social influence
conformity
A change in behaviour of belief as a result of real or imagined group pressure
asch (1951) baseline study
assess to what extent people will conform to the opinion of others even in a situation where the answer is certain
123 American male undergraduate students-Believe they were taking part in a vision test
Line judgement task
One naive participant in room with 6 to 8 confederates
asch (1951) baseline study findings
Real participants conformed to incorrect answers on 32% of the critical trials
asch interviewed afterwards-Most conformed due to normative social influence (Want to be liked)
task difficulty
Wanted to know whether making task harder would affect conformity
Make some more ambiguous (unclear) Conformity increased
Informational social influence (desire to be correct)
aschs research strengths
Scientific methods: Highly controlled lab settings, Both extraneous and confounding variables are reduced, Internal validity of experiments is increased
Research support for task difficulty: Participants conformed often when problems were harder, Shows asch was correct in claiming that task difficulty is 1 variable that affects conformity
aschs research limitations
biased sample: 123 males, Cannot generalise to females, Lacks population validity, Beta bias (Ignored or minimise his differences between men and women in relation to conformity)
Ethical issues: Deceived his participant (Says they're doing a vision test and not conformity test) Lack of informed consent
types of conformity
How people conform
Compliance
Identification
Internalisation
compliance
A person changes their public behaviour but maintains their own private beliefs, Result of normative social influence
identification
A person changes their public behaviour and their private beliefs but only while they are in the presence of the group, Result of normative social influence
internalisation
A person changes their public Behaviour and their private beliefs, Result of information or social influence
explanations of conformity
why people conform
Normative social influence (nsi)
Informational social influence (isi)
normative social influence
Fear of rejection, The desire to be liked
Socially awarding or to avoid social rejection
informational social influence
Desire to be right, Person changes both their public behaviour and their private beliefs
strengths of NSI and ISI
NSI: wildly accepted as an explanation of conformity
ISI: (lucas et al. 2006) shows ISI is a valid explanation of conformity because results of what ISI would predict
limitations of NSI and ISI
Individual differences: Process will not affect everyone's behaviour in the same way
conformity to social roles
The pattern of behaviour that is expected of a person who is in a particular social position
Represents identification where a person changes their public behaviour and private beliefs but only while they're in the social role
the dispositional hypothesis
views the cause of behaviour as internal and refelcts the character and nature of a person rather than external forces
e.g. characteristics of guards and prisoners
zimbardo et al. 1973
examine whether people would conform to social roles
examine whether behaviour displaced in prisons was due to dispositional/situational factors
volunteered
identified quickly with roles
terminated after 6 days
conformity to social roles ao3
strengths: Methodological control- Zimbardo had control over key variables, Prevented factors from becoming extraneous variables and help to reduce participant variables and research a bias by randomly allocating roles
limitations: Lack of ecological validity- Experiment doesn't have the realism of a true prison, Participants performances were based on stereotypes of how prisoners and gods are supposed to behave, Findings tell us a little about conformity to social roles in actual prisons
obedience to authority
A form of social influence that is indirect response to an order from another person
milgrams research 1963
Investigate whether or ordinary people would obey to an unjust order from an authority figure and inflict pain On an innocent person
40 male Americans, Volunteered, paid £4 to take part
participant was always teacher
At 300V Learner would bang on wall and complain
Confederate (learner) behind a wall
findings + conclusions milgram 1963
Every participant delivered all shocks up to 300V
12.5% stopped at 300V
65% continued to the highest level (450V)
Concluded the ordinary people will obey unjust orders from someone perceived to be a legitimate authority figure
milgram ao3
Strength: Highly controlled, Laboratory
lImitation, Deceived his participant, Believed it was how punishment affects memory rather than obedience to authority, Believed they were administering real electrical shocks to a human, Didn't protect participants from harm, Many showed signs of real distress and guilt
obedience situational variables
Proximity
Location
Uniform
proximity (milgram)
Same room variation (Teacher and learner together): 65% to 40%
Touch proximity variation (Teacher forces learn his hand on electric shock plate): 65% to 30%
Remote instruction variation (Experiment left room said instructions via telephone): 20.5%
Decrease proximity allows people to psychologically distance themselves from the consequences of their actions
Location (milgram)
Variation in a rundown office block, Not Yale setting of baseline study
Obedience fell from 65% to 47.5%
Milligrams based on study setting authority and legitimacy, More obedient because they perceived experimental shared this legitimacy
uniform (milgram)
Experimental war grey lab coat- Symbol of authority
In one variation experimental was called away and replaced by an ordinary member of public (Confederate) In everyday clothes
Obedience dropped to 20%
uniform encourage obedience
situational Variables ao3
Strengths: uniform does have a powerful effect on obedience, people are two times as likely to obey the assistant dressed in the security guard thought a sport jacket (Picking up litter)
Limitations: Low internal validity due to artificial setting
obedient situational explanations: Agency theory
We are socialised from a very young age to follow the rules of society
The autonomous state
When a person acts independently
Behaves to their own principles and feels the sense of responsibility for their own actions
The agentic state
Where we feel no personal responsibility for our behaviour
Acting for an authority figure reduced moral strain for their actions
person doesn't take responsibility
the agentic shift
Occurs when a person perceives someone else as an authority figure
The authority figure has greater power because they are in a high position in a social hierarchy
binding factors
Aspects of the situation that allow The person to ignore or minimise the damaging effects of their behaviour
Reduces moral strain their feeling
legitimacy of authority
Suggest we are more likely to obey people who we perceived to have authority over us
Authority is justified by the individuals position of power within a social hierarchy
In milgrams study, a change in location reduced legitimacy of authority as power of the authority figure was diminished
situational explanations ao3
strengths: Useful account of cultural differences in obedience, Many study show that countries differ to which people are obedient to authority, 85% German participants went up to 450V on milgrams study, Different societies, follow alternative hierarchical structures
Limitations: Explain instances of disobedience in hierarchy where a legitimacy of authority is clear and accepted, Significant minority of milgrams Participants obey despite recognising the experimenters scientific authority, Suggest some may just be more obedient than others
obedience: Dispositional explanations- Authoritarian personality
susceptible to Obeying people in authority
Submissive to those of higher status and dismissive of inferiors
e.g. draco to lucius
Origins of authoritarian personality
Forms in childhood-Harsh parenting
Fear punishment
Fears are displaced onto others who are weaker
e.g. draco malfoy
adorno et al. (1950)
F-scale: Measures tendency towards fascism (Questionnaire)
Fascism is fought to be at the core of authoritarian personality
2000 middle class Caucasian white Americans
Scored highly-Identify with strong people and show disrespect towards the weak
Individuals with authoritarian personality were more obedient to authority figures
Obedience: Dispositional explanations ao3
Strength: elms+milgram (1966) Obedient scored higher on F scale, Obedient were less close to their fathers during childhood and displayed more character characteristics of authoritarian personality
Limitation: Methodological issues- Possible that F scale suffers from response by us and social desirability, Participants may appear more authoritarian because they believe that their answers are socially correct, Reduces internal validity of questionnaire
resistance of social influence
The ability of people to withstand the social pressure to conform to the majority or obey authority
Social support (External-situational)
Locus of control (Internal-dispositional)
social support
People obey, Acts as models, Helps others do the same
resisting conforming: The fact that someone else is not following the majority of social support
Resisting obedience: In one of milgrams- Obedience dropped from 65% to 10% when the genuine participant was Joined by a disobedient Confederate
locus of control
Refers to the amount of control we perceived to have over situations
Internals: People with internal LOC believe what happens in life is the result of their own behaviour and have control over their life therefore More independent
Externals: People with external LLC believe what happens in life is the result of external forces and they don't have complete control over their life, Less likely to show independence
High LOC: More able to resist pressures to conform or obey, Tend to be more self-confident
resistance of social influence ao3
Strength: spector 1983 Found people with high internal locus of control were Less likely to conform, Suggest NSI is more powerful than ISI
Limitation: Questionnaires suffer social desirability bias, Difficult to know whether answers part participants provide to measure LOC or valid
Minority influence
A form of social influence in which a minority of people persuade the others to adopt their beliefs and attitudes or behaviours
consistency
Increase interest from other people
commitment
Risky or extreme behaviours to draw attention to their views
flexibility
When minority is willing to compromise, Prepared to adapt their point of view
consistency- moscovici (1969)
the blue-green slides experiement
To see if a consistent minority could influence a majority
172 females- Colour perception test
Consistent minority is more effective than an inconsistent minority (consistent-2 confederates said all 36 were green, inconsistent-2 confederates said 24 were green+12 were blue)
flexibility- nemeth (1986)
Ski lift accident compensation:
Consistency can often be misinterpreted as a negative trait
flexible- Majority of members are more likely to compromise for low rate of compensation
inflexible- Minority had no effect on majority when refusing to change position
Minority influence strengths
Research support: Moscovicis study showed that Consistent minority had greater effect than inconsistent, A consistent view is a minimum requirement for a minority trying to influence majority
Minority influence limitation
Biased sample and low population validity: moscovicin Used by a sample of 172 females from America, Unable to generalise results to males, Low population validity
Breach of ethical guidelines: moscovici Deceived his participants as they were told they were taken apart in a colour perception test, Didn't fully gain informed to consent
social influence and social change
Consistency
Deeper processing
Drawing attention
The augmentation principal: Majority pays attention to selfless and risky actions being taken by the minority group, They're more likely to integrate with the groups opinion
The snowball effect: Minority viewpoint got attention from majority group members, Gathers momentum
NSI
Gradual commitment
Social crypto amnesia