Social Influence

Attachments:

• Conformity

1. Types
   1. Compliance
      1. No change in underlying attitude, only public behaviour.
   2. Internalisation
      1. Acceptance of group's views publicly and privately.
   3. Identification
      1. Compliance and internalisation to establish a relationship with someone.
2. Explanations
   1. Normative Social Influence
      1. The result of wanting to be liked and be accepted as part of a group by following its norms.
      2. Evaluation (Research)
         1. Bullying
            1. Garandeau & Cillessen - children with low interpersonal relations manipulated by a skillful bully, victimisation of other child provides common goal.
         2. Smoking
            1. Linkenbach & Perkins - adolescents exposed to normative message: majority of age peers do not smoke, less likely to smoke.
         3. Conservation Behaviour
            1. Schultz et al - hotel guests exposed to normative message: 75% of guests reused towels, 25% reduction in daily fresh towels needed.
   2. Informational social influence
      1. The result of wanting to be right, i.e. looking to others, as experts, for the right answer and conforming to their opinion.
      2. Evaluation (Research)
         1. Political Opinion
            1. Fein et al - judgments for US candidate performance influenced by crowd reactions.
         2. Development of Social Stereotypes
            1. Wittenbrink & Henley - exposure to negative info about African Americans more likely to shape stereotypes as majority view.
         3. Mass Psychogenic Illness
            1. Jones et al - illness symptoms can spread between members of a cohesive group even though there is no obvious physical cause.
3. Key Study: Asch (1956)
   1. Aim
      1. To investigate conformity due to majority influence.
   2. Method
      1. 'Test of vision'. Series of lines. 123 male American undergrads. 1 real ppt. Real answered last/second to last. 12/18 trials confederates incorrect.
   3. Results
      1. For the 12 critical trials, 36.8% of ppts were also incorrect. 25% of ppts never conformed. Without confederates ppts got it right 99% of the time.
   4. Conclusion
      1. People tend to conform due to majority influence.
   5. Variations
      1. Difficulty of task
         1. If task more difficult, conformity increased.
      2. Size of majority
         1. Conformity increases with up to 3 coneds.
      3. Unanimity
         1. If not unanimous decision, conformity decreases.

Attachments:

• Obedience

1. Key Study: Milgram (1963)
   1. Aim
      1. Interested in researching how far people would go in obeying an instruction if it involved harming another person.
   2. Method
      1. 'How punishment affects learning'. 40 males. Drew lots, real ppt always the teacher. Teacher shock confed if answer wrong, 15V increments up to 450V.
   3. Results
      1. All at 300V. 12.5% stopped when learner first objected. 65% continued to max voltage.
   4. Conclusion
      1. Ordinary people are likely to follow orders given by an authority figure, even to the extent of harming an innocent human being.
   5. Variations
      1. Prestige of setting
         1. Location moved from Yale uni to run down office.
            1. Obedience dropped, 48% ppts to max voltage.
      2. Buffers
         1. Teacher in same room as learner.
            1. Obedience dropped, 40% ppts to max voltage.
         2. Teacher presses learner's hand on shock plate.
            1. Obedience dropped, 30% ppts to max voltage.
      3. Proximity of authority figure
         1. Orders given over telephone.
            1. Obedience dropped, 21% ppts to max voltage.
            2. Some ppts lied about increasing voltage given and stayed on lower voltages.
      4. Presence of allies
         1. Two confeds share teacher role with real ppt. When they refused, ppts tended to also.
            1. Obedience dropped, 10% ppts to max voltage.
   6. Evaluation
      1. Ethics
         1. Deception
         2. Informed consent
         3. Protection from psychological harm
      2. Internal Validity
         1. Orne & Holland - suggested people have learned to distrust experimenters in psychology because they know the real purpose is likely to be disguised.
      3. External Validity
         1. Mandel - Milgram's conclusions on the situation determinants of obedience in situations such as the holocaust are not confirmed by real life events.
         2. Not as significant as real life events Milgram generalised his study to such as the holocaust.
2. Explanations
   1. Gradual commitment
      1. In Milgram's ppts had already given lower level shocks so harder to resist continuing.
      2. 'Foot in the door' approach.
   2. Agentic shift
      1. Milgram suggested people switch between the autonomous state, responsible for own actions, and agentic state, carrying out instructions of another.
   3. Role of buffers
      1. Buffers protect an individual from the distress they may otherwise experience for harming another person.
   4. Justifying obedience
      1. People are willing to surrender their freedom of action in belief they are serving a justifiable cause.
   5. Evaluation
      1. Monocausal emphasis.
         1. Mandel - suggested that by focusing solely on obedience as an explanation for the Holocaust Milgram ignored many other possible explanations.
         2. Goldhagen - argued anti-semitism was primary motivation for the Holocaust.
      2. Agentic shift
         1. Holocaust perpetrators carried out duty for years, Milgram's ppts involved for half an hour.
         2. Holocaust perpetrators knew they were doing harm, Milgram's ppts were assured they were not.
      3. Obdedience alibi
         1. Mandel - argues that by attributing Holocaust events to obedience...
            1. Distressing for those whose lives were affected by the holocaust, if soldiers were 'just obeying orders'.
            2. Exonerates war criminals from their crimes.
      4. Real world applications
         1. Can help us understand some of the abusive behaviour of guards at the Abu Ghraib prison.
            1. Gradual commitment - abuses were gradual in nature.
            2. Compliant peers.
            3. Unconcerned authority figure.

Attachments:

• Explanations of Independent Behaviour

1. Locus of control
   1. High external
      1. A person believes their behaviour is caused mainly by fate, luck or other circumstances beyond their control.
   2. High internal
      1. A person believes their behaviour is caused by their own personal decisions and efforts.
      2. More able to resist being coerced by others.
      3. More likely to want to achieve, so more likely to become leader or entrepreneur.
      4. Actively seek out information, less reliant on others.
   3. Rotter 1966 - some people believe life events are within their control and some believe that they are generally beyond their control.
2. Resisting conformity
   1. Role of allies
      1. Asch showed how the introduction of another dissident gave social support to an individual and caused conformity rates to drop.
      2. Allen & Levine - 3 conditions. 1 - supporter had poor vision (invalid support), 2 - supporter had normal vision, 3 - no supporter.
         1. Valid support had more impact.
         2. Both conditions reduced conformity levels.
   2. Evaluation
      1. Moral considerations
         1. Cost of conforming was minor in Asch's study, if task involves a moral dimension there is less evidence of conformity as the cost incurred is greater.
      2. Individual differences
         1. Griskevicius et al - gender differences in mate seeking behaviour, women more likely to conform than men.
3. Resisting obedience
   1. Status
      1. Status of authority figure is key in factor in obedience and its resistance.
   2. Proximity
      1. Being made aware of the effects of obedient actions and having social support makes it more likely the individual will resist pressure to obey.
   3. Evaluation
      1. Moral considerations
         1. Kohlberg - Milgram's ppts who based decision on more advanced moral principles (e.g. importance of justice over social order) were more defiant.
      2. Individual differences
         1. Less educated ppts less likely to resist.
         2. Roman Catholics more likely to obey than Protestants.

Attachments:

• Minority Influence and Social Change

1. Moscovici - if an individual is exposed to a persuasive argument under certain conditions, they may change their views to match those of the minority.
2. Conditions
   1. Drawing attention to an issue
      1. Being exposed to a minority viewpoint creates a conflict which the individual is motivated to reduce.
   2. Role of conflict
      1. Causes us to examine the minority position more deeply, which may result in a move towards that position.
   3. Consistency
      1. When minorities express their arguments consistently they are taken more seriously and are more likely to bring about social change.
      2. Wood et al - meta-analysis of 97 studies showed minorities seen as being consistent were particularly influential at changing views of the majority.
   4. Augmentation principle
      1. If there is risk of putting forward a particular view, those who express those views are taken more seriously by others.
3. Evaluation
   1. Analysis of suffragettes
      1. Drawing attention to an issue
         1. Used a variety of educational, political and militant tactics to draw attention to the fact that women were denied the same political rights as men.
      2. Role of conflict
         1. Advocated different political arrangement to that already in place.
      3. Consistency
         1. Suffragettes were consistent in expressing their position, regardless of the attitudes of those around them.
      4. Augmentation principle
         1. Suffragettes were willing to suffer to make their point, risking imprisonment or even death from hunger strike.
   2. Minority influence doesn't necessarily lead to social change
      1. Lack social power and are seen as 'deviant' by the majority. Their influence may be more latent than real.
   3. Real world application
      1. Kruglanski - social change due to terrorism may be understood using principles of social change.
         1. Terrorists are consistent in their actions.
         2. Terrorists are willing to die for their actions (augmentation principle).