and failures- is not just internal or external
–> there is a continuum
*resistance to SI
- people who have a high internal LOC are more likely to be able to resist pressures to conform/ obey
- if a person takes personal responsibility for their actions and experiences, they are more likely to base their decisions on their own beliefs and thus resist pressures from others
- people with a high internal LOC tend to be more self-confident, more achievement-oriented, have higher intelligence, have less need for social approval —> so greater resistance to SI
EVALUATION
*research support
Holland
- repeated Milgram’s baseline study, measured whether ppts were internals/ externals
- 37% internals did not continue to highest shock level
- 23% of externals did not continue
–> so internals showed greater resistance
- this increases the validity of the LOC explanation
*contradictory research
Twenge et al
- analysed data from American obedience studies over 40 years
–> people have become more resistant to obedience, but more external
–> challenges link between internal LOC and increasing resistant behaviour
–> however could be due to a changing society where many things are out of personal control
limited role of LOC
- LOC only comes into play in novel situaitons
- has very little influence over our behaviour in familiar situations. where our previous experience = more important
- so people who have conformed/obeyed in one situation will do so again, even if they have internal LOC
minority influence definition
Moscovici was the first to identify the process of minority influence as a contrast to majority influence. he introduced the idea of minority influence to explain innovation- a new way of doing things
minority influence: a form of social influence in which a minority of people persuade others to adopt their beliefs, attitudes or behaviours
– leads to internalisation or conversion, in which private attitudes are changed as well as public behaviours
the main processes in minority influence
CONSISTENCY
- most effective if minority keeps same beliefs, over time and between all individuals that form the minority
- effective because it draws attention to the minority and makes people start to rethink their own views
synchronic: all saying the same thing
dichronic: been saying the same thing for a long time
COMMITMENT
- more powerful if the minority demonstrates dedication to their position e.g. by making personal sacrifices or engaging in extreme activities
- effective as it shows the minority is not acting out of self interest
- majority group pays even more attention- AUGMENTATION PRINCIPLE
FLEXIBILITY
- relentless consistency could be counter-productive if its is unbending/ unreasonable
- so minority influence = more effective if the accept the possibility of compromise
- accept counter arguments
- balance consistency and flexibility
conditions for social change
the process of change in minority influence
+
evaluation
CONDITIONS
1. drawing attention to an issue which opposes the majority view
2. the role of conflict: if we cannot immediately dismiss it, we examine it more deeply
3. consistency: expressing views with each other + over time so are taken more seriously
4. the augmentation principle- some risk associated with putting forward the point of view so it is taken more seriously
5. the snowball effect- the effect of minority influence is relatively small, but grows and eventually leads to widespread change
consistency, commitment, flexibility –> make people think
- if you hear something new, you stop and think, especially if the source = consistent and passionate
it is this DEEPER PROCESSING which is important in the process of conversion to a minority viewpoint
over time, increasing numbers of people switch to minority viewpoint
- they have become ‘converted,’
- the more this happens, the faster the rate of conversion
- this is the SNOWBALL EFFECT
- results in CRYPTOAMNESIA
- gradually the minority view –> majority + social change has occured
EVALUATION
- research support for consistency
- Moscovici showed that a consistent minority was most influential
- WOOD ET AL- carried out a meta analysis of almost 100 similar studies and found that minorities who were seen as consistent were most influential
–> suggests consistency = major factor in minority influence - research support for depth of thought
- change to minority position does involve deeper processing of ideas
MARTIN ET AL - gave ppts a message supporting a particular viewpoint + measured their support
- one group heard minority group agree
- one group heard this from a majority group
- were then exposed to a conflicting view, attitudes measured again
- people were less willing to change their opinions of they had listened to a minority group compared to majority group
- suggests that minority view has been more DEEPLY PROCESSED and had a more ENDURING EFFECT
- artificial tasks
- tasks involved e.g. identifying slide colours = artificial
- low mundane realism
- research = therefore far removed from how minorities attempt to change the behaviour of majorities in real life
- the findings of Moscovici’s study therefore lacks external validity and so limits what can be proven about how minority influence works in real life situations
*research support for internalisation
- in a variation of Moscovici’s study, ppts were allowed to write down their answers, so their responses were private, rather than stated out loud.
- it appears that members of the majority were being convinced by the minority’s argument and changing their own views, but were reluctant to admit this publicly
- probably because they did not want to be associated with a minority position, for fear of being considered ‘radical’ or ‘awkward.’
*limits real world application
- research studies usually make an obvious distinction between majority/ minority
- being able to do so in such a controlled way = a strength
- but real life SI situations = much more complicated than this
– e.g. majorities usually have much more power + status
cryptoamnesia
the process of minority attitudes, behaviours and beliefs becoming the majority
- the new belief takes form without a conscious understanding of where it came from or the process involved
- stages involve initial conversion of a small number of people
- as more people change their attitude, change quickens
—> SNOWBALL EFFECT
explain how social influence processes contribute to social change
- minorities: consistency, commitment, flexibility
–> deeper processing
–> augmentation principle/ snowball effect/ cryptoamnesia - influences on obedience
-> changes in laws to make behaviours more social ‘norms’ - snowball - minority –> majority –> conformity by ISI/ NSI
–> fear of punishment if not obeying
what are the implications for social change on research into social influence
- SI research has suggested that it is minorities and independent behaviour that brings about social change
[CONFORMITY] maintains status quo
e.g. a minority can challenge the beliefs and values of majority, causing deeper processing –> rethinking beliefs
–> this can be slow ——–> cryptoamnesia
- important figures in history- individuals can bring about social change
–> applicable to media
describe how SI research has contributed to our understanding of social change
social change occurs when individuals or small groups change the way the majority thinks and acts
- moscovici et al
- historically - suffragettes
explain how minority influence leads to social change
factors affecting: consistency/ commitment/ flexibility
social change occurs when minority view challenges majority view
—> eventually accepted as majority
NSI may play a part as, as views change, people dont want to be left behind
changes to laws increase obedience – new views become social nor,
