Social Influence 1 Conformity Outline Types Compliance Publicly

Social Influence

[1] Conformity Outline: Types – Compliance: Publicly Outline: Deutsch and Gerald (Explanations) – Two processes: Informative Social Influence (ISI) [need to be right - cognitive] and Normative Social Influence (NSI) [need to be liked emotional]. Eval 1: Research support for ISI: Lucas et al – Gave easy to hard questions. More conformity to incorrect answers for hard questions. We assume others are right when we are unsure. Eval 2: Research support for NSI: Asch – Participants said they gave wrong answers to avoid disproval. Conformity fell to 12. 5% when asked to write answers on paper. Eval 3: Individual differences for ISI: Asch – students less conformists than others (28%/37%) Perrin and Spencer – Less conforming in engineering students (confident about precision) Knowledgeable people are less influenced by majority. Eval 4: Individual differences for NSI: n. Affiliators (people in need of social relationships) are influenced more by NSI. Mc. Ghee and Teevan: n. Affiliators are more likely to conform Some people have a greater desire to be liked than others. getting along with others/private opinions don’t change. Internalisation: Genuinely accept norms/ opinion changes privately and publicly. Identification: identify with group/publicly change, don’t privately agree. Extra Evaluation Point: Two-way approach is oversimplified: Dissenter in Asch’s experiment reduced conformity. Dissenter can reduce NSI (by acting as social support) or ISI (alternative source of info). Difficult to know whether ISI or NSI is at work – or whether they work independently.

[2] Conformity - Asch Outline: NSI research - Procedure: 123 male students tested individually with 6 -8 confederates. They identified length of a line. At first confederates gave right answers, but then began to give wrong ones. Findings: wrong answer given 36. 8% of the time. 75% conformed at least once. Participants conformed to avoid rejection. Eval 2: Methodological Issues: Task was artificial, lacks mundane realism and doesn’t generalize everyday situations (lacks external validity) Participants knew they were being studied – leads to demand characteristics Outline: Variables affecting conformity – Procedure: Group Size: amount of confederates varied between 1 – 15. Unanimity: truthful or dissenting and inaccurate confederate. Task Difficulty: Harder Task Findings: Group Size: 2 confederates Eval 1: Asch’s study is a ‘Child of the times’: Perrin and Spencer – Only 1/396 engineering students conformed when answering questions as they were more confident measuring lines that participants in Asch’s study. 1950 s was a conformist time in America, Asch’s study not consistent over time. Eval 3: Ethical Issues: Participants were deceived as they thought confederate was genuine. However, benefits may outweigh cost as we learn the susceptibility to group conforming. Eval 4: Cultural Bias: Participants were from USA (Individualist). Smith and Bond: Collectivist culture e. g. China are more likely to conform. Study is not universal (13. 6%), 3 confederates (31. 8%), more made no difference. Unanimity: Conformity reduced when there was a dissenter. Task Difficulty: More conformity with harder task (ISI important)

[3] Conforming to social roles - Zimbardo Outline: Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE): Procedure – Mock prison was set up in uni basement. 24 emotionally stable students randomly assigned as either guard or prisoner. Prisoners had heavily regulated daily routines. Prisoner were referred to as numbers and guards had uniforms. Outline: Findings – Within 2 days prisoners Eval 1: Control over variables: All rebelled (swearing, shouting) participants were mentally stable Guards harassed prisoners (e. g. headcounts (similar) at night) Roles were randomly assigned, so Guards created opportunities to enforce rules behavior was due to pressure of and punished slight misdemeanors. situation not personality. Guard behavior threatened health of prisoners: Prisoners became depressed, some Control over variables = Increased internal validity. were released due to psychological Eval 2: Lack of realism: Banuazizi and Mohavedi – Participants were play acting which replicated stereotypes of how prisoners and guards are supposed to. One guard based his role on a character from ‘Cool Hand Luke’. However, 90% of conversations were about real-life. Eval 3: Dispositional influences were understated: Fromm – Only 1/3 of guards disturbance and one went on a hunger strike. Guards became more aggressive as they conformed to their role behaved brutally. Another 1/3 applied rules fairly. The rest supported prisoners and offered cigarettes. Zimbardo’s conclusions are overstated and differences in guards’ behavior shows they can choose what is right/wrong despite pressure to conform to role Eval 4: Contradictory Research: Reicher and Haslam – replicated study with different results (Prisoners eventually took control) Tajfel – Social Identity Theory (SIT) explains above study. Guards did not develop shared identity as group, prisoners did. Brutality of guards due to shared group identity, not conformity to social roles. Extra Evaluation Point: Ethical Issues: a student who wanted to leave was responded to by superintendent Zimbardo (worried about experiment) rather than researcher Zimbardo, so he was unable to protect students from harm.

[4] Obedience - Milgram 4 Prods: 1. ‘Please continue/go on’ 2. ‘The experiment requires that you continue’ 3. ‘It is absolutely essential that you continue’ 4. ‘You have no other choice, you must go on ’ Outline: Procedure – 40 males between 20 – 50 y. o. Confederate = ‘learner’ Participant = ‘teacher’. Teacher had to give electric shock to learner (different room) when they made a mistake on task. Shocks started at 25 volts rising through 30 levels to 450. afterwards learner pounded on wall and didn’t respond. No response = wrong answer. Learner was asked to carry on. (4 Prods) Outline: Findings – no one stopped before 300 volts 5 (12. 5%) stopped at 300 volts 65% continued to 450 volts Participants showed signs of extreme tension (sweat, tremble, bite lips, dig fingernails – 3 had uncontrollable seizures) Eval 1: Lacks Internal Validity – Orne and Holland: suggested participants guessed shocks were fake. Milgram wasn’t testing what he intended. However, Sheridan and King: participants gave real shocks to puppies (54% of males, 100% of females gave ‘fatal shocks’) Study may be genuine, 70% though shocks were genuine. Eval 2: Good External Validity – Hofling et al: levels of obedience in nurses to unjustified demands was high (21/22 obeyed) Therefore Milgram’s study can be generalised Eval 3: Replications Support Study – in a French show, contestants were told to give (fake) electric shocks to others. 80% gave 450 volt shock to apparently unconscious man. They showed similar behavior to those in Milgram’s study (signs of tension) Supports Milgram’s conclusions about obedience Eval 4: Social Identity Theory is an alternative explanation – Haslam and Reicher: First three prods appeal for the help of science, only the 4 th demands obedience at which point the participant quit. Participants didn’t give shock due to obedience, but to identifying with the researcher as a scientist. Extra Evaluation Point: Ethical Issues – Baumrind: Allocation of roles were fixed, participants believed they were random. Participants believed shock was real but it was fake. Deception = betrayal of trust – damages reputation of psychology. May be less likely to participate in future studies.

[5] Obedience – Situational Variables Outline: Different variations of Milgram's study – Proximity: When ‘teacher’ and ‘learner’ were in the same room, obedience rate dropped from 65% to 40%. In touch proximity variation, ‘teacher’ had to force ‘learner’ hand onto shock plate, obedience dropped to 30%. In remoteinstruction proximity variation, experimenter left the room and contacted through phone, obedience dropped to 20. 5%. Outline: Location: When location was in run down building rather than uni, where it was originally conducted, obedience dropped to 47. 5% as experimenter has less authority there. Uniform: Experimenter originally wore a lab coat. In this variation, they were called away due to inconvenient call and a causal dressed person took over. Obedience dropped to 20%. Uniform acts as a visual symbol of authority. Eval 1: Research Support – Bickman: Confederate dressed as either milkman/security guard/in a jacket and tie asked passers-by e. g. for a coin. People were twice as likely to obey the guard than the jacket/tie confederate. This shows that uniform acts as a symbol of authority producing obedience. Eval 2: Lack Internal Validity – Orne and Holland: suggest that participants are more likely to realise the procedure was fake due to extra manipulation. E. g. the uniform variation was so obviously contrived even Milgram recognised it. Unclear whether results was due to obedience or demand characteristics. Eval 3: Replicated in other Cultures – Eval 4: Control of Variables – Milgram Miranda et al: found over 90% altered one variable at a time to test its obedience in Spanish students, so effects. Other variables were kept the Milgram’s results aren’t limited to same as the original study. Study was American men. replicated many times with over 1000 However, Smith and Bond: replications people. were done in Western societies This means changes in obedience was (Individualist). Can’t conclude that caused by the manipulated variable. Milgram’s findings are universal. Establishes cause and effect. Extra Evaluation Point: Milgram’s conclusion provide ‘Obedience Alibi’ – Milgram suggests that the situation is responsible for obedience, not the person. Mandel: suggests that’s offensive to holocaust survivors to suggest Nazis obeyed orders due to situational factors. Milgram’s situational perspective ignores the roles that racism and prejudice played in the holocaust.

[6] Obedience – Social-Psychological Factors Outline: Explanation 1 – Agentic State: occurs when we act on the behalf of another person (authority). We feel no responsibility for our actions. Opposite of agentic state is Autonomous State (independent – feel responsible for our actions). An Agentic Shift occurs when we perceive someone as an authority figure and become their ‘agent’. Binding Factors reduce moral strain of obeying orders (e. g. shifting responsibility) Eval 2: Agentic Shift doesn’t explain many of the research findings – not everyone obeyed the ‘experimenter’. Also, in Hofling et al’s study, nurses didn’t show signs if anxiety when aiding doctors in their destructive process. So agentic shift can only account for some situations of obedience. Outline: Explanation 2 – Legitimacy of Authority: in societies with a structured Eval 1: Research Support for Agentic State – Blass and Schmidt: showed Eval 3: Agentic Shift can’t account for the behaviour of the Nazis – Mandel: German Reserve Police Battalion 101 shot and killed civilians in a small town in Poland (WW 2) despite not being directly ordered to do so. This challenges the agentic shift explanation as they were not powerless to disobey. Eval 4: Legitimacy of authority is a useful account of cultural differences in obedience – countries differ in obedience to hierarchy, we obey those at the top who have authority. (e. g. Parents, police, teachers etc. ) This authority is legitimate and is exercised to allow society to function smoothly. We trust those with authority to exercise their authority appropriately. However, some charismatic leaders use their authority for destructive purposes (e. g. Adolf Hitler) students clips of Milgram’s study and asked them who was responsible for harm done to ‘learner’. Student blamed ‘experimenter’ as he had legitimate authority over the ‘teacher’ This shows that the students recognised legitimate authority as the cause of obedience. authority: only 16% of Australians went to the highest voltage (Kilham & Mann) and 85% of Germans did (Mantell). Authority is perceived as legitimate more in some cultures than others. This reflects the structure of societies and how children are raised to perceive authority figures. Crosscultural research increases validity. Extra Evaluation Response: Legitimacy of Authority can explain real-life obedience – Kelman and Hamilton: Mai Lai massacre (Vietnam War) can be explained by power hierarchy of US. Soldiers assumed orders given by hierarchy (e. g. kill, rape and destroy villages) were legal. This shows that the legitimacy of authority explanation shows us why destructive obedience may be commited.

[7] Obedience – Dispositional Explanations Outline: Explanation - Authoritarian Personality: Adorno et al: Unquestioning obedience is a psychological disorder. Authoritarian personality includes high respect for authority and contempt for inferiors. They also have conventional attitudes towards race and gender. Authoritarian personalities originates from childhood (overly strict parenting e. g. high standards/strict discipline etc. – characterized by conditional love). This creates hostility in child which cant be expressed towards adults so is displaced onto socially inferior people. Eval 2: Authoritarian Personality Explanation is Limited – Millions of Outline: Key Study – Adorno et al: Procedure - investigated unconscious attitudes towards other racial groups from 2000+ MC white Americans. Several scales were developed including potential fascism scales (F-scales). E. g. ‘Obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtue for children to learn’ Findings – Those who scored high of the F-scales (Authoritarians), identified with ‘strong’ people and were contemptuous towards ‘weak’ people. They showed excessive respect to higher status people. Authoritarians had fixed stereotypes about other groups. Eval 3: The F-scale is politically biased – Christie and Jahoda: F-scale aims to Germans displayed obedient and anti-semetic measure tendency towards extreme but didn’t all have the same personality. Its right wing ideology, but both right and unlikely that most of the German population left wing authoritarianism insist on would have an authoritarian personality. complete obedience towards authority. An alternative explanation is the social Adorno’s theory isn’t comprehensive as identity theory which states that Germans it doesn't explain obedience towards identified with Nazi state and adopted its left-wing authoritarianism. views. Eval 1: Support for link between Authoritarian Personality and Obedience – Elms and Milgram: interviewed participants that were fully obedient and they all scored high in the F-scale. However, the link is only a correlation so we can’t establish cause and effect. A third factor (e. g. lower level education) may be the cause of obedience and authoritarian personality. Eval 4: Explanation based on flawed methodology – Greenstein: F-scales are worded in the same direction, so measures the tendency to agree to everything. Interviewers knew who was authoritarian before interviewing them due to scores on F-scale. This could lead to leading questions. This means Adorno’s conclusions lacks validity. Extra Evaluation Point: Much of the research uses correlations – Adorno found correlations between authoritarianism and prejudice against minority groups, but that doesn’t establish cause and effect. Therefore, Adorno can’t claim that harsh parenting causes an authoritarian personality.

[8] Resistance to Social Influence Outline: Explanation 1 – Social Support: Pressure to conform is reduced if there is a dissenting peer even if they are giving the wrong answer (Asch’s study). If the dissenter starts conforming, so will the naïve participant. Pressure to obey is reduced if someone else is seen to disobey. They are free to act on their own conscience. Outline: Explanation 2 – Locus of Control (LOC): Rotter: internal vs external Eval 1: Research evidence supports social support as resistance to conform LOC. Internal LOC = when people believe – Allen and Levine: people conformed things that happen to them are controlled by less when there was a dissenter even if themselves (e. g. achievement depends on they wore thick glasses and claimed how hard you work). External LOC = when they couldn’t see clearly. Resistance people believe that thing that happen to them are outside their control (e. g. failing due enables someone to be free of the pressure group. to bad teacher or bad luck – hard questions). Eval 2: Research evidence supports social support as resistance to obedience – Gamson et al: participants were put in groups to produce evidence that an oil company would use to run a smear campaign. He found that 29 out of 33 groups (88%) rebelled (more than Milgram). This shows that peer support causes greater resistance. Eval 3: Research evidence supports link between LOC and resistance to obedience – Holland: repeated Milgram’s People with an internal LOC show a greater resistance to social influence as they base decisions on their own beliefs and have less need for social approval as they’re more smart (self-confident and achievement orientated). Eval 4: Not all research supports link between LOC and resistance – Twenge et al: analysed data from American LOC study and measured whether participants studies and found that people have were internals or externals. become more independent but also 37% of internals didn’t continue to highest more external. However resistance is voltage. Only 23% of externals didn’t continue. linked to internal LOC, so we would This shows that internals showed greater expect people to become more internal. resistance which increases validity of LOC as This challenges the link between an explanation of resistance to obedience. internal LOC and resistance.

• Extra Evaluation Point: Role of LOC in resisting social influence may be exaggerated - Rotter: LOC is only important in new situations and has little influence in familiar situations where previous experience is more important. For example, if someone conformed in a specific situation in the past, they are likely to conform again in the same situation, even if they have a high internal LOC. This is shows that LOC is limited and only supplies to certain situations.

[9] Minority Influence Outline: A minority changes the opinion of Outline: Key Study - Moscovici et al: Procedure – 6 people viewed 36 blue-green Eval 1: Research evidence demonstrates importance of consistency – Moscovici et al: consistent minority opinion had a greater effect on people than an inconsistent one. Wood et al: meta-analysis of 100 similar studies and found that minorities seen as consistent were the most influential. This shows that consistency is a major factor in minority influence. Eval 3: Minority influence research often involve artificial tasks – Moscovici’s study involved identifying participants were given a message supporting the colour of slides, which is not a view a particular view, an endorsement of the view a minority would try to promote. They from either a majority or minority and a are more likely to be involved in conflicting view. People were less willing to political campaigning with much more change their opinion to the new conflicting significant outcomes. Therefore the view if they listened to the minority rather study lacks external validity and don’t than the majority. This shows that minority tell us about real life situations. messages are more deeply processed and Eval 4: Research supports involvement of internalisation in minority influence – in another variation of his study, Moscovici had participants write their responses down so they were private. This shows that internalisation took place as people from the majority didn’t want to say they converted publicly. This shows that people can be influenced by the minority but don’t show it, so it may not be apparent. others through internalization using three methods – Consistency: makes others rethink their own views. Synchronic consistency (all the people in the minority are saying the same thing). Diachronic consistency (they’ve been saying the same thing for some thing). Commitment: activities must have risk to demonstrate commitment to cause and gain attention. Augmentation principle: majority pay even more attention. Flexibility: Nemeth – being too consistent may be off-putting and seen as rigid. Minority should accept reasonable counter-arguments. Snowball effect: the minority becomes the majority as more people start converting. Eval 2: Research evidence shows that change to minority position involves deeper thought – Martin et al: have an enduring effect. coloured slides varying in intensity and stated whether they were blue or green. 3 conditions: 1. confederates consistently said slides were green 2. Confederates were inconsistent. 3. Control group – no confederates. Findings – Condition 1 (Consistent): Same wrong answer 8. 42% of trials. 32% gave same answer on at least 1 trial. Condition 2 (Inconsistent): agreement fell to 1. 25%. Condition 3 (Control): participants gave wrong answer 0. 25% of the time.

Extra Evaluation Point: Application of minority influence is limited – studies make a clear distinction between the minority and majority, however it is more complicated in real life. For example, the majority usually have higher power and status whereas the minority are usually a committed tight-knit groups that support each other. Studies supporting minority influence don’t reflect these differences so they don’t apply to real-life situations where are more powerful influence is exerted.

[10] Social Influence and Social Change Outline: Lessons from minority influence research – 1. Civil rights marches drew attention to segregation (America 1950 s) 2. Minority consistently marched. 3. People started thinking about the unjustness of the status quo (deeper processing). 4. ‘Freedom riders’ got on buses to challenge laws separating black people and even got beaten for it (augmentation principle). 5. Civil right activists (e. g. MLK) gradually got attention of US government and the civil rights law 1964 was passed (snowball effect). 6. Social Cryptomnesia – people don’t remember event leading up to change. Eval 2: Minority Influence is only effective at creating social change indirectly – Nemeth: influence of minority influence is delayed and indirect. It took ages for attitudes towards drink-driving and smoking to shift. The majority is only influenced on matters related to the central issues and not the issue itself. So using minority influence to explain social change is limited. Outline: Lessons from conformity research – Dissenters make social change Eval 1: Research support for role of NSI in social change – Nolan et al: hung more likely as they broke the power of the messages about saving electricity on the majority encouraging others in Asch’s study. doors of houses. There was a significant Social change is encouraged by drawing decrease in electric usage compared to attention to the behavior of the majority (e. g. those who received the same message ‘Bin it – others do it’). but without a reference to the Lessons from obedience research – Disobedient models make change more likely. behaviour of others. So conformity can lead to social change through NSI. In Milgram’s study, participants would obey less when a confederate refused to give shocks. Gradual commitment leads to ‘drift’ (new behavior) because resisting bigger instructions is more difficult when a small instruction is obeyed (Zimbardo). Eval 3: The nature of deeper processing has been questioned – Mackie: majority influence creates deeper processing if you don’t share their views. We believe others think in the same way as us and if we find out the majority believes differently we a forced to think about our arguments. So minority influence may be incorrect casting doubt on its validity. Eval 4: Identification is an important variable but is overlooked in minority influence study – Bashir et al: People are less likely to behave in environmentally ways to avoid being labelled a minority ‘environmentalist’. Participants rated environmental activists negatively (‘treehuggers’). So those trying to create social change should avoid behavior that reinforces stereotypes off-putting to the majority. Being able to identify with a minority group is just as important as agreeing to their views.

Extra Evaluation Point: There are methodological issues in this area of research – Explanations of social changes are based eon the studies of Moscovici, Asch and Milgram which can be criticised on their methodology. For example, they all use artificial tasks which do not reflect real-life situations. This applies to the evaluation of the link between social influence and social change.