Social Influence P3

Question 1

Conformity

Answer 1

A change in a persons behaviour or opinions as a result of real or imagined pressure from a person or group of people.

Question 2

Types of conformity (3) Kelman

Answer 2

1) Compliance-> Change public behaviour but not private beliefs. Very short-term change; as long as majority group is monitoring us.(Shallowest/superficial type of conformity)
= EG Your friendship group may bully people, so you do to, but inside you feel terrible for going along with it.

2) Identification-> Changes, public behaviour and private beliefs, but only whilst in the presence of the group. A short-term change. (Middle level/moderate type of conformity).
= EG Thinking a top you buy a cute one with your friends, but when you get home you hate it.
EG Or believing veganism around a vegan friend, but when you’re home alone you my ETA chicken wrap.
EG Or when around your old friends who start believing your new friends are boring, and mean, but when not in the presence of the old friends, you like your new friends.

3) Internalisation-> Changes public behaviour and private beliefs. A long-term change, even when not in the presence of the majority group, it becomes apart of your belief system. (Deepest type of conformity) .
= EG You love skinny jeans, but end up liking baggy because everyone else does. At first you still privately like skinny jeans, but after a while you internalised belief and buy more baggy jeans. At the end, you question why are you even liked skinny jeans in the first place.

Question 3

Explanations for conformity (2)

Answer 3

1) Informational social influence -> When we agree with the majority opinion, because we believe it is correct. We accept it because we want to be correct as well and out our own judgements. This may lead to internalisation.

2) Normative social influence -> When we agree with the majority opinion, because we want to be liked, to fit in, and gain social approval. This may lead to compliance.

Question 4

Asch’s line study (baseline procedure+ findings)

Answer 4

Aim -> To investigate the extent, people would conform to the opinion of others, even in a situation where the answer is unambiguous and certain.

Procedure:
-123 male Americans
- Placed in a room with the Confederates (groups of 6-8)
- Shown a line, which was compared to 3 other lines of varying length, then asked to match the shown line with one of the other lines (clearly correct/wrong)
- Each trial, the participants were asked to say out loud that answers.
-All Confederates gave incorrect answer to see if the real participant(naive p) would conform

Findings :
- Conformity of participants was 36.8% of the time(1/3)
- 25% never conformed
-75% conformed at least once

Question 5

What were the 3 variables investigated by Asch?

Answer 5

1) Group size -> Varies the number of Confederates from 2 to 15
= Found a curvilinear Relationship between group size and conformity (Conformity increased with group size, but only to a certain point ).
1 person -> 0%
2 ppl -> 13%
3 ppl -> 31.8% When more people added, it made little difference and eventually levelled off.
Therefore, Most people are sensitive to the views of others as just one or two Confederates was enough to sway opinion.

2) Unanimity ( The presence of a non-conformer)
Introduced a Confederate, who gave the correct answer, finding that the naive, participant, conformed less often(dropped to 5.5% when correct answer, 9% when incorrect) .
= Therefore, the presence of dissenter freeze the real participant to behave more independently and The influence of the majority view, depends to a large extent on it being unanimous, and that nonconformity increases when cracks are perceived in the majority’s unanimous view.

3) Task difficulty
When lines were made more similar, it led to a increase in conformity
= Therefore, natural to look to other people for guidance and to assume they are right/you are wrong (led to the idea of informational social influence)

Question 6

Zimbardo: Stanford Prison Experiment (procedure)

Answer 6

-21 Male student volunteers, who were emotionally stable placed in a mock prison.
- meant to last 2 weeks but lasted 6days due to psychological impact on volunteers.
-Wanted to see if a persons role could influence their behaviour.

-randomly allocated to be a guard or a prisoner…
Guards:
= Uniform consisted of a wooden club, handcuffs and mirror shades. They were constantly reminded they had complete control of the prisoners.
Prisoners :
= The uniform consisted of a loose smoke and a cap, which covered the hair, identified via numbers/no names. Asked to identify with the role via asking to ‘apply for parole, rather than asking to leave the study early.
- The use of the uniform created a loss of identity-known as the deindividuation, which increased the conformity of their roles.

Question 7

Zimbardo: Stanford Prison Experiment (findings)

Answer 7

Guards:
- Treated participants harshly
- Retaliated to rebellion with fire extinguishers
- ‘Divide and rule’ tactics to play prisoners against each other
- Frequent headcounts
- Forced prisoner, who went on hunger, strike into ‘the hole’ (tiny dark closet)
= Identified more and more with their social role with their behaviour, getting more brutal and aggressive

Prisoners:
- Rebelled within two days, ripping uniforms off and swearing at the guards
- After the rebellion, they became depressed and anxious
-One released due to Psychological disturbance
-Two released on day four
- One went on a hunger strike

Conc:
Social roles appear to have a strong influence on all individuals behaviour. For example, the guards became more brutal, and the prisoners became more submissive.

Even volunteers, who came in to perform specific functions farm, self behaving, as if in a prison rather than study.

Question 8

Abu Ghraib (support for Zimbardo)

Answer 8

=An Iraqi detainee prison for Iraq terrorists run by US soldiers.
- 70 to 90% were innocent
- Under social roles, the US soldiers stripped them naked, electrocuted them, sexually abused them, beat them, and psychologically tortured them.
- ordinary ppl do bad things (like SPE)

= The same social psychological processes–deindividualization, anonymity of place, dehumanization, role-playing and social modeling, moral disengagement and group conformity
= Lack of training, unrelenting boredom and no accountability to higher authority were present in both Abu Ghraib and SPE. So, in both situations, the participants conforming to the role of the guards led to to prisoner abuses in both situations.

Question 9

Evaluations of Asch’s study

Answer 9

CONS
1) Artificial -> lab study about bars so unlike real life, lacks eco validity
2) Ungerneralisable to other cultures and women -> Smith et al found that 25% conformity rates for individualistic cultures compared to 37% conformity rates for collectivist cultures. Therefore, some cultures may see conformity as more/less beneficial so the findings may not tell us about the conformity within societies with different cultural norms.
3) Lacks temporal validity -> 1950’s Therefore, Asch’s findings may just be a product of where and when it took place, meaning it may be unlikely to replicate the high levels of conformity seen in Asch’s original research.
4) Beta bias

PROS
1) Real life application
= Explains why delinquent behaviour may occur in teenagers, i.e. via conformity. Therefore, we can use as a study to prevent teen criminals. (Normative and informational conformity)
2) Scientific
= Lab study, prevents extraneous variable and high replicability(due to replication with 3 diff variables)
3) Perrin + Spencer
= Carried out a replication of the study findings hat only 1/396 trials did an observer join the erroneous majority. Therefore, Asch’s findings have high replicability.

Question 10

social roles def

Answer 10

The parts people play as members of various groups (e.g a parent, child, student etc). This is accompanied by expectorations we and others have of what is appropriate behaviour in each role.

Question 11

Milgram’s Shock Experiment (procedure)

Answer 11

Aim-> To investigate whether ordinary Americans would obey and unjust order from a person in authority to inflict pain on another individual.

Hypothesis-> Less than 3% would continue to 450v.

Sample -> 40 American Males aged 20-50. Paid €4.50 , told they were examining the role of punishment in learning. Conducted at Yale University.

Procedure:
-Teacher = participant, Learner = confederate (Mr Wallace).
-Learner was tasked to memorise pairs of worsts whilst strapped into a chair with electrode attached to arms. Indicated answer using lights.
- Teacher had a shock generator which started at 15-450V that they administered when an incorrect answer was given.

-Refusal of shocks administration ->given 4 prods to encourage obedience like “please continue” by experimenter in lab coat.
-No actual shock given though, continued till 450V or refusal.
-Debriefed and taken to meet learner.

Question 12

Milgram’s Shock Experiment (findings)

Answer 12

• 100% went to at least 300V
• 12.5% stopped at 300v
• 65% went to 450v
• majority found the procedure stressful and wanted to stop (even showing signs of anxiety, 3 even suffered seizures).

Conclusion:
1- Certain situational circumstances can make ppl more likely to show obedience to authority (agentic state)
2- Ppl can potentially lost their ability to sympathise, show compassion and morality when occupying a subordinate position within a dominant hierarchy, resulting in blind obedience even if the order goes against their conscience/morals.

Question 13

Zimbardo evaluations (cons)

Answer 13

Cons:
1) ethical issues
= No right to withdraw, deceived of details about the study, psychological harm. Many became emotionally distressed, demonstrating anxiety and depression.
2) methodology
= Demand characteristics

Question 14

Milgrams situational variables affecting obedience (proximity)

Answer 14

Refers to the ‘closeness” of the participants of the outcomes of the actions (eg pain experienced by ppts) OR the ‘closeness’ of ppts to the authority figure

Found…
-> teacher + learner in same room = obedience dropped to 40%
-> teacher forcing learners hand onto the ‘electroshock plate’ if an incorrect answer was given, obedience dropped to 30%
-> experimenter gave instructions by telephone, obedience dropped to 20.5%

THEREFORE
a) When we feel closer to the consequences of our negative actions we are less likely to obey malevolent requests as we feel more responsible (autonomous state)
b) closer proximity to authority figure results in increased obedience as we see them as more legitimate and having the ability to punish us if we disobey (negative reinforcement)

Question 15

Milgrams situational variables affecting obedience (location)

Answer 15

= Location of study can affect the perceptions of legitimacy (Yale uni vs down town office)

Found…
-> when conducting study in run down office, obedience fell to 47.5%

Therefore, perceived as less legitimate compared to Yale because ppts were more likely to question the credentials of the experimenter and because they believe they couldn’t impose sanctions.

Question 16

Milgrams situational variables affecting obedience (uniform)

Answer 16

= An authority figures appearance could influence the perceived legitimacy of their authority.
(grey lab coat ve casual clothes)

Found…
-> with casual clothes, obedience fell to 20%

Therefore, uniform increases the authority figures legitimacy of authority as the ppts assume by their uniform that they have a higher social status and more credentials.
^BICKMAN SUPPORTS THIS

Question 17

Milgram evaluations

Answer 17

Cons:
1) ethical issues
= Deception so could not give informed consent, issues with right to withdraw due to prompts, experienced psychological harm (3 suffered seizures, distress and anxiety caused)

2) Dispositional exp> situational
= Authoritarian personality as a better explanation for obedience.
3) low eco validity
4) ungeneralisable to women -> beta bias
5) socially sensitive research; misrepresentation of data could be seen as validating nazi behaviour
Pros:
1) Benefits outweigh costs?
= Milgram questioned after the exp the regrets about being involved , finding 74% thought they had learned smt useful about themselves. He also debriefed them and were visited by an independent psychiatrist a year later and no long term harm was found.

2) Practical applications
= helps us understand situational factors can help policy makers try to influence the publics behaviour.

3) Methodological
= Highly replicable carefully manipulated to investigate certain factors. (proximity location uniform)

Question 18

Explanations of obedience (3)

Answer 18

legitimate authority
agentic state
authoritarian personality

Question 19

Agentic vs Autonomous state (explanations of obedience)

Answer 19

• autonomous -> where people fee responsible for their actions
• agentic shift -> movement from autonomous to agentic state
• agentic state -> where people feel they are ‘agents of the authority figure’ and so do not feel responsible for their actions.
  = They beleieve the consequences do not apply to them as they are acting under an authority figure, they do not take responsibility or blame for their actions so are more likely to act abhorrently.

Question 20

Legitimate authority (explanations of obedience)

Answer 20

=recognising someone’s position in a social hierarchy.

Anyone who is perceived as being in a position of social control as they are believe to hold higher position in the hierarchy; often indicated by uniform, credentials and trust. We obey people we perceive as having power to punish disobedience.

Question 21

Authoritarian Personality (explanations of obedience)

Answer 21

Adorno
= A dispositional explanation that claims certain internal personality characteristics are related to higher levels of obedience.

• measured using an F (fascist) scale
• people who are more likely to obey an authority figure due to a strict upbringing.
• they tend to act hostile towards ‘non-conventional’ people as they were unable to express resentment towards strict parents
• have a strong belief in social hierarchy
• likely not to shift their fascist beliefs

Question 22

dispositional vs situational factors

Answer 22

D -> How are own personality can affect whether or not we will obey or conform.
S -> How external influences affect our behaviour.

Question 23

Authoritarian Personality evaluations

Answer 23

CONS:
1) Cannot account for those who have AP but did not grow up in a strict household.

2) Findings from the F-Scale are too subjective and lack validity. This is because the Fascist scale collected data via self-report. This means that social desirability could have affected the validity of the results. For example, participants may choose the ‘socially desirable’ answer to be perceived in a better light by the researchers.

PRO:
1)Real life application. Adorno helped our understanding into why people obey. This could be used in real life situations where an individual may appear obedient towards authority, and harsh towards those deemed as weaker. For example, the Nazi’s were very obedient of Hitler, but acted horribly towards Jewish people (those deemed as weaker). Therefore, if we can explain human’s obedience, we can find ways to prevent extreme cases when obedience is used for unjust orders.

Question 24

Locus of control : an explanation for resistance to social influence

Answer 24

Rotter
=It refers to the extent to which people perceive themselves as being in control of their own lives. Locus of control is measured via a questionnaire (f-scale).

Internal LOC (low)
-More likely to resist social pressure, so are less likely to obey/conform.
-Leaders
-You believe you influence what is happening in your life and can control the situations around you
-Successful in stressful situations

External LOC (high)
-Less likely to resist social pressure, so are more likely to obey/conform
-You believe, outside factors, influence your life, and believe in fate and luck (what happens to you is out of your control)
- Things will turn out a certain way regardless of their actions.
-Stressful situations are perceived as fatalistic and passive.

Question 25

Pros of LOC

Answer 25

1) Holland (1967)
-Repeated Milgram study measuring whether participants had an internal or external LOC.
Internals = 37% did not continue to highest shock
Externals = 23% did not continue to highest shock
Therefore, increasing validity of the claims that personality factors, such as internal locus of control, play a role in resisting social influence.

2) Oliner and Oliner (1988)
-Used an interview method to study two groups of non-Jewish people who had lived through the Holocaust.
Compared 406 people who had protected and rescued Jews with 126, who had not.
Rescuers = scored higher on measures of social responsibility and internal LOC.
This illustrates that independent behaviour is more likely to be carried out by those with internal locus of control, validating the closer personality traits can influence resistance to social influence.

Question 26

Cons of LOC

Answer 26

1) Williams and Warchal
-Claimed the link between internal LOC and resisting social influence had been exaggerated.
- 30 university students Range of conformity tasks based on ashes experiment . Used locus of control scale.
- conformed most : less assertive but did not score differently on loc
- therefore, suggesting other personality factors, such as assertiveness, are more important than an individuals LOC, in the process of resisting social influence.

2) Twenge et al
-Obedience isn’t always linked to LOC.
Data from American obedient studies over 40 year period were analysed finding that people had become more resistant to obedience, but also more external in there locus of control.
If resistance was linked to Internal LOC we would expect people to have become more internal, therefore these findings seem contradictory to what this exclamation would predict, and may suggest that all other factors which are affecting resistance to social influence, beyond personality factors.

Question 27

Minority influence

Answer 27

A form of social influence in which a minority group, or an individual, persuades others to adopt their beliefs, attitudes or behaviours. (Leads to internalisation).

Question 28

3 features of minority influence

Answer 28

1) Consistency
= Refers to the ‘consistency’ of the minority groups message. Either…
A) synchronic consistency -> consistency within a majority group
B) diachronic consistency -> consistency overtime
- Increases the chance of interest from other people as people start to pay attention to a persistent message; makes others think about their own views which may lead to them re-evaluating their own views, conform to minority.

2) Commitment -> Refers to the ‘commitment’ and dedication to the minorities cause. It is important for them to sacrifice an aspect of their life to demonstrate the importance of their ideals.
-The majority sees they are not acting out of self interest and leas to the ‘augmentation principle’ (the majority understand the minority must be committed to their viewpoint due to sacrifices, and so the majority believe others should at least consider their perspectives).

3) Flexibility -> Refers to the minority being ‘flexible’ in their views and wiling to compromise.
- Just repeating a message (consistency) without reflecting on other’s beliefs or being open to debate is counterproductive; they would risk their views being dismissed as they are appearing unwilling to compromise.
- Minorities NEED to be prepared to adapt their pov and accept reasonable and valid counter arguments.
Therefore, they need a balance of consistency and flexibility to have an influence over a majority.

Question 29

Resistance to social influence def

Answer 29

The ability of people to withstand the social pressure to conform to the majority or to obey authority. This ability to withstand social pressure is influenced by both situational and dispositional factors.

Includes locus of control and social support

Question 30

Social support: an explanation for the resistance of social influence

Answer 30

= The presence of at least one other person (an ally) who resists pressures to conform/obey can help others to do the same.

• breaks the unanimity of the majority ->reduces the power of the group pressure = easier to resist conformity as cracks perceived
• ‘Disobedient models’ -> successful people disobey an authority figure (through modelling processes). =resistance to obedience is possible
• strengthens the individuals confidence to feel they could successfully disobey the authority figure too. Therefore, they remain autonomous in their decisions and actions, and to act in accordance with their own beliefs and morals, resulting in the resistance to social influence.

Question 31

Pros of social support as an explanation for resistance so social influence

Answer 31

1) Asch’s study
= In one variation one confederate (a dissenter) went against the majority and gave the correct line length, conformity (in the naïve participant) dropped to 5.5% and when the confederate (a dissenter) went against the other confederates to give an alternative incorrect response (line length), conformity dropped to 9%. These findings suggest a unanimous majority can mean it’s very hard to resist the pressure to conform, but that when the unanimity of the majority is broken by a dissenter and we have an ally modelling dissent from the majority (offering social support) it becomes easier to resist the pressures to conform, therefore validating social support as a key explanation for resisting obedience.
2) Milgram’s study
= A variation where the naïve participant watched two confederates successfully ‘disobey’. In this variation obedience rates dropped to 10%, showing how watching others disobey helps people to feel more confident in our individual viewpoint and more able to disobey too. Therefore, further validating the social support explanation and can help to explain resistance to social influence as it can help us to understand examples of real life resistance to social influence.

Question 32

Cons of social support as an explanation for resistance so social influence

Answer 32

STILL PEOPLE WHO CONFORM/OBEY WITH SOCIAL SUPPORT
- some people have certain individual differences in their personality traits which make them more likely to obey/conform
EG . Authoritarian Personality, whereby they believe obedience must be performed, and may in fact feel resentment/hostility to the dissenters, making them even less likely to resist obedience
EG a more external Locus of Control meaning they believe they can’t resist the group pressure. This means the social support explanation cannot offer a full account of resistance to social influence.

Question 33

Minority Influence evaluations

Answer 33

PROS
1) Nemeth
-> investigated flexibility on minority influence
-> 3 ppts/1 confederate
-> confederate: had to decide how much compensation to pay a victim of a ski lift accident

Inflexible condition -> no influence
Flexible condition -> influenced a lower compensation

2) Moscovici
-> investigated consistency
-> 2 confederates/ 4 ppts
-> Given eye tests (check not colour blind)
-> confederates : claimed 36 sliders were green (they were blue)

Consistent condition -> green 8.4% of trials, 32% green at least once

Inconsistent condition -> green 1.25% of trials

CON:
- Supporting evidence is highly artificial (lacks external validity/ real life application is limited)

Question 34

social change

Answer 34

occurs when whole societies rather than just individuals, adopt new attitudes, beliefs, and ways of doing things.

Due to minority influence

Question 35

snowball effect an explanation for social change

Answer 35

Minority influence initially has a small effect, then it begins to convert (meaning they have internalise a new way of thinking/behaving) more and more people, until the minority becomes a majority.

-> Then obedience and conformity begin to influence people to adopt to this behaviour due to…
a) fear of being rejected from society (normative)
b) they believe this way of behaving is right (informational).
= deep internalisation as a result

Question 36

social crypto-amnesia (what is it/purpose)

Answer 36

= When we cannot recall how or when the societal change took place.
-> It is a cognitive bias experience by all cultures after social change.

PURPOSE:
-Allows for social change to occur in a manner that is NOT DISRUPTIVE to social order.
- If it is a RAPID change that causes CONFLICT that could be harmful in the short term.
- Therefore allows for new ideas to be carefully considered by the majority to ensure that suitable in society.

Question 37

Evaluation of Social Change

Answer 37

PROS
1) Moscovici
-Shows how a minority can be influential in changing majorities view . Demonstrates how persistence and consistency eventually make significant impact for social change. For example, gay pride. This indicates importance of the role of the minority on social change.
2) Real life examples
- Gay Pride, Wim Hoff, Suffragettes
3) Practical Application + economical implications
-policymakers can use this knowledge to adjust societal attitudes towards health concerns (smoking). If they can effectively change peoples behaviours which increases health, this will have an economical benefit; for example less pressure on NHS.

CONS
1) People resist social change due to avoiding the negative aspects of being associated with a minority. Minorities are often viewed as deviant or troublemakers. They face hostility in real life, which is difficult to replicate in experiments. Therefore people need to identify with minority to begin to accept and convert.