SOCIAL INFLUENCE

changed the location of the study run-down building, rather than prestigious university (Yale) 47.5%

ad, 40 males 20-50 yrs, $4.50, confederate learner 'Mr Wallace', ppt = teacher, experimenter wore lab coat, shock levelled 15-450 (300 = intense shock) 4 prods: please continue to no choice but to carry on

65% continued to the 450 volts. 100% continued to 300 volts. 12.5% stopped at 300. ppts showed signs of extreme stress (3 seizures). debriefed - 84% glad they did it

Orne + Holland/ Perry - ppts disbelieved experiment lacking internal validity yet M said 70% believed it, good external validity (lab exp) can be generalised (Holfing et al - 21/22 conforming nurses), Le Jeu de la Mort - replication supporting M, deception of random roles and true nature of exp

proximity - T and L same room (40%), uniform- ordinary clothes (20%), location run down office (47.5%)

UNIFORM - Bickerman's field exp 3 uniforms jacket and tie, milkman, security guard, UNIFORM (member of public not believable) lack of internal validity - saw thru deception and acted accordingly, cross cultural replications (Miranda et al 90% conforming spanish students) but only in western cultures

not representative (men, mailshot)

• unrealistic, not representative of real behaviour (lacks mundane realism)

• participants guessed it wasn't real

• fake shocks, roles assigned was NOT random

A deep type of conformity where we take on the majority view because we accept it as correct. It leads to a far-reaching and permanent change in behaviour, even when the group is absent.

A moderate type of conformity where we act in the same way with the group because we value it and want to be part of it. But we don't necessarily agree with everything the majority believes.

A superficial and temporary type of conformity where we outwardly go along with the majority view, but privately disagree with it. The change in our behaviour only lasts as long as the group is monitoring us.

An explanation of conformity that says we agree with the opinion of the majority because we believe it is correct. We accept it because we want to be correct as well. This may lead to internalisation.

An explanation of conformity that says we agree with the opinion of the majority because we want to be accepted, gain social approval and be liked. This may lead to compliance.

greater conformity to difficult math qs, ppl conform when they dont know the answer

McGhee and Teevan found that students high in need for affiliation were more likely to conform

50's, 123 American male undergraduates, 1 naive 6-8 confederates, 12/18 confederates were 'wrong'

• Naive wrong 36.8% of time, 25% of ps did not conform so 75% did. Ps later interviewed said they conformed to avoid rejection (NSI)

Group size (at least 3ppl needed), task difficulty(conformity increased - ISI link), unanimity (extra non-conforming confederate)

Perrin + Spencer '80 only 1/396 british engineering students conformed, demand characteristics? 'groups', cannot be generalised, gender/culture bias

selected 'emotionally stable' volunteers from ad ($15 a day), randomly assigned to guard/prisoner, prisoners arrested blindfolded stripped + deloused and given a number, guards had mirrored shades uniforms baton handcuffs

6 days not 14. 2nd day rebellion. Guards threatened prisoners and prisoners rebelled. Some prisoners had psychological break downs and the guards became increasingly more brutal over time. Everyone conformed

researchers had some control (eg selection of volunteers) increasing internal validity, lack of realism - Banuazizi and Mohavedi claimed they were 'play acting' (Cool Hand Luke) but arguably real to ppts, Fromm accused Z of exaggerating power of situation, minimising personality factors

BBC prison study (Reicher and Haslam) prisoners eventually took control, identified as a social group unwilling to conform - social identity theory

the perception that you control your own fate. Less likely to obey/conform

the perception that chance or outside forces beyond your personal control determine your fate (luck)

Holland (1967) repeated Milgram's baseline study, 37% internals did not continue, 23% of externals, increases validity of LOC explanation

Twenge et al (2004) analysed data over 40years showing that people had become more resistant but more external

Changing mind state from autonomous (self responsible) to agentic (following authority). M suggested this occurs when a person views another as authority

Aspects of the situation that allow the person to ignore or minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour and thus reduce the 'moral strain' they are feeling. Milgram observed many of his ppts 'wanting' to quit but being unable to do so...

An explanation for obedience which suggests that we are more likely to obey people who we perceive to have authority over us. This authority is justified by the individual's position of power within a social hierarchy.

Kelman and Hamilton link this to legitimacy of authority. Lt William Calley claimed he was simply following orders

2000 middle class white Americans assessed using F-scale to measure authoritarian personality.

identified w 'strong' ppl, correlation w prejudice, especially obedient to authority (3rd variable?), v aware of status, rigid thinkers, originates from harsh parenting leading to displacement of feelings

social identity a more realisitc theory for German ppl's conformity rather than authoritarian personalities, politically biased towards the extremes but not for obedience over whole political spectrum

The presence of people who resist pressures to conform or obey can help others to do the same. These people act as models to show others that resistance to social influence is possible.

synchronic - they're all saying the same thing diachronic - they've been saying the same thing for some time

engaging in extreme activities to draw attention demonstrating commitment

adapting their POV and accepting reasonable counter arguements

gradually the minority view has become the majority

6 ppts, 2 confeds, 36 blue-coloured slides 'blue or green?' ppts conformed most with consistent confeds, then with inconsistent then barely with no confeds. Artificial task (like Asch) so lack external val

This occurs when whole societies, rather than just individuals, adopt new attitudes, beliefs and ways of doing things. Examples include accepting that the Earth orbits the Sun, women's suffrage, gay rights and environmental issues.

The process by which individuals and groups change each other's attitudes and behaviours. Includes conformity, obedience and minority influence.

Disobedient role models. Gradual commitment (Zim) is how obedience can lead to change

Nolan et al - messages to reduce energy in San Diego (+ control group) support for conformity leading to social change, minority influence is limited and majority influence > minority in deeper processing