week 6 - social influence

Question 1

What is the definition of social influence?

Answer 1

Many different definitions:
- Hogg & Vaughan (2005): ‘process whereby attitudes and behaviours are influenced by the real or implied presence of other people’
- Hewstone & Martin (2015): ‘change of attitudes, beliefs, opinions, values, and behaviour, as a result of being exposed to other individuals’ attitudes, beliefs, opinions, values and behaviour’

Question 2

What are the key functions of social norms?

Answer 2

• reduce uncertainty about how to behave in certain situations
• coordinate individual behaviour
• help with distribution of outcomes in a group (division of social resources, e.g. wealth, obligations)
• note, norms are not necessarily static, but potentially dynamic (norms may change depending on context)
• evaluative: violating norms leads to negative responses (allows people to decide if someone should be kept in the group or ostracised)
• descriptive and injunctive (help explain what is going on in a situation, and what will happen next)
• communicated implicityly, explicitly and through inference

Question 3

What was Sherif’s (1936) study on Socially Facilitated Influence?

Answer 3

• the mere presence of others creates a form of influence over our attitudes and behaviours: socially facilitated influence
• Autokinetic effect study investigated this influence:
• Autokinetic effect is a phenomenon where without any frame of reference we begin to percieve a single light as moving because of the very faint muscular movements of our eyes
• optical illusion
• pitch black room, point of light 5 meters away

Question 4

What was the method of Sherif’s 1936 study using the autokinetic effect investigating socially facilitated influence?

Answer 4

• participants took part individually and as part of groups
• participants had to give an oral estimate of how much they thought the light had moved
• half the participants took part individually and then came together in groups where everyone called out their estimate
• the other half of participants took part as groups and then individually

Question 5

What were the results of Sherif’s 1936 study investigating socially facilitated influence?

Answer 5

Individual-to-group condition
- participants taking part individually developed a standard estimate (personal norm not influenced by other’s opinions)
- this norm was stable and persisted through initial attempts to become a group norm, but varied widely in terms of estimate of light movement size between participants
- when taking part individually, there are large differences in estimates of how far the light moved
- when participants came together in session 2, they start to converge their thinking, and by the 4th session, there is a group norm of them agreeing on how far the light moved.
- their personal norms were replaced by group norms

Group-to-individual condition
- when starting in groups, participants gave very similar estimates from the start
- when split into individual responses, this group norm persisted across trials
- on the 4th trial we see a bit of variation, but nowhere near the level of variation seen within the first trial of the other condition

Showed the power of norms to endure and transfer to new settings where there isnt a group - reciprocal influence
- all exerting influence on eachother just by stating their response out loud

Question 6

What are the 3 types of social influence?

Answer 6

• compliance
• conformity
• obedience

Question 7

What is compliance?

Answer 7

• a behavioural phenomena
• a clear public change in behaviour
• doesn’t necessarily include a private change in attitude
• a temporary type of conformity
• research has focused on factors affecting compliance

Question 8

What is the ‘foot-in-the-door’ technique of compliance?

Answer 8

where you deliberatley start with a small request and the excelate to a much bigger request. agreeing to the small request makes someone more likely to agree to the bigger one.
- frequently used in sales (e.g. pay small fee for first month of a membership, then the price goes up)

Question 9

How did Freedman & Fraser (1966) demonstrate the ‘foot in the door’ technique of compliance?

Answer 9

• asked participants if they could come and do a 2 hour survey at their home of household product use. This would involve 5-6 men going into their house and taking an inventory of all their products
• just over 20% of people complied with this request
• When the same question was asked after participants had agreed to take part in a short telephone survey, just over 50% complied

Question 10

Why does the foot in the door technique for compliance work?

Answer 10

• one theory suggests we infer who we are from what we do: if we are helpful on the first occasion, we must be a helpful person, and so we should be helpful on the second occasion (Bem, 1967)

Question 11

what is the ‘door-in-the-face’ technique of compliance?

Answer 11

‘foot-in-the-door’ techniques suggests making a big request first shouldn’t be successful, however…
door in the face
- big request first = unlikely to be successful
- follow it with more reasonable request = greater likelihood of compliance than if 2nd request presented in isolation

Question 12

What example shows the ‘door-in-the-face’ technique of compliance works?

Answer 12

Cialdini et al. (1975)
- asked uni students ‘will you volunteer at a young offenders institute for 2 hrs a week for the next 2 years’ - minimal compliance
- then students were asked ‘will you take these young offenders to the zoo?’
- after the 1st request, 50% compliance
- without the first request, the zoo question only recieved 17% compliance

the 2nd request is perceived as a concession on the part of the requester
- as the requester has been kind enough to back down from their initial request, we feel like we should reciprocate in kind of some way

Question 13

What method did Harari et al. (1980) find most effective, door in face, or foot in door?

Answer 13

study investigated how students could make lecturers comply with their requests.

students asked for help from lecturers:
- C1: DIF - meet for 2 hours a week (ask for even longer meeting first)
- C2: FID - meet for 15-20 minutes
- C3: Control - no initial request

results showed DIF technique worked best, with 78% of lecturers saying yes.
- since foot in the door involves a large request being asked right after the first small one was accepted, it is thought to have violated social norms and seemed rude (only 33.3% acceptance)
- FID may be more effective if there is a delay between asking the larger request

Question 14

What is conformity?

Answer 14

• compliance research focuses on how we respond to individual attempts at social influence
• conformity is more concerned with group influence

conformity is:
- more indirect form of influence
- behaviour guided by group norms
- affects attitudes as well as behaviour
- consists of 2 types: informational versus normative influence

Question 15

what is normative influence?

Answer 15

the desire to be liked/accepted by the group

Question 16

what is informational influence?

Answer 16

The desire to be right
- people change their beliefs, opinions, or behaviors based on information from others

Question 17

Informational versus normative: What influence did Sherif believe was present in his autokinesis study?

Answer 17

• Sherif said people may assume that other group member have a more accurate judgement than they do
• informational influence: participants had the desire to be right in ambiguous situations

Question 18

What did Asch (1952) criticise about Sherif’s autokinesis study?

Answer 18

• Asch was critical of Sherif’s conclusion that informational influence strongly affected participant choices in his study
• Asch said Sherif’s study results show no clear ‘right’ answer
• people might comform to group norms in ambiguous situations, but what about when there is an obvious & objective criteria on which to base one’s judgement?

Asch’s solution: Line length judgement experiment

Question 19

What is Asch’s (1952) line length experiment?

Answer 19

• participants were shown 3 lines, and asked which of the lines (A, B, or C) were the same length as the target line
• this was done in groups of 7-9, where all other group members were confederates who had been instructed to give the wrong answer
• 50% of participants conformed to the group majority and gave the wrong answer in at least one trial
• without the group (control condition), less than 1% gave the wrong answer

after the experiment, Asch asked participants why they conformed:
- confusion
- group pressure
- fear of judgement
- feelings of anxiety
- group may have been right
- didnt want to stand out

shows both normative and informational influence: we dont like to go against the trend, even if we have grounds to do so

Question 20

Why does normative influence occur?

Answer 20

research shows group influence exerts massive power over behaviour, above and beyond anything else within social influence
- Normative influence: occurs because of pressures to ‘fit in’ with a group, or more broadly with what we perceive to be expectations about what we should do

Question 21

What was the most common response over all of Asch’s line experiment trials?

Answer 21

While 50% of participants conformed in at least one of the trials (usually due to normative influence), the most common response over all of the trials was resistance
- participants began in the first trials resisting the group, but later began to conform
- is it the group influencing our decisions, or just the consistency of which participants were provided the false information?

Question 22

What is Moscovici’s (1976) Minority Influence?

Answer 22

Argued that if social influence only depended on the majority, it would be hard to understand how groups could change and any innovation could occur. how do minorities influence majorities?
- minorities require a particular behavioural style to overcome majority rejection: consistency
- when minorities are persistent, they can succeed in influencing a majority

Question 23

How did Moscovici et al. (1969) test minority influence?

Answer 23

• 6 participants (2 were confederates) presented with a series of slides unambiguously blue and differed only in light intensity (different shades)
• participants had to say the colour of the slide
• in one condition there were two confederates who answered green on every trial (in the others they answered green 1 to 2/3 of the time)
• incorrect guesses rose from 0.25% to 8.42% when confederates were consistent and persistent (voted green on every trial)

Question 24

What is Conversion Theory? (Moscovici, 1980)

Answer 24

• theory states that both minorities and majorities can cause influence, but they do so in different ways by getting people to focus on different aspects of a situation.

Majority influence
influences via comparison
leads to compliance
- direct
- immediate
- temporary

Minority influence
influences via validation
leads to conversion
- indirect
- delayed
- durable
it involves a desire to understand the deviant group (the people thinking differently from us). it encourages a deep processing of the minorities position. (why do they not conform as you have?). minorities lead to private or late influence. causes a subtle change in attitudes that participants may not be aware of consciously as they consider the minority group’s position.
- this private conversion may be cautiously communicated to others which eventually become public
- as people start to acknowledge agreement with the minority position, a new social norm is created, resulting in long term attitude changes

Question 25

What study was carried out to investigate the factors that help a minority to exert influence over a majority? (Nemeth, 1974)

Answer 25

percieved confidence and competence of a minority member impacts their influence on a group

personal injury claim given to 5 subjects (1 confederate)
- before subjects met as a group, the injury claim report was presented to them (to provoke sympathy for the claimer who was asking for more money).
- In private, researchers found that an initial compensation of $12,000 to $20,000 was deemed fair by the four subjects who werent confederate

participants as a group had 40 minutes to discuss the case
- Nemeth manipulated conditions regarding the seating position of the confederate, these were
- chosen head
- chosen side
- assigned
- nemeth hypothesised that minorities deliberately choosing the head seat would make them seem more competent and confident, influencing the amount of social influence tey exert

during discussion: confederate consistently presents 6 arguments for compensation of only $3,000

finding:only when the confederate chose the head seat were they influential

“First, the perception that the minority is consistent and confident makes the majority question their own position and puts that position into direct conflict with the minority. Secondly, when shaken in their own position, the consistency and confidence with which the minority holds its position provides an anchor, a stable way of viewing the world, to which the majority may move” (Nemeth & Wachtler, 1974, pg 538)

Question 26

Is social influence specific to humans?

Answer 26

No it’s not!
- humans may change their responses, attitudes, behaviours because of robots (Salomons et al.,2021)

Question 27

Why was Milgram not convinced by Asch’s findings on majority influence?

Answer 27

• Asch’s results are striking, but they are obtained using an essentially inconsequential situation
• it couldnt really fully explain why people behave in immoral ways
• what about when we are being ordered to do something we believe is wrong?
• This led Milgram to develop his Obedience study

Question 28

What did Gibson’s (2013) Rhetorical analysis of Milgram’s obedience studies show?

Answer 28

Analyses transcripts from the Milgram studies to show:
- obedience not always enforced by an authority figure (some participants went swiftly through the experiment to the highest voltage without hesitation. is this obedience as no orders had to be given to them?)
- obedience not always enforced through explicit orders - many implicit demands of the system as a whole should be considered (many attempts by participants to disobey, but many persuasive techniques used by experimenters)
- many instances of resistance and defiance by participants have gone unnoticed (participant is questioning the authority of the experimenter, which is counter to Milgram’s theories)

Question 29

Why did Burger (2009) decide to replicate Milgram’s obedience experiment?

Answer 29

• wanted to see whether people would still obey today
• has there been a generational change in our moral values and obedience levels, and attitudes towards authority figures
• thought people would be much less likely to obey due to general attitude shifts towards authority

Question 30

What does Burger critique about obedience to authority in Milgram’s obedience studies?

Answer 30

Milgram believed that his experiments were legitimate examples of obedience to authority
- Burger argued that the perceived expertise of the experimenter (who had done many trials) may have contributed to the participants decisions, as they may see the experimenter as ‘knowing better’, causing a form of informational influence
- participant may therefore change their behaviour because the expert in this ambiguous setting has told them what to do, and the expert is competent and the participant wants to do the right thing
- is this more convergence to norms rather than obedience?

Question 31

What does Burger critique about the incrimental nature of the task in Milgram’s obedience studies?

Answer 31

participants always started with the lowest voltage switch (15v) with no effect on the learner, proceeding in 15v increments up the generators range.

Burger argues this is more an example of compliance rather than obedience
- an effective tactic for changing attitudes and behaviour (start small, with larger requests following)
- the need to maintain consistent perceptions of the self in relation to behaviour (i agreed to do the first thing, so i should agree to do the next)
- agreeing to small requests can change the way people think about themselves

Question 32

What does Burger critique about the limited sources of information in Milgram’s obedience studies?

Answer 32

• in Milgram’s study, participants find themselves in a difficult position
• they would search for information on how to act, but there is only the experimenter, who seems calm (informational influence)
• in another variation of his study (1974), Milgram used two experimenters where one expressed concern about the study. obedience disappeared.

Question 33

What does Burger critique about responsibility in Milgram’s obedience studies?

Answer 33

• In Milgram’s study, the experimenter assumed responsibility for the actions of the participants. This lack of responsibility is said to be a driving force behind the level of obedience in the Milgram study
• in another version of the study, where participants watched a confederate administer shocks while they performed a subsidiary act, only 3 out of 40 refused to take part

would people still obey today? Burger modelled a refusal condition?
- a confederate starts reading word pairs and administering “shocks”
- at 75 volts they refuse “i dont think i can do this” and the participant is asked to take over while the confederate sits and watches

Question 34

What ethical considerations must be made if a modern study were to replicate Milgram’s?

(these were followed by Burger in 2009)

Answer 34

• Screening process: scales and specific questions concerning past mental illness, trauma etc. followed by interview with clinical psych
• participants informed 3 times that they could withdraw at any point and retain their $50 payment
• sample shock only 15v (rather than Milgram’s 45v)
• informed immediately following the study that the learner was not being shocked
• experimenter role played by a clinical psych, who was to end the study if participants displayed ‘excess stress’ (Burger, 2009)
• study ended at 150v

Question 35

Why did Burger decide to use the stopping point of 150v in his replication of Milgram’s study (2009)?

Answer 35

• in Milgram’s condition 5, 79% of participants who continued past 150v (learners first demand to be released) continued to the end
• Burger therefore suggests to ensure participant wellbeing that by stopping at 150v we can get a decent idea of how likely people are to go on

Question 36

What did Burger (2009) find in his replication of Milgram’s obedience study?

Answer 36

• Burger had 3 conditions (base (same as Milgram), modeled refusal, and Milgram’s experiment 5)
• each condition had 40 participants
• analysis showed no significant difference in participants who continued past 150v
• the percentage is still higher in milgrams experiment, it is not significantly higher than the 2 new conditions burger investigated
• suprisingly, no significant difference between the modeled refusal condition and the base condition
• suggests that the addition of a confederate modeling disobedience did not have a powerful influence over the participants behaviour

Question 37

What are the main conclusions of Burger’s (2009) study?

Answer 37

• no evidence of a decline (or increase) in obedience
• no evidence of gender differences in obedience
• disobedient model didn’t make it easier to disobey

Question 38

What are some problems with Burger’s (2009) replication of Milgram’s study?

Answer 38

• depends on the assumption that the pattern after 150v remains unchanged
• Burger claims that his results suggest cultural shifts in attitudes to authority have little effects on rates of obedience. BUT, he excluded anyone who’d heard of the milgram experiments (these woukd possibly be more likely to disobey)
• screening out 50% of initial participants (for ethical reasons) raises concerns (Miller, 2009)
• might these people have been less or more likely to obey?
• why was it necessary to screen out so many people if the maximum voltage was reduced to 150v to reduce stress levels. is stress a necessary component in participants choosing to disobay?
• Burger’s ‘modelled refusal’ condition is not comparable with Milgram’s group condition

Question 39

what is ‘the game of death’?

Answer 39

a talk show that emulated Milgram’s obedience studies
- TV host as a modern day authority figure
- 81% obedience in conditions based on Milgram’s ‘voice-feedback’ condition
- BUT, learner doesn’t demand to be released until 380v

Question 40

what was Slater et al. (2006) study on virtual reality and obedience?

Answer 40

• participants knew it was not real
• questionnaires and physiological measures (heart rate, skin conductance) used to measure participant responses to being in the situation
• these measures suggested that the participants responded as if it was real
• 17/23 participants administered all the shocks
• in a 2nd condition where interaction with the learner was text-only, all participants (n=11) went all the way