Social Influence

Obedience
1. A form of social influence in which an individual follows a direct order. The person issuing the order is usually a figure of authority, who has the power to punish when obedient behaviour fails.
2. Milgram
  1. 40 male participants were asked to take part in a 'memory test'. Participants were 'randomly' allocated as the role of the teacher, whilst a confederate was given the position of learner. The learner was strapped to a chair in another room, whilst the teacher was given the controls for a shock machine. The teacher had to give the learner a severe electric shock every time they got a question wrong,. increasing the voltage each time up to a deadly 450V. The teachers were not told that the shocks were actually fake and that the learner was an actor. The teacher was prompted by a fake scientist in a lab coat to continue on with the study and obey their orders, stating that the experiment requires them to continue. At 300V the learner expressed distress and pain and stopped responding for the rest of the study.
    1. Results: No participant asked to stop the study below 300V. Five (12.5%) stopped at 300V. 65% continued to 450V. Observations indicated that participants showed signs of extreme tension and stress. Three had uncontrollable seizures. It was predicted that no more than 3% would continue to 450V. Participants were debriefed and consoled. The study showed the extent to which people will obey orders of authority, to the point where they could inflict serious harm onto another person.
  2. Orne and Holland suggested participants guessed the electric shocks were fake, so milgram was not testing what he intended, lacking internal validity.
    1. Milgram argued that the lab-based relationship between experimenter and participant reflected wider real-life authority relationships, showing high external validity. This is supported by Hofling- who found that by pretending to be a doctor he could persuade real nurses in a hospital to carry out unjustified demands over the phone, such as injecting a patient with an abnormal dose. 21 out of 22 nurses obeyed.
      1. There are ethical issues with Milgram's research. participants believed they were randomly allocated roles and were deceived into believing the shocks were real. Additionally, many showed high levels of distress and anxiety, meaning they experienced psychological harm.
  3. In a french documentary contestants were paid to give (fake) electric shocks- when ordered by the presenter- to participants (actors). 80% gave the max 450V to an unconscious man. This supports Milgram's original conclusions about obedience to authority and that it is reliable.
3. Explanations
  1. Situational variables
    1. Proximity- In Milgram's original study, the teacher and learner were in the adjoining rooms (hear but not see) . In the proximity variation, teacher and learner were in the same room. Obedience dropped to 40%. In the remote-instruction variation, the experimenter gave instructions via phone rather than in the room. Obedience dropped to 20.5%
    2. Location- Milgram's original study was done in Yale University (prestigious location). In the location variation, it was carried out in a run-down building. Obedience fell to 47.5%, suggesting there was less authority in this setting.
    3. Uniform- In the original study, the experimenter wore a grey lab coat as a symbol of authority. In the uniform variation, the experimenter was called away for a phone call and was replaced by an 'ordinary member of the public'. Obedience rates dropped to 20%, suggesting uniform has a strong effect on obedience.
      1. Bickman had a confederate dress either causally or as a security guard and asked passers-by in a park to pick up litter. People were twice as likely to obey the 'security guard' than the normal looking person. This supports milgram's findings on uniform on obedience.
        Orne and Holland suggested participants in Milgram's variations were even more likely to realise the procedure was faked because of the experimental manipulation. Where the experimenter was replaced with a member of the public, even Milgram recognised it was likely they would have worked it out. This reduces internal validity.
        Milgram systematically altered one variable at a time to test obedience. Other variables were kept constant as the study was replicated on over 1000 participants. This increases the reliability of the results.
  2. Social-psychological factors
    1. Agentic state
      1. In an agentic state a person feels no personal responsibility for their actions, they are acting on behalf of another person. The opposite, would be an autonomous state; where were feel independent and free with our actions.
        The shift from autonomy to being an 'agent' is called the agentic shift. Milgram suggested that this occurs when we perceive someone else as an authority figure. This person has power because of their social position.
        Binding factors are aspects of a situation that allow the person to ignore or minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour and reduce the moral strain they feel. e.g shifting the responsibility to the victim or denying the damage they are doing to victims.
        Schmidt- showed students a film of Milgram's study and asked them who was responsible for the harm on the learner. Students blamed the 'experimenter' rather than the participant, due to their legitimate authority.
        Cannot explain all findings. Some of the participants didn't obey- all humans are in a social hierarchy so should all obey. Also in Hofling's study, the nurses should have shown anxiety whilst giving responsibility to the doctor because they understood their role in a destructive process, but this was not the case.
    2. Legitimacy of the authority
      1. Most societies are structured hierarchically. People in certain positions hold authority over the rest of us. e.g parents, teachers, police officers, bouncers. The authority they have is legitimate in the sense that it is agrees by society. We mostly accept that authority figures should exercise power over others for society to run smoothly.
        We give up some of our independence to people we trust to exercise their authority properly. We learned to accept authority during childhood from parents and teachers. History has too often shown that leaders use legitimate authority destructively, having people behave in cruel and dangerous ways.
        It is a useful account of cultural differences. Kilham and Mann found a 16& obedience to authority rate in Australians vs 85% in Germans. Authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimate in some cultures. This reflect how different societies are structured. Cross-cultural research increases the validity of the explanation.
        Can explain real-life obedience. The army has has authority recognised by the government and in the law. Soldiers assume orders given by the hierarchy to be legal; even if it is to kill, rape and destroy villages. The explanation gives reasons why destructive obedience is committed.
  3. Dispositional explanations
    1. Authoritarian personality
      1. Adorno wanted to understand the anti-semitism of the holocaust. It was believed that unquestioning obedience is a psychological disorder imbedded in their personality. Adorno concluded that people with an authoritarian personality have exaggerated respect for authority and submissiveness to it, express contempt for people of an inferior social status, have conventional attitudes towards race and gender.
        it forms in childhood through harsh parenting; strict discipline, expectation of loyalty, impossibly high standards and criticism. Often the parent's love depends entirely on how their child behaves. These experiences create resentment and hostility in the child, this is displaced onto others who are seen as weaker. This explains their hatred of people seen as socially inferior.
        Adorno- Studied unconscious attitudes towards other racial groups in over 2000 middle-class americans. A scale was developed for fascism (f-scale). Used statements such as 'Obedience and respect for authority are the most important things for a child to learn' and 'There is hardly anything lower than a person who does not feel great gratitude and respect for their parents'. Authoritarians, who scored highly, identified with 'strong' people and were scornful of the 'weak'. They were conscious of their own and other people's status. They had fixed and distinctive stereotypes about groups.
        Flawed methodology. The f-scale statements are worded in the same 'direction' so the scale just measures the tendency to agree with everything. Researchers knew participant's results when interviewing them so they already knew who had an authoritarian personality, making biased results likely. Therefore lacks validity.
        Correlation rather than cause and effect. Adorno could not claim that harsh parenting caused development of an authoritarian personality.
        Explanation is limited. Millions of individuals in Germany displayed obedient and anti-semitic behaviour-but didn't have the same personality. It is unlikely the majority of Germany possessed an authoritarian personality. Social identity theory is more likely- they identified with the nazi state and adopted its views.
        May be politically biased. Jahoda claimed the f-scale reflects extreme right-wing idealogy. However, both right-wing and left-wing authoritarianism both insist on complete obedience to political authority. Adorno's theory may therefore not be a comprehensive dispositional explanation.
Conformity
1. Types
  1. Internalisation
    1. When a person genuinely accepts group norms. It results in a private as well as public change of opinions/behaviour. The change is more likely to be permanent and persist in the absence of group members.
  2. Identification
    1. When we identify with a group that we value, we want to become part of it. So we publicly change our opinions/behaviours, even if we don't privately agree with everything the group/role stands for.
  3. Compliance
    1. Involves 'going along with others' in public, but not privately changing opinions/behaviour. This results in only a superficial change and the opinion/behaviour stops as soon as the group pressure does.
2. Explanations
  1. Informational social influence (ISI)
    1. We agree with the opinion of the majority because we believe it is correct, and we accept it because we want to be correct as well. It is a cognitive process- people want to be right. It is most likely in situations with scarce information or ambiguity. It can therefore explain internalisation.
      1. Lucas et al- asked students to give answers to easy and difficult maths problems. There was more conformity to incorrect answers when the problems were difficult. This was most true for students who rated their maths ability as poor. This shows that people conform when they feel they don't know the answer (supporting ISI).
        There may be individual differences. Asch found that students were less conformist (28%) than other participants (37%). People who are knowledgeable or more confident may be less influenced by the apparently 'right' majority.
  2. Normative social influence (NSI)
    1. We agree with the opinion of the majority because we want to be accepted, gain social approval and be liked. Norms regulate the behaviour of groups so it is not surprising that we pay attention to them. NSI is most likely in situations where you don't know the norms and so look to others on how to behave. It is an emotional process- people want to be liked. It can therefore explain compliance.
      1. There may be individual differences. McGhee and Teevan found that students who had a personality that has a greater need for social relationships, were more likely to conform. The desire to be liked effects some more than others.
      2. Asch- asked participants why they agreed with the wrong answer. Some said they felt self-conscious giving the right answer and were afraid of disapproval. When they were asked to write down their answers, conformity rates fell to 12%
  3. Deutsch and Gerrard's two-process approach is that conformity is either due to NSI or ISI. However, Asch found that conformity reduced when there was a dissenting partner, who may have reduced NSI (by providing social support) or ISI (alternative source of information). Therefore it isn't always possible to know whether ISI or NSI is at work.
3. Asch: 123 male students were tested individually with a group of 6-8 confederates. On each trial participants had to say which line (A, B or C) was the same length as the standard line. On 12/18 trials the confederates gave a purposeful (and quite obvious) wrong answer.
  1. Participants conformed and gave a wrong answer 36.8% of the time. Only 25% never conformed on any of the trials, meaning 75% conformed at least once. This shows a high level of conformity, called the Asch effect- the extent to which people conform even in an unambiguous situation.
    1. Perrin and Spencer- more recently found just one conforming response in 396 trials in a remake of Asch's method. Participants were more confident to measure the lines and act less conformist. This may be because in the 1950s when Asch's was carried out, it was a period of high conformity & regard of social norms in America, meaning his results may only reflect society at that time, not as a feature of constant human behaviour.
      1. The situation was artificial. Participants knew they were in a study so may have just responded to demand characteristics. The line task was trivial so there was no reason not to conform. The 'groups' were also not like those in everyday life. The results are therefore difficult to generalise to everyday situations.
        Only men were tested by Asch. Neto suggested that women might be more conformist because they are more concerned about social relationships. Additionally, participants were from the USA, an individualist culture (where people are more concerned with themselves.)
  2. Asch's variations: Group size: The number of confederates varied between 1 and 15. He found that with two confederates, conformity to a wrong answer was 13.6% and with three it rose to 31.8%. Adding more than three made little difference.
    1. Unanimity: Asch introduced a truthful confederate or one who was dissenting but inaccurate. Whether the dissenter was giving right or wrong answers, the conformity levels dropped by a quarter. They allowed the participant to behave more independently and have more social support.
      1. Task difficulty: Asch made the line-judging task harder by making the comparison lines more similar. Conformity increased when the task was more difficult, suggesting that ISI plays a greater role when a task becomes harder and more ambiguous.
4. Zimbardo: set up a mock prison in stanford university to see whether prison aggression was due to situation or individuals. 24 'emotionally stable' students were randomly assigned roles of guards or prisoners. To increase realism, prisoners were arrested, blindfolded, strip-searched, deloused and issued a uniform and a number. Prisoner's daily routines were heavily regulated. Guards had their own uniform, a wooden club, handcuffs and keys. They were told that they had complete power over the prisoners.
  1. Within two days, the prisoners rebelled against their treatment. Guards harassed prisoners and used every opportunity to reinstate and abuse their power. After the rebellion was put down, prisoners became anxious and depressed. One prisoner went on a hunger strike and two were released early due to psychological disturbance. The study was stopped after 6 days. This revealed how a situation and social role can influence people's behaviour to conform to norms. The more guards identified with their roles, the more brutal they became.
  2. Had control over some variables. The guards and prisoners were allocated at random, showing their behaviour was due to pressures of their situation not their personalities. Control increases the study's internal validity.
    1. Potential lack of realism, Mohavedi suggested that the participants were play-acting, their performances reflected stereotypes of how prisoners and guards should behave, and based their roles on film characters. However, zimbardo's data showed 90% of conversations were about prison life; the simulation seemed real to them, increasing the study's internal validity.
    2. Lacks research support. Reicher and Haslam partially replicated the study with different findings. Prisoners eventually took control. Guards failed to develop a shared social identity as a group, but the prisoners did and refused to accept limits of their roles. Suggests Zimbardo's study may be due to a shared social identity as a cohesive group, rather than conformity to social roles.
Resistance to social influence
1. Refers to the ability of people to withstand the social pressure to conform to the majority or obey authority. This ability to withstand social pressure is influenced by situational and dispositional factors
2. Social support
  1. Pressure to conform is reduced if other people are not conforming. Asch's research showed that the dissenter doesn't have to give the right answer. Simply someone else not following the majority frees others to follow their own conscience. The dissenter acts as a 'model'.
    1. Asch's research also showed that if this peer starts conforming again, so does the naive participant.
    2. Levine found independence increased with one dissenter in an asch-type study. This occurred even if the dissenter wore think glasses and said they had problems with vision. So resistance is not motivated by following what someone says but it enables you to be free of pressure from the group.
  2. Pressure to obey can be reduced if another person is seen to disobey. Milgram's research showed that independent behaviour increased significantly in one condition when there was a disobedient peer. The dissenter's disobedience frees the participant to act from their own conscience.
    1. Gamson et al found higher levels of rebellion than milgram did. Participants were in groups (they had to produce evidence that would be use to help an oil company run a swear campaign). 29 our of 33 groups rebelled. This shows peer support is linked to greater resistance.
3. Locus of control
  1. Rotter described interval vs. external LOC. Internals believe things that happen to them are largely controlled by themselves. Externals believe things happen outside their control. e.g luck.
    1. People differ in how they explain successes and failures but it isn't as simple as being internal or external. There is a continuum; high internal at one end and high external at the other, low internal and low external lie inbetween.
  2. People with internal LOC are more likely to resist pressures to conform or obey. If someone takes personal responsibility for their actions and experiences, they are more likely to base their decisions on own beliefs. People with high internal LOC are more self-confident, more achievement-orientated and have less need for social approval. These traits lead to greater resistance.
  3. Holland repeated the Milgram study and measured whether participants were internals or externals. 37% of internals did not continue to the highest shock level whilst 23% of externals did not continue. So internals showed greater resistance. This support increases the validity of the LOC explanation.
    1. Twenge et al- analysed data from LOC studies from the US over 40 years. They showed that people have become more independent but also more external. If resistance was linked to internal LOC we would expect people to become more internal. This challenges the link between internal LOC and resistance.
      1. LOC is only important in new situations. It has little influence in familiar situations where previous experiences are always more important .
Minority Influence
1. Refers to how one person or small group influences the beliefs and behaviours of other people. The minority may influence just one person, or a group of people (the majority)
2. A minority changes the opinions of others through internalisation. Consistency makes others rethink their own views; the minority always saying the same thing for a long time.
  1. Activities must create some risk to the minority to demonstrate commitment to the cause. " Wow, they must really believe what they're saying".
    1. Nemeth argued that being stubborn and repeating the same arguments and behaviours is seen as rigid and off-putting to the majority. The minority should adapt their point of view and approach to appear flexible.
      1. Over time, more people become converted. the more this happens, the faster the rate of conversion. Gradually the minority view becomes the majority and social change has occurred.
3. Moscovici- A group of 6 people were showed a set of 36 blue-green slides, varying in intensity, and had to state whether it was blue or green. In one condition the two confederates consistently said the slides were green. In another, confederates were inconsistent about the colour. And the last was a control group.
  1. Consistent minority- participants gave the same wrong answer on 8.4% of trials, 32% gave the same answer at least once. Inconsistent minority- agreement fell to 1.25%. Control group- participants gave a wrong answer only 0.25% of the time.
4. Wood et al- conducted a meta-analysis of almosy 100 similar studies and found minorities seen as consistent were most influencial, supporting the idea that consistency is a major factor in minority influence.
  1. Moscovici's task was indentifying the colour of a slide, far removed from how minorities work in real life. In jury decision making and politics, outcomes are vastly more important- maybe life or death. The artificial task lacks external validity, not reflecting real life situations.
    1. Moscovici varied the study; he had participants write their answers down so it was private. Here agreement with the minority was greater. This shows that internalisation took place. Members of the majority had been reluctant to convert 'publicly'.
      1. Applications are limited. Studies make a clear distinction between majority and minority, however in real-life it's a lot more complicated. The difference is about more than just numbers. Majorities usually have power and status whilst minorities are tight-knit groups. Minority influence research rarely reflects these dynamics making it difficult to apply.
Social change
1. Social influence- the process by which individuals and groups change each other's attitudes and behaviours. Including conformity, obedience and minority influence.
2. Social change- When whole societies, rather than just individuals, adopt new attitudes, beliefs and behaviours. Eg. gay rights, environmental issues, equal right to vote.
3. Lessons from Minority influence
  1. 1) Segregation in 1950's America- Civil rights marches drew attention to the racism by providing social proof of the problem
    1. 2) People took part in marches on a large scale. The minority displayed consistency of message and intent.
      1. 3) This meant that many people who had accepted the status quo began thinking about the unjustness of it.
        4) Augmentation- People began to fight rules such as black and white seating on a bus. Many were mobbed and beaten.
        5) Snowball effect- Civil rights activists gradually got the attention of the US government. The Civil rights act was passed, prohibiting discrimination.
        6) Social cryptoamnesia- Refers to people having a memory that a change happened but not remembering how
4. Lessons from Conformity
  1. Asch's research showed the importance of dissent in one variation where a confederate always gave correct answers. This broke the power of the majority encouraging others to dissent. This demonstrates a potential for social change.
    1. Environmental and health campaigns exploit conformity by appealing to NSI. They provide info about what others are doing, e.g messages on bins 'bin it- others do'. Social change is encouraged by drawing attention to the majority's behaviour.
  2. Nolan hung messages on front doors of houses. The message was most residents are trying to reduce energy usage. There were significant reduces in energy use compared to a control group who saw the messages but with no reference to other people's behaviour.
5. Lessons from Obedience
  1. Milgram's research showed the importance of disobedient models in a variation where a confederate refused to give shocks. The rate of obedience in the genuine participants plummeted.
    1. Zimbardo suggested that once a small instruction is obeyed, it becomes more difficult to resist a bigger one. People 'drift' into a new kind of behaviour.
6. Nemeth suggested the effects of minority influence are indirect and delayed. It has taken decades for some attitude changes to take place. Often the majority is influenced only on matters related to the central issue, not the issue itself. Minority influence is fragile and narrow in explaining social change.
7. Identification may be an important role over looked in minority influence. Bashir suggested that people are less likely to behave in environmentally friendly ways in fear of being labelled negatively 'tree hugger'. Minorities should avoid behaving in ways that reinforce stereotypes which may be off-putting to majority.
8. Explanations of social change rely on studies like Moscovici, Asch and Milgram. These can be evaluated over the artificial nature of the tasks and whether the group dynamics reflect real-life. These criticisms can be applied to the research support for the link between social influence and social change.

Next up

Social Influence

Description

Resource summary

Media attachments

Similar

	Created by Laura Louise over 7 years ago