Unit 2 social influence Social psychology Types of

Unit 2 - social influence Social psychology

Types of conformity Example Compliance Publicly conforming to the behaviour or views of others in a group but privately maintaining one’s own view. Publicly supporting oxford team but privately supporting Swindon's team. Internalisation Adopting the behaviours or views of a group both publicly and privately because you value membership to that group. The behaviour will remain even when the individual leaves the group. Normative social influence: based on our desire to be liked. Informational social influence: based on our desire to be right. Perrin and spencer A 02 Used youths on probation and probation officers as the confederates. They demonstrated levels of conformity similar to those found by Asch. . The researchers concluded that where the perceived costs for people not yielding were high. Conformity Someone searching for a faith is likely to maintain these beliefs even after loosing contact with the group. Key terms: Social influence- the process by which an individual’s attitudes, beliefs or behaviours are modified by the presence or actions of others. Conformity- a change in behaviour or belief as a result of real or imagined group pressure. Obedience- the result of social influence whereby somebody acts in response to a direct order from an authority figure.

Explanation Normative social influence Informational social influence Outline of explanation A 01 • We conform so that others will approve and accept us • Humans are social species and have a fundamental need for companionship and fear of rejection • The result is compliance. • We look to others for info about how to behave • Situational ambiguity, emergency situations and the presence of an expert are all factors which lead to ISI. • The result is internalisation Evaluation of explanation A 02 • Garanadeau and Cillessen have shown how groups can be manipulated by a skilful bully so that victimisation of a single individuals provides the group with a common goal. • Wittenbrink and Henley found that participants exposed to negative comparisons information about African Americans (which they were lead to believe was the view of the majority) later reported more negative beliefs about the target individuals. Perrin and spencer A 02 Replicated Asch’s procedure with British students, found only one conforming response in 396 trials. Concluded that cultural changes over 30 years had led to a reduction in conformity. Conformity explanations

AIM To see whether people conform to group pressure on an unambiguous line judgement task. METHOD All male college students, 6 people (only 1 real participant and 5 confederates) participants asked to match comparison line with the standard line. Real participant placed in seat 5. 12 critical trials where confederates all gave the same wrong answer. FINDINGS 37% of participants conformed on all the critical trials. 74% of participants conformed at least once. CONCLUSION Normative social influence! Some participants actually thought the confederates were correct. • All p’s checked for visual perception and ability to complete the task • Mc. Carthyism- people didn’t want to be seen as uncomfortable • Unrepresentative sample- only male, cannot be generalised • Laboratory experiment- low ecological validity • Demand characteristics- participants can guess the aim easily • Ethical issue- deception Variations to method: A non unanimous majority= 5% conformity Tasks were made harder= conformity increased 1 confederate majority= no conformity, 2 confederates majority= 12% conformity, 3 confederates majority= 37% conformity EVALUATION Conformity Asch (1951) study

AIM To investigate how readily people conform to new roles by observing how quickly people adopt roles of guards and prisoners in a prison. METHOD • • FINDINGS • • Well adjusted, healthy, male volunteers were paid $15 dollars a day to take part in a two week simulation. Participants were randomly allocated to roles of guards or prisoner. The prisoners were arrested, taken blindfolded to a prison set up, stripped, sprayed and given smocks to wear and numbers. The guards were given khaki uniforms, dark glasses and wooden batons however no physical aggression was permitted. The study had to be stopped after 6 days, the guards humiliated and harassed the prisoners. They quickly conformed to their new roles. Prisoners rebelled against the guards after only 2 days, the guards quelled the rebellions using fire extinguishers. Some prisoners became anxious and depressed, 1 was released after only one day and 2 by day four. CONCLUSION • • EVALUATION Results demonstrate how easily people can change behaviour. Ethical issues- lack of fully informed consent, the prisoners didn’t know they would be arrested at home, P’s may have suffered physiological harm, however follow up interviews showed no long lasting negative effects. Demand characteristics- Some p’s tried to be good subjects, Zimbardo was wrong to act as both super intendant and chief researcher as he lost sight of harm being done to the p’s. If the roles are strongly stereotyped people will readily conform. Conforming behaviour was a result of normative social influence rather than personality factors. None of the p’s who were guards showed sadist behaviour before the study- shows that the prison environment has affected them. Conformity Zimbardo (1973) study

Explanation Outline of explanation A 01 Evaluation of explanation A 02 Desire for individuation The desire to be an individual (not the same as others) sometimes outweighs pressures to conform. Snyder and Fromkin- two groups of students, 1 st group led to believe their attitudes was different from 10, 000 other students, 2 nd group led to believe their attitude was exactly the same. Later the 2 nd group took part in a conformity study and resisted pressure to conform. It was an attempt to show individuality. Desire to If we experience obvious Burger- found people with a high need for personal control are maintain control group pressure we feel our more likely to resist pressures. freedom is being threatened. Daubman- found those with a low score on a control scale were more likely to help with a puzzle than those with a high score. Prior commitment Once people publicly commit to an opinion they are less likely to change it than if it were held privately. Asch- in one condition the p publicly gave his answer before the confederates did, he was asked if he wanted to change it, but didn’t because of fear of appearing indecisive. Time to think and find social support Fear of rejection may prevent us from actively resisting conformity. Finding another person will build confidence and aid resistance. Asch- when participants received support from another person their conformity dropped to 8% Resisting pressure to conform

Explanation A 01 A 02 Legitimate authority We feel obliged to those in power because we respect their qualifications. We are socially conditioned to respect authority figures. Bickmans study showed people are inclined to obey those who display visual symbols of authority e. g. uniforms. Milgram’s study showed the level of obedience dropped when location moved to run down building. Gradual commitment Foot in the door effect- once people comply with small demands they find it hard to refuse to carry out more serious requests. P’s in Milgram's study found it hard to disengage from the procedure because of the desire to seem consistent. Agentic shift People operate on 2 levels, the autonomous and the agentic, when we move to agentic shift we shift responsibility from ourselves to someone else. P’s in Milgram's study were seen to be in the agentic shift state by asking “who will be responsible for this person? ” The role of buffers Describes any aspect of a situation that protects people from having to confront the consequences of their actions. Milgram suggested buffers acted as a mechanisms to help people reduce the strain of obeying an immoral command, the teacher and learner were in different rooms so couldn’t see each other. Cultural differences using Milgram’s procedure: Kilham and Mann found a 28% obedience rate in Australia (lowest reported) Mantel found a 86% obedience rate in Germany. Obedience explanations

AIM To find out whether participants would obey an unjust order from a person in authority to inflict pain on another person. METHOD • • FINDINGS 40 men aged 20 -50 volunteered. Learner was always the confederate, the participant was always the teacher. Teacher was instructed to give electric shocks to the learner every time a wrong answer was given, maximum shock 450 volts. No real shock given. If teacher was unwilling the experimenter would urge him to continue At the end participants were debriefed 65% of participants gave the maximum 450 volts. All participants went up to 350 volts. CONCLUSION Under certain circumstances most people will obey an order against their own conscience. When people occupy a lower position to a dominant person they are liable to lose empathy, compassion and morality and are inclined towards blind obedience. EVALUATION • Laboratory experiment- lacks ecological validity • • Ethical issues- drew attention away from findings, sparked much controversy ORNE AND HOLLAND- claimed the p’s were going along with the act. Milgram responded with evidence from interviews post experiment. Variations to method: Teacher in the same room as learner= 40% obedience Location moved to run down office= 48% obedience Teacher paired with confederate who flicked the switches= 93% Teacher presses learners hands on shock plate= 30% obedience Obedience Milgram 1974 study

AIM To investigate whether people were more likely to obey people with visible signs of authority e. g. uniforms METHOD Field experiment involving 3 male experimenters. One was dressed in casual sports clothes, one as a milkman and one as a guard. All of them went up to random people on the streets of New York and gave orders e. g. asking for money for a parking metre. FINDINGS P’s were most likely to obey the guard and least likely to obey the casual sports wear person. CONCLUSION Findings supported the idea that obedience is related to the amount of perceived authority. EVALUATION ü Field experiment- high ecological validity and mundane realism Ø The experiment has decreased control and increased ethical issues- lack of informed consent. Hofling et al Field experiment with 22 participant nurses. Nurses received a phone call from a unknown doctor asking them to administer 20 mgs of an unknown drug to a patient. 21 out of the 22 nurses obeyed. Concluded that senior members of staff have potential to influence junior staff demonstrating the power of Authoritive figures. Rank and Jacobson Replicated Hofling’s study, but with a known drug and doctor, and the nurses were allowed to interact together. Only 2/18 nurses were prepared to give the medication. Concluded that when nurses were allowed to interact naturally they would not obey the Authoritive figure. Obedience Bickman 1974 study

Explanation Outline of explanation A 01 Evaluation of explanation A 02 Feeling responsible and empathetic A significant minority of p’s in Milgram’s study refused to obey. These p’s felt responsible for the harm they were causing. This acted as a trigger to shock them out of the agentic state. E. g. one disobedient participant reported as saying “I cant hurt this man, he’s a human being like me. I wouldn’t want it done to myself. Disobedient models Exposing people to disobedient models encourages disobedience. E. g. in Milgram’s study when the p was paired with a confederate who refused to continue giving shocks only 10% continued. Questioning motives and status of authority Prevents automatic obedience, often is a result of having time to think, or being able to discuss with others. E. g. when Milgram’s study was transferred to run down building the levels of obedience dropped to 48%, the lack of prestigious surroundings made it easier for p’s to question the legitimacy of the experimenter. Reactance Occurs when we want to protect our sense E. g. underage drinking and smoking. of freedom, attempts to restrict freedom can result in the opposite effect. Resisting pressures to obey

AIM Set up a situation in which participants were encouraged to rebel against an unjust authority. METHOD • • • Advert in paper for volunteers for a paid discussion on ‘standards of behaviour in the community’ in the local holiday inn. A man explained MHRC was taking legal action against a petrol station manager who had shown offensive behaviour in the community, the manager argued that he had been sacked for speaking out on TV against petrol prices. P’s were asked to discuss this issue, it was filmed. It became apparent during the discussion that the HR wanted them to argue in favour of the sacking. P’s were asked to sign a consent form allowing the film to be shown in a court case. FINDINGS Of the 33 groups tested 32 rebelled in some way during the discussion. In 25 of the 33 groups the majority of group members refused to sign the consent form. Nine groups even threatened legal action against MHRC. CONCLUSION Rebellion against authority involved challenging two social norms in this situation, obedience and commitment, both of which participants had engaged in by agreeing to take part. EVALUATION High level of realism. Difficult to separate the factors that led to disobedience Ethical issues as participants were deceived about the true nature of the exercise and didn’t give fully informed consent. Independent behaviour Gamson, Fireman and Rytina 1982 study

Consistency Individuals must maintain their belief, any dissent is likely to weaken the minority position, majority are likely to exploit weakness. If consistent then minority is harder to ignore. Snowball effect Occurs when a minority convert a small group of people to their views and the small group converts others. Confidence Sends a message that the minority position is serious and demands attention and respect. Social change occurs when a society as a whole adopts a new belief or way of behaving which then becomes widely accepted as the norm. Persuasiveness In order to attract others to the position, seen as defections, moving from one group to another, by a moral decision not just going for popularity Holland 1967 Investigated the relationship between internal locus and independent behaviour, using variations of Milgram's procedure. He found no relationship between locus of control and levels of obedience. Blass 1991 Reanalysed the data and found those with an internal locus of control were more resistant to pressures to obey. Implications for social change

AIM To see whether a consistent minority could influence a majority to give incorrect answers in a perception task. METHOD Laboratory experiment, 6 participants at a time, estimated the colour of 36 slides, all of which were blue but differing in brightness. 2/6 participants were confederates. 2 conditions= consistent (confederates said all the slides were green) and inconsistent (confederates said the slides were green 24 times and blue 12 times). FINDINGS P’s in consistent condition called the slides green in 8. 4% of trials and 32% of these p’s called a slide green at least once. P’s in inconsistent condition called slides green on only 1. 3% of trials. CONCLUSION When minority are consistent the are likely to be more effective. EVALUATION Ethical issues- deception Lab experiment- Low ecological validity Demand characteristics- some people may want to rebel. Positive social change= segregation being banned after Rosa Parks refused to obey law. Negative social change= Terrorist attacks. Implications for social change Moscovici 1969 study