social influence left side of the page

Question 1

types of conformity and explanations for conformity

Answer 1

Compliance

• individuals may go along with the group in order to gain approval or to avoid disapproval
• when exposed to the views or actions of the majority individuals may use social comparison so they can adjust there own actions to fit
• fitting in is desirable so it what drives conformity
• does not result in any change in the persons underlying attitude only the views and behaviours they express in public

internalisation

• individuals may go along with the group because of acceptance of their views
• when exposed to the views of other members of the group individuals are encouraged to engage in validation process examining their own beliefs to see if they or the others are right
• close examination of the group might cause the person to believe that they are wrong and the group is right
• lead to acceptance in public and privately

identification

• individual may accept influence because they want to be associated with another person or group
• by adopting the groups attitudes and behaviours they feel more of a part of it
• has elements of both compliance and internalisation as the individual accepts the attitudes and behaviours they are adopting as right and true - internalisation - but the purpose of adopting them is compliance

what are the two explanations of conformity

• normative
• informational

normative influence

• it Is possible to go along with the majority without accepting their point of view - this is compliance
• humans have a fundamental need for social companionship and a fear of censure and rejection - this forms the basis for normative social influence
• to gain approval and acceptance to avoid censure and disapproval or to achieve specific goals
• important condition for normative influence to occur is that the individual must believe that they are under surveillance from the group

informational influence

• individuals accepts information from others as evidence about reality
• human beings have the need to be right and confident there beliefs are right, if this is not possible then they must rely on the opinions of others
• more likely if situation is ambiguous or where others are experts
• individual does not comply in behaviour alone but alos changes the behaviour in line with the group position
• public and private attitudes change therefore this is an example of internalisation

Question 2

Variables affecting conformity

Answer 2

Asch
procedure
- 1956
- asked volunteers to take part in a visual discrimination task, but unknown to the volunteer all but one of the participants were confederates
- 123 US male undergraduate participants were tested.
- asked to look at 3 lines of different lengths
- took turns to call out the line that was the same length as a standard line with the real participant always answering second to last
- for 12 of the 18 trials the confederates were instructed to give the same incorrect answer
- Asch was interested to see if they would all give the same incorrect answer

findings

• on 12 critical trials the average conformity rate was 33%
• discovered individual differences in conformity rates - one quarter of the participants never conformed on any of the critical trials, half conformed of 6 or more of the critical trials and one in 20 conformed on all of the 12 trails
• to confirm that the lines were unambiguous he conducted a control condition without the distraction of the confederates - participants made mistakes about 1% of the time
• when Asch interviewed his participants afterwards he discovered that the majority of participants continued to privately trust there own views but changed there public behaviour to avoid disapproval from the group

variables that affect conformity

• Group size
• The unanimity of the majority
• The difficulty of the task

group size

• Asch found very little conformity when the majority was just 1 or 2 confederates
• however under the pressure of a majority of three confederates the proportion of conforming responses jumped up by 30%, when the majority was further increased the level of conformity did not increase
• size is influencing but only to a point
• Campbell and Fairey 1989 - suggested that the group size may have a different effect depending of the type of judgement being made and the motivation
• when there is no objectively correct answer the subject may want to fit in and be part of the majority
• but when there is a correct answer the individual is concerned about being correct so the views of others will be sufficient

unanimity of the majority

• in Asch’s original study the confederates unanimously gave the same wrong answer
• when the real participant was given the support of another real participant or confederate then the conformity rates drops from 33% to 5.5%
• if the confederate gave an answer that was different from the rest and the true answer then conformity rates dropped to 9%
• breaking the unanimity of the majority was the major factor in conformity reduction

difficulty of the task

• one variation made in differences between the line lengths much smaller so the task was more difficult
• under these circumstances the conformity increased
• Lucas et al 2006 - investigated this further and found that the influence on task difficult is moderated by the self efficiency of the individual
• when exposed to maths problems high self - efficacy participants who were confident in there own abilities were more independent than low self-efficacy participants even under conditions of high task difficulty
• shows situational differences and individual differences

Question 3

conformity to social roles

Answer 3

procedure of Haney et al
- Mock prison set up in the basement of the psychology department at standard university in California
- Male students were psychologically and physically screened, and 24 of the most stable of these were randomly assigned to play role of prisoner or guard
- Prisoners were unexpectedly arrested at home and then they were put through a delousing procedure and given uniform and ID number, the guards referred to them as there ID number
- Prisoners were allowed certain rights these were 3 meals and 3 supervised toilet trips a day and two visits per week
- Participants who were give the role of the guard was given uniforms, clubs, whistles and wore reflective sunglasses in order to remove eye contact
- Zimbardo took the role of prison superintendent
results
- Over the first few days the guards grew tyrannical and abusive towards the prisoners – woke prisoners up in the night and forced them to clean toilets with there bare hands as well as carry out other degrading activities
- Guards were so enthusiastic they volunteered to do extra hours without pay
- Pariticipants forgot that it was a psychological study and they were acting even when they were unaware that they were being watched they still acted in their roles
- When one prisoner had enough he asked for parole and not to leave the study
- Five prisoners were released early due to there extreme reactions which appeared only after two days
- The study was terminated after 6 days following the intervention of postgraduate student Cristiana Maslcach who reminded the researchers that this was a psychological study and this did not justify the abuse being meted out to the participants
- The study demonstrated that both gaurds and prisoners conformed to there social rules
- The guards became increasingly sadistic and prisoners became increasingly passive and accepting of their plight

reicher and Haslam procedure

• Randomly assigned men to the role of guard or prisoner and examined there behaviour within a specially created prison
• 15 male participants were divided into five groups of 3 people who were matched as possible on key personality variable and from each group of 3 one person was randomly assigned to be guard and other two prisoners it was supposed to run for 8 days

findings

• Participants did not conform automatically to there assigned role
• Prisoners increasingly worked as a group to challenge the authority of the guards and establish as more egalitarian set of social relations within the study
• Guards failed to identify with there role which made them reluctant to impose their authority on prisoners
• Lead to a shift of power and collapse f the prisoner – guard system

Question 4

situational variables affecting obedience

Answer 4

Milgram procedure

• 40 participants at a time over a series of conditions, each varying some aspect of the situation to calculate its effect on obedience
• told it was a study about how punishment effected learning
• two experimental confederates - an experimenter and a 47 year old male who was introduced as another volunteer participant
• the real participant was always the teacher and the confederate volunteer participant was the learner
• teacher tested the learner on his ability to remember word pairs, every word they got wrong the teacher had to administer an electric shock, this was increased every time more word pairs were wrong
• continued to 450 volts
• the learner gave fake shock reactions until 300 volts when he pounded on the wall and did or said nothing
• if the teacher wanted to stop - the experimenter told them that they had to continue by saying you have no other choice or it is absolutely essential that you continue

findings

• asked psychiatrists, college students and colleagues to predict how long participants would go on for before refusing to continue
• they predicted that very few would go beyond 150 volts and 1 in 1,000 would administer 450 volts
• however 26 of the 40 participants continued to the 450 volts despite shock generator being labelled danger serve shock at 420 and XXX at 450
• all participants went to 300 with only 5 stopping there, this is the point where the learner first objected

situational factors in obedience
proximity
location
power of the uniform

proximity

• in proximity study both the teacher and learner were seated in the same room
• obedience levels fell to 40% as the teacher was now able to experience the learners anguish
• in more extreme cases the teacher had to force the learners hand on a shock plate - touch proximity and obedience levels dropped to 30%
• when the experimenter left the room and gave instructions over the telephone obedience levels dropped with only 21% continuing to the maximum shock level
• some of the participants only gave the weak shock level and told the experimenter that they were following instructions

location

• studies conducted in psychology lab in Yale uni
• location of the study gave them confidence in the integrity of the people involved - would not have shocked the learner if they were somewhere else
• Milgram moved the study to run down office in Bridgeport when no obvious affiliations with Yale, and the rate of obedience dropped slightly but not significantly with 48% delivering 450 volts

power of the uniform

• research has shown that uniforms have a powerful effect on obedience as they are recognisable as authority
• Bushman 1988 - carried out a study where a female researcher dressed either as a police style uniform, business executive or beggar stopped people in the street and told them to give change to a male researcher for a expired parking meter
• in uniform 72% obeyed whereas obedience rates were much lower when she was dressed as a business executive 48% or as a beggar 52%
• when interviewed later people said that they obeyed the woman in uniform because she had authority

Question 5

agentic state and legitimacy of the authority

Answer 5

describe the agentic state

• the obedient individual likes to see themselves as not being responsible for their own actions instead they pass on responsibility to a figure of authority
• the process of shifting the responsibility of ones actions is called an agentic shift, this is when one moves from seeing themselves responsible for their actions and into an agentic state to where they see themselves carrying out another persons wishes
• shown by milgram

describe self image and the agentic state
one explanation of why people adopt an agentic state is the need to maintain a positive self image
- if the person sees themselves as responsible they will evaluate the consequences but once they move into the agentic state they no longer evaluate the consequneces as they are no longer responsible for the action
- they see this as being guilt free

describe binding factors and the agentic state
There are factors which keep them binded to the agentic state
- social etiquette - this is when the participant or person fears that if he breaks off he will appear arrogant and rude so binds them to obedience

what is legitimacy of authority
a person who is perceived to be in a position of social control within a situation

describe legitimacy of authority
- the first condition needed for a person to shift into the agentic state is the perception of a legitimate authority - this is a person perceived to be in a position of social control
Milgram
- he believed that the power of legitimate authority stems not from any personal characteristics but his or her perceived positon in a social situation

legitimacy of authority: definition of the situation

• although it is the participant himself who performs the action he allows the authority figure to define its meaning
• for example the suffering of the learner convinces the teacher that they should quit but the authority figure the experimenter orders hum to continue reassuring the participant that the learner is not hurt

legitimacy of authority requires an institution

• to be properly accepted they must occur in some kind of institution, but this does not have to be reputable or distinguished
• it is the category of institution rather than its

Question 6

what is the authoritarian personality

Answer 6

the authoritarian personality
this is a distinct personality pattern characterised by strict adherence to conventional values and a belief in absolute obedience or submission to authority

describe the F scale
this is an explanation to why some individuals require very little pressure in order to obey
F scale used by Adorno et al to measure the difficult components that make up the authoritarian personality
- F scale contained statements such as obedience and respect are the most important virtues that children should learn
- individuals with these type of personality were rigid thinkers who obeyed authority
- Adorono et al found that people who scored high had strict upbringings, there parents used physical punishment therefore assume there social situation is the norm,
- they learn and imitate

describe right wing authoritarian

• Robert Altemeyer refined the concept of the authoritarian personality by identifying the three of the original personality variable that he referred to as right wing authoritarianism
• Coventionalism - adherence to conventional norms and values
• authoritarian aggression - aggressive feelings toward people who violate these norms
• authoritarian submission - uncritical submission to legitimate authorities
• tested the relationship between RWA and obedience where they were asked to give each other increasing levels of shock when they made mistakes
• significant correlation between RWA and the shocks give themselves
• obedience was unquestionable

describe the procedure Elms and Milgrams

• did a follow up study using participants who had previously taken part in one of Milgrams experiments two months before
• selected 20 obedient participants and 20 defiant participants
• each participant completed a MMPI scale and the F scale to measure there level of authoritarianism
• participants were also asked a series of open ended questions including questions about there relationship with their parents during childhood and their attitudes to the experimenter

describes the findings of Elms and Milgrams

• Little difference between obedient and defiant participants on MMPI variables
• however higher levels of authroiariansim among participants classified as obedient compared with those who were defiant
• found other differences such as obedient were less close to there fathers during childhood and more likely to describe them in negative terms and found the experimenter more admirable and the learner less so

Question 7

resistance to social influence

Answer 7

social support and resisting obedience
disobedience can change the perception than it is difficult to take a stand against authority as the obedient behaviours of others make a harmful action appear acceptable
- if an individual has an ally to join them they are more likely to disobey than if they did not have an ally
- disobedient peers therefore act as role models
- individuals are able to use the defiance of peers as an opportunity to extricate themselves from causing harm to a victim
- milgram - one of variables was to shock the learner after seeing two others refuse to shock the learner, the participant refused to shock the learner and only 10% continued to the maximum 450v shock level

what is locus of control
this is when people differ in there beliefs about whether the outcomes of their actions are dependent on what they do or events outside there personal control

the nature of locus of control

• a strong internal locus of control is associated with the belief that we can control events in our lives, believe what happens to them is a consequence of their own ability and effort therefore they are more likely to have independence in thought and behaviour
• people with high external locus of control tend to believe what happens to them is to do with external factors they believe that things just happen to them and approach events with a more passive and fatalistic attitude than internals

internality and resistance to social influence

1. high internals are active seeks of useful information so are less likely to rely on opininons of others which make them less vulnerable to social influence
2. high internals - more achievement orientated and consequently more likely to become leaders
3. high internals are better able to resist coercion from others, for example in a prisoner of war camp situation internals were able to resist attempts of an interrogater - Hutchins and Estey

Question 8

minority influence

Answer 8

what is minority influence
this is a form of social influence where members of the majority group change their behaviours or beliefs as a result of their exposure to a persuasive minority

consistency

• when people are exposed to minority influence they assume that the minority is in error
• minority adopt a consistent view and the majority begin to look at why the minority takes that position
• Wood et al carried out a meta analysis study of 97 studies of minority influence and found that minorities who were perceived as being consistent were influential

commitment

• commitment is important in the influence process as it suggests certainty confidence and courage in the face of the majority
• joining the majority has a greater cost for the individual than staying with the majority
• the commitment shown by minority members is typically greater this persuades majority members to take them seriously

flexibility
Mugny - suggests that flexibility is more effective at changing majority opinion
- minorities are typically powerless so they must negotiate their position with the majority rather than trying to enforce it
- majority that is too flexible is seen as weak
- netiher is effective but some degree of flexibility is better than none

Moscovici et al procedure

• each group is compromised four native participants and a minority of two confederates
• shown a series of blue slide that only varied in intensity and were asked to judge the colour of each slide
• in the consistent condition two confederates repeatedly called the blue slides green
• in the inconsistent condition they called the blue slides green on 2/3 of the time
• in a control condition with no confederates they were called blue throughout

findings
- the consistent minority - influenced the naïve participants to say green on over 8% of the trials
- inconsistent minority exerted very little influence and did not differ from the control condition
- after the main study participants were asked to sort 16 coloured discs into either blue to green
- three of these discs were blue and three were green
the remaining ten discs could be considered either blue or green
- had to decide a threshold point where everything would be blue and everything would be green
- those in the consistent and inconsistent set thresholds at different points
- consistent condition judged them more green than those in inconsistent condition
- greater with those who hadn’t gone along with the minority showing that the initial influence was more at a private than public level

Question 9

social influence in social change

Answer 9

how does soical change occur through minority influence 
 drawing attention to an issue
- cognitive conflict
- consistency of position 
- the augmention principle 
- the snowball effect 

drawing attention to an issue

• minorities bring about social change by drawing the majorities attention to an issue
• if their views are different to those held by the majority this creates a conflict that the are motivated to reduce

cognitive conflict

• minority creates a conflict between what majority group members believe and the position advocated by the minority
• doest result in a move all the time but makes the majority think deeper about the issues

consistency of position

• more influential when they are consistent
• bring about social change when they express there arguments consistently over time

the augmentation principle

• if a minority is willing to suffer for their views they are seen as more committed and are taken more seriously
• suffragettes were willing to risk death and imprisonment therefore became more powerful

the snowball effect
- minority influence initially has a relatively small effect but this spreads more widely as more people consider the issues being more promoted until it reaches a tipping point which results in social change and acceptance by the majority

social change through

• this is when behaviour is based upon what other people than on their real beliefs as this means that they will do the norm
• the gap between the perceived and actual norm is reffered to as misperception

majority influence - conformity
social norms interventions
- social norms interventions start by identifying a widespread misperception relating to a specified risky behaviour within a target population
- for example, young adults drinking alcohol
- perception correlation can be used in media campaigns promotional material and though other routes, they communicate to the target population the actual norm concerning the particular behaviour

most of us dont drink and drive

• Montana USA campaign aimed at 21-34 year olds
• age group had been over-represented in alcohol related crashes but only 20.4% had drunk and driven in the previous month whereas 92% believed that the majority of the peers had done so
• ran an advert and found that those drinking and driving was reduced by 13.7% compared to countries that did not run the campaign