16 Markers for Social Influence

Describe and evaluate ISI and NSI as explanations for conformity

Informational social influence is when 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 have a desire to be right. ISI is most common in situations with scarce information or ambiguity, where we aren't sure what the correct thing to do is. For example, copying other classmate's answers in class so that you can be right too. It can therefore explain internalisation, the deepest type of conformity. Normative social influence is when we agree with the opinion of the majority because we want to be accepted and liked. We pay attention to norms which regulate the behaviour in groups so that we can be like others. For example, pretending you support a particular football team because the rest of your friendship group does. NSI is most common in situations where you don't know the norms and so look to other people for how to behave. It is an emotion process, wanting to be liked, and can explain compliance, the shallowest form of conformity. ISI has strong research evidence to support it. Lucas et al asked groups of students to give answers on hard and easy maths questions. There was more conformity when the questions were hard. This was most true for students who rated their maths ability as poor. This supports the idea that people conform when they feel that they don't have the right answer. However, there may be individual differences, Asch found that out of all participants, students were the least conformist. This may suggest that people who are more knowledgeable or confident in their ability may be less influenced by the apparently correct majority. NSI also is supported by research evidence. Asch asked participants why they conformed to incorrect answers in his lines study, they said that they felt self-conscious giving the right answer and were afraid of disapproval. In a variation where participants wrote their answers down, conformity rates dropped to 12%. However, there may be individual differences. McGhee and Teevan found that students with a personality that has a greater need for social relationships were more likely to conform than the rest. This displays how the desire to be liked may effect some more than others. Deutsch and Gerrard's two-process approach is that conformity is either down to ISI or NSI. However, Asch's findings that a dissenting partner reduced conformity may have reduced ISI (as an alternative source of information) or NSI (by providing social support). This suggests that is isn't always possible to know whether ISI or NSI is at work.

Outline and evaluate Asch's research

123 male american participants were tested individually in groups of 6-8 confederates. On each trial each member of the group had to state which comparison line (A, B or C) was the same length as the standard question line. On 12/18 trials the confederates gave purposeful (often obvious) wrong answers. Participants conformed to the majority and gave a wrong answer 36.8% of the time. Only 25% never conformed on any of the trials. This displays a high level of conformity, called the Asch effect- the extent to which people conform in ambiguous situations. In the group size variation, the number of confederates varied between 1 and 15. Conformity rates with 2 confederates was 13.6%, with three it rose to 31.8%, growing little past this point. Suggesting the size of the majority impacts the want to conform. In the task difficulty variation Asch made the line judging task harder by making the comparison lines more similar. Here, conformity rates increased suggesting ISI plays a greater role when the task becomes more ambiguous. In the unanimity variation, Asch introduced a truthful confederate or one that was dissenting but still inaccurate. Whether the dissenter was giving right or wrong answers, conformity levels dropped by a quarter, due to the participant having more social support. Some research that has been published challenges Asch's findings. Perin and Spencer conducted a more recent study, remaking Asch's procedure. They found only one conforming response in 396 trials. Participants were confident to measure the lines and not act conformist. These contradicting findings may be due to Asch's study being conducted in the 1950's, a time when conformity rates were high in society in America. Asch's results may therefore reflect that time period not a consistent human behaviour. Another limitation of Asch's study is that the situation was artificial. Participants knew they were in a study so may have just responded to deman characteristics. The line task was also trivial so it could be considered that there would be no reason to conform. The 'groups' were also randomly put together and so do not reflect what we would see in real life. The results are therefore difficult to generalise to real-life situations. Asch's study was affected by gender bias due to only studying men. Neto suggested that women may be more conformist because they are known to be more concerned about social relationships. The results may therefore only apply to men. Additionally, the study may be subject to cultural bias due to only using Americans. The USA has an individualist culture in which people are more concerned with themselves, this may have made them less likely to conform. This means that conformity rates are sometimes even higher than what Asch found.

Outline and evaluate research into conformity to social roles

In a famous study into conformity of social roles, Zimbardo set up a mock prison in Stanford University. 24 'emotionally stable' students were randomly assigned to roles of guards or prisoners. To increase realism, prisoners were arrested at home, blindfolded, strip searched and issued a uniform and number. Prisoner's daily routines were heavily regulated and controlled. Guards had their own uniform, wooden club, handcuffs and keys. They were told they had complete power over the prisoners.Within two days, prisoners rebelled against their treatment. Guards harassed prisoners and used every opportunity to reinstate and abuse their power. Soon the prisoners became depressed and anxious. One went on a hunger strike and two were released early due to psychological disturbance. The study had to be stopped after 6 days. This revealed how a situation and social role can influence people's behaviour to conform to norms. The more the guards associated with their role, the more brutal they became. A strength of the Stanford prison experiment is that the researchers had some control over variables. The participants were tested to be emotionally stable and then were randomly allocated into the roles of guard and prisoner. This helps to conclude that their behaviours were not subject to their personalities but instead the situation. This control helps increase the study's internal validity, making us more confident in concluding how social roles effect conformity. A potential limitation is that there is a lack of realism. Mohavedi suggests the participants were play-acting. Their performances reflected stereotypes of how guard and prisoners are supposed to behave. Some guards based their roles on film characters, whilst some prisoners rioted because they thought that's what real prisoners do. This suggests that the study does not provide reliable results. However, Zimbardo argued that the data showed 90% of conversations between prisoners were about prison life. The simulation seemed real to them, which increases the study's internal validity. Another limitation is that there has been research that contradicts the findings of Zimbardo. Reicher and Haslam partially replicated the Stanford prison experiment and found that the prisoners eventually took control. Guards failed to develop a shared social identity as a group, but the prisoners did and refused to accept limits assigned to their roles. This suggests that Zimbardo's findings may be due to a shared social identity as a group, rather than conformity to social roles. Zimbardo's study also suffers ethical issues. It is argued that Zimbardo's superintendent role conflicted with his role as researcher. His involvement as a character in the study stopped him from protecting the participants from harm, and participants were only removed from the study once they showed signs of severe suffering. Participants have the right to take part in psychological investigations without suffering any physical or mental harm, as well as the right to withdraw at any point. These ethical factors were not carried out as comprehensively as they should have.

Outline and evaluate Milgram's research

Milgram was interested in the extent to which individuals will obey authority figures, even if it meant harming another individual. He took 40 men who thought they were taking part in a 'memory test'. Participants were 'randomly' allocated as the role of the teacher, whilst a confederate was given the role of learner. The learned was strapped to a chair in another room, whilst the teacher was given the controls to a shock machine. Participants were told by the authoritive experimenter to give shocks every time the learner got a question wrong, increasing the voltage each time up to a deadly 450V. The teachers were not told that the shocks were fake or that the learner was an actor. The teachers were prompted by the experimenter in a lab coat to continue on with the study and obey their orders when they protested the job. At 300V the learner expressed distress and pain and was silent thereafter. No participants asked to stop the study below 300V. Five stopped at 300V. 65% continued to 450V. Participants showed signs of extreme stress. All participants were consoled and debriefed afterwards. Milgram's study suggests people will obey authority, even if the demands are dangerous. A limitation of Milgram's study is that it lacks internal validity. It was argued by Orne and Holland that the participants guessed the electric shocks were fake. This would mean the study did not measure what it intended, reducing the validity. However, Milgram himself stated that a review after the study showed 70% of participants believed the shocks were genuine. A strength of Milgram's study is that is has good external validity. Milgram argued that the lab-based relationship between experimenter and participant reflected wider real-life authority relationships, providing high external validity. This is further supported by Hofling, who found that by pretending to be a doctor over the phone, he could persuade real nurses in a hospital to carry out unjustified demands, such as giving a patient an abnormal dosage. 21 out of the 22 nurses obeyed, despite rules telling them not to take over-the-phone orders, displaying how Milgram's results can be generalised to more real-life situations. Furthermore, in a French TV game show contestants were paid to give (fake) electric shocks, when ordered by the presenter, to other participants who were actors. 80% gave the full 450V to an apparently unconscious man. Their behaviour showed anxiety. This supports Milgram's findings about obedience to authority, making it more reliable. An issue with this research is that there are ethical breaches. Participants believed they were randomly allocated to roles and were deceived into believing the shocks were real. Because deception is a betrayal of trust, this damages the reputation of the psychologists and their research. Additionally, participants showed high levels of distress, such as by having seizures, meaning they experienced psychological harm. Participants within research should have the right not to experience this.

Outline and evaluate research into the effects of situational variables on obedience

One situational variable into obedience is proximity. In Milgram's original study the teacher and learner were in adjoining rooms, so they could hear but not see eachother. In the proximity variation of his study, the teacher and learner were put in the same room. Obedience dropped from 65% to 40%. The proximity to the authority figure was manipulated too, in the remote-instruction variation, the experimenter gave instructions via the phone rather an in person. Here, obedience dropped to 20.5%. This suggests that being able to see the authority figure or the physical impact of their ordered behaviour, effects an individuals' want to obey. Location is also a situational variable into obedience. Milgram's original study was done in Yale University (a prestigious location). In the location variation, the study was carried out in a run-down building. Obedience dropped to 47.5%, suggesting there was less authority in this setting.Uniform is another situational variable into obedience. In the original study, the experimenter wore a white 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 an effect on our want to obey. There is research support for the influence of situational variables. Bickman had a confederate dress either casually or as a security guard and had them ask 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 conclusion that a uniform conveys authority and is a situational factor for obedience. A potential limitation to Milgram's variations is that its lack of internal validity. Orne and Holland suggested that the extra experimental manipulation made the scenario even more unlike real life, meaning the participants were even more likely to realise the procedure was fake. In the variation where the experimenter was replaced by a member of the public, even Milgram recognised how unconvincing it was. Therefore the results may reflect demand characteristics due to participants seeing the deception, rather than real-life obedience. Another limitation is that Milgram's research only uses American participants and so the results may only reflect behaviours relevant to western societies. Obedience to authority is argued to be something that is stressed more in some cultures more than others. This means that Milgram's findings may not apply to and represent human behaviour worldwide, due to its cultural bias. A strength however of the research into situational variables is that Milgram systematically altered one variable at a time to test the effects on obedience. Other variables were kept constant as the study was replicated on over 1000 participants. This control gives us more certainty over cause and effect as well as improving reliability due to replications.

Outline and evaluate explanations for obedience. Include the agentic state and legitimacy of authority in your answer.

One social-psychological explanation of obedience is the agentic state. In an agentic state a person feels no personal responsibility for their actions, they are acting on behalf of another person. The shift from autonomy to being an 'agent' is called the agentic shift and happens when we perceive someone else as a authority figure and we respect their orders. This person has power due to their social position. Binding factors are aspects of a situation that allow the person to ignore the damaging effect of their behaviours and reduce the 'moral strain'. For example, denying responsibility for the victim or the damage done to them. The agentic state can be supported by research evidence. Schmidt showed students a film of Milgram's study and asked them to identify who was responsible for the harm to the learner. Students blamed the experimenter rather than the participant, due to the experimenter's legitimate authority as a scientist. The students recognised the authority figure as the cause of obedience, supporting this explanation. A limitation of this explanation however, is that there are some research findings that it cannot explain. In research, like Milgram's, not all of the participants obeyed. Humans are social animals and are all in social hierarchies, meaning in theory we should all obey. Additionally, 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. Therefore, the agentic shift may only account for some situations of obedience. Another social-psychological explanation of obedience is legitimacy of the authority. Most societies are structured hierarchically. People in certain positions hold authority over the rest of us e.g teachers, police officers etc. The authority they have is legitimate in the sense that it is agreed by society. We mostly agree 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 learn this through childhood from our parents and teachers.Legitimacy to authority is a useful account of cultural differences in obedience. Kilham and Mann found a 16% obedience rate in Australians and a 85% obedience rate in Germans, in a study similar to Milgram's. Authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimate in come cultures. This reflects how different societies are raised to perceive authority figures in different ways. By having supportive cross-cultural research, this explanation has increased validity. Furthermore, this explanation can help to explain real-life obedience. The army has authority recognised by the government and the law. Soldiers assume orders given by the hierarchy to be legal; even ones to kill, rape and destroy. The legitimacy of authority explanation is therefore able to give reasons why destructive obedience is committed.

Outline and evaluate the authoritarian personality as an explanation for obedience

It was believed that unquestioning obedience is a psychological disorder, embedded in an individual's personality. Adorno concluded that people with an Authoritarian personality have an exaggerated respect for authority and a submissiveness to it, express contempt for people of inferior social status, and have conventional attitudes towards race and gender. This personality type is said to form in childhood through harsh parenting, strict discipline, high standards and severe criticism. The parents often display conditional love. These experiences create resentment and hostility in the child, this is then displaced onto others who are seen as weaker. This explains their hatred of people seen as socially inferior. Adorno studied this theory by looking at unconscious attitudes towards other racial groups in over 2000 middle-class Americans. A scale was created for fascism (f-scale). This used statements such as 'obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtues for children to learn'. Authoritarians, who scored high on the f-scale, identified with 'strong' people and were contemptuous about the 'weak'. They were conscious of their own and others' status, showing excessive respect to those of high status. They had fixed stereotypes about groups. This explanation has limitations, millions of individuals in Germany displayed obedient and anti-Semitic behaviour, but didn't have the same personality. It is unlikely that the majority of Germany's population possessed an authoritarian personality. Instead, the social identity theory is more likely; most Germans identified with the anti-semitic Nazi state and adopted it's views.Another limitation is that it is politically biased. Jahoda suggested the f-scale aims to measure the tendency towards extreme right-wing ideology. However, right-wing and left-wing authoritarianism both insist on complete obedience to political authority. Adorno's theory is therefore not a comprehensive dispositional explanation of obedience because it does not consider left-wing authoritarianism. Additionally, the F-scale has also been criticised for a flawed methodology. Greenstein called it 'a comedy of methodological errors'. For example, items are worded in the same 'direction' so the scale just measures the tendency to agree with everything. Also, researchers knew the participants' test results when they interviewed them, so they knew who was authoritarian. This makes biased results very likely. Adorno's research shows a correlation between measured variables, it does not show cause and effect. We cannot conclude that authoritarian personalities cause obedience, other factors such as education may be involved.