Social Influence

Conformity is a change in a person’s behaviour or opinions as a result of real or imagined pressure from a person or group of people

Internalisation

Identification

Compliance

This is the deepest level of conformity. This is where a person genuinely accepts the group norms and changes both their public and private beliefs. There new attitudes have been internalised. This is usually a long-term change.

This is the middle level of conformity. Here a person changes their public behaviour to conform with a group because there is something about that group they value. Their private beliefs may change, but only in the presence of the majority and not permanently. They may not agree with everything the group stands for. This is usually a shot-term change and normally the result of normative social influence (NSI).

This is the shallowest level of conformity. Here a person changes their public behaviour, the way they act but not their private beliefs. This is simply 'going along with others' in public but privately not changing their personal opinions and/or behaviour. It is a superficial change – as soon as group pressure stops, the particular behaviour or opinion stops. It is a short-term change and often the result of normative social influence (NSI)

Informational Social Influence (ISI) - the need to be right

Normative Social Influence (NSI) - the need to be liked

This is about who has the better information – you or the rest of the group. For example, you may not know the answer to a question in class, but if most of the class agrees on one answer, you accept that answer because you feel they are likely to be right. ISI is a cognitive process; it is to do with what you think.

•New situations (you don’t know what is right)

•Situations where there is ambiguity – so the answer is not clear

•In crisis situations where decisions have to be made quickly

•Where one person or group is regarded as being more of an expert

This is where a person conforms to be accepted and to feel like they belong to the group. Norms are ‘typical behaviours’ - people pay attention to them to gain social approval or to avoid social rejection i.e. Not fitting in. NSI is an emotional process rather than a cognitive one

• Where you are with strangers and fear rejection

• With friends where you are concerned about gaining social approval rather than rejection

• May occur in stressful situations where people gave a greater need for social support

Aim:

To investigate the effect of discussion on groups on the accuracy of individual judgement of the number of jellybeans in a jar

Procedure:

• Participants made individual private estimates of the number of jellybeans in a jar

• They then discussed their estimates, either in a large group or in several smaller groups, discovering that individuals diifered widely in their estimates

• After discussion, group estimates were made

• Participants the made a second individual,private estimate

Findings:

Individuals second guesses tended to converge their group estimates

Women conformed more than men did

Conclusions:

The judgements of individuals are affected by majority opinions especially in ambiguous or unfamiliar situations. Discussion is not effective in changing opinions unless those individuals who enter the discussion become aware that the opinion of others are different to theirs

Jenness (1932) used a sample of 26 students who individually estimated how many beans were contained in a glass jar. Participants were then divided into groups of three and asked to provide a group estimate through discussion. Following the discussion, the participants were provided with another opportunity to individually estimate the number of beans to see if they changed their original answer. Jenness found that the second private estimate moved closer to the group estimate and that females typically conformed more. This show that internalisation of group beliefs will occur especially in unfamiliar, ambiguous situations.

Asch found that many of his participants went along with a clearly wrong answer just because other people did. When he asked them why, some participants said they felt self-conscious giving the correct answer and they were afraid of disapproval. This clearly shows compliance had occurred as the participants conformed to 'fit in'. When Asch repeated his study but asked participants to write down their answers instead of saying them out loud, conformity rates fell by 12.5%.

Schultz et al (2008) gathered data from many hotels over a week where guests were allocated rooms randomly as either control or experimental conditions. In the control rooms, there was a door hanger informing the participants of the environmental benefits of reusing towels. In the experimental condition, there was additional information stating that '75% of guests chose to reuse their towels each day'. The results showed that those who received the additional information reduced their need for fresh towels by 25% showing they had conformed to 'fit in' with the perceived group behaviour

Some research shows that the impact of groups norms has less impact than others. For example, people who care more about being liked are described as nAffiliators. These people have a greater need for 'affiliation' - a need for being in a relationship with others. This shows that the desire to be liked underlies conformity for some people more than others.

Perrin and Spencer (1980) conducted an Asch-style experiment using engineering students in the UK. Only one conforming response was observed out of nearly 400 trials. This could be due to the fact that the students felt more confident in their ability to judge line lengths due to their experience in engineering  and so felt less pressure to conform

To examine the extent to which social pressure to conform from a unanimous majority affects conformity in an unambiguous situation

Asch's sample consisted of 123 male American undergraduate students who believed they were taking part in a vision test. Asch used a line judgement task, where he placed one real (naïve) participant in a room with six to eight confederates (actors working on behalf of the experimenter. The confederates had agreed their answers in advance.

The naïve participant was deceived and was led to believe that the other people were also real participants. The real participant was always seated last or second from last.

In turn each participant had to say out loud which line (A, B or C) was most like the target line in length. The correct answer was always obvious. Each participant completed 18 trials and the confederate gave the same incorrect answer on 12 trials called 'critical trials'. Asch wanted to see if the real participant would conform to the majority view, even when the answer was clearly incorrect.

Asch measured the number of times each participant conformed to the majority view, On average, the real participants conformed to the incorrect answers on 32% of the critical trials. 75% of the participants conformed on at least one critical trial and 25% never conformed.

Asch also used a control group in which one real participant completed the same experiment without any confederates. He found that less than 1% of the participants gave an incorrect answer.

Asch interviewed his participants after the experiment to find out why they conformed. Most of the participants said that they knew their answers were incorrect, but they went along with the group in order to fit in or because they thought they would be ridiculed. This confirms that participants complied due to normative social influence.

Group size

Unanimity

Task difficulty

Determine how the size of the majority affects the rate of conformity. These variations ranged from one confederate to 15 confederates and the level of conformity varied dramatically.

When there was 1 confederate the real participants conformed on just 3% of the critical trials. When the group size increased to two confederates, the real participants conformed on 18% of the critical trials. Interestingly, where there were three confederates, the real participants conformed on 32% of the critical trials, the same percentage as Asch's original experiment in which there were six to eight confederates. This demonstrates that conformity reaches near its highest level with just 3 confederates once a majority pressure is created.

Unanimity refers to the extent that members of majority agree with one another. In Asch's original experiment, the confederates all gave the same incorrect answer on the critical trials. In one variation, one confederate was instructed to give the correct answer throughout. Here the rate of conformity dropped to 5%. This demonstrates that if the real participant has support for their belief, then they are more likely to resist the pressure to conform. He found that even if the confederate gave a wrong answer, but still different to the majority, this still led to a drop in conformity to 9%. This shows that if you break or disrupt the group's unanimous position, the conformity is reduced significantly, even if the answer provided by the support is incorrect.

In Asch's original experiment, the correct answer was always obvious. In one of his variations he made the task more difficult by making the difference between the line lengths smaller. He found the rate of conformity increased most likely due to informational social influence as individuals look to another for guidance.

Asch used a gender biased sample of 123 male students from colleges in America. Therefore we cannot generalise  the results to other populations, for example female students as we are unable to conclude whether female students would have conformed in a similar way. This is known as beta bias

Furthermore, it could be argued that Asch's experiment has low levels of ecological validity. Asch's test of conformity, a line judgement task, is an artificial   task which does not reflect conformity in everyday life. Consequently, we are unable to generalise the results of Asch's experiment to other real life situations, such as why people may start smoking or drinking around friends.

Asch's research took part at a particular time in US history where conformity was arguably higher and has been criticised as being a 'Child of its time '. Since 1950, numerous psychologists have attempted to replicate Asch's study for example Perrin and Spencer (1980) using engineering students and found significantly lower  levels of conformity. This suggests that Asch's experiment lacks temporal validity and that the conformity rates found the 1950s may not provide an accurate reflection of conformity in modern times.

Asch's research is ethically questionable. He broke several ethical guidelines including deception and protection from harm . Asch deliberately deceived  his participants by saying they were taking part in a vision test and not an experiment on conformity.

Although it is seen as unethical to deceive participants, Asch's experiment required deception in order to achieve valid results. If participants were aware of the true aim they may have displayed demand characteristics and acted differently.

In addition, Asch's participants were not protected from psychological harm and many of the participant reported feeling stressed when they disagreed with the majority. However, Asch interviewed all of his participants following the experiment to overcome this issue.

Asch used scientific methods in highly-controlled lab settings to investigate conformity. These can therefore be replicated

Zimbardo

To examine whether people would conform to the social role of a prison guard or prisoner when placed in a mock prison environment.

Furthermore he wanted to examine whether the behaviour displayed in prisons was due to internal dispositional factors, I.e. the people themselves, or external situational factors I.e. the environment and conditions of the prison.

Zimbardo's sample consisted of 21 male university students who volunteered in response to a newspaper advert. The participants were selected from 75 volunteers on the basis of their physical and mental stability and were each paid $15 a day to take part.

Each participant was randomly assigned to one of two social roles, prisoner or guard.

Zimbardo wanted to make the experience as realistic as possible, turning the

basement of Stanford University into a mock prison. Furthermore the 'prisoners'

were arrested by real local police and fingerprinted, stripped and given a numbered smock to wear with chains placed around their ankles. The guards were given uniforms dark reflective sunglasses, handcuffs and a truncheon.

The guards were instructed to run the prison without using physical violence. The experiment was set to run for two weeks.

Zimbardo found that both the prisoners and guards quickly identified with their social roles.  Within days the prisoners rebelled, but this was quickly crushed by the guards who then grew increasingly abusive towards the prisoners.

The guards dehumanised the prisoners, waking them during the night and forcing them to clean toilets with their bare hands. The prisoners became increasingly submissive, identifying further with their subordinate role.

Five of the prisoners were released from the experiment early because of their adverse reactions to the physical and mental torment, for example crying and extreme anxiety. Although the experiment was set to run for two weeks, it was terminated after just six days when fellow postgraduate student Christina Maslach convinced Zimbardo that conditions in his experiment were inhumane.

Zimbardo concluded that people quickly conform to social roles, even when the role goes against their moral principles. Furthermore he concluded that situational factors were largely responsible for the behaviour found as none of the participants had ever demonstrated these behaviours previously

A strength of Zimbardo’s research is the level of control over extraneous variables due to it taking place in a lab setting. For example, the roles of prisoner and guard were randomised so that if their behaviour changed, such as the guards behaving aggressively, it could be argued that was due to the social role allocated to them (e.g. guard) and no other reason. This allowed Zimbardo to make statements of deman characteristics and say it was the social role that changed their beliefs and behaviour in the prison setting, not their personality.

A limitation of Zimbardo’s research is that the results could be the result of cause and effect . For example, most of the guards later claimed they were simply acting. Because the guards and prisoners were playing a role their behaviour may not have been a valid measure of how a social role changes behaviours and beliefs. However, there is evidence to suggest they did forget that it was an experiment. For example, prisoners referred to themselves constantly by their number and spoke with a lawyer to ask how to get out, as they believed it was a real prison, so not all of their behaviours could be explained by demand characteristics.

A second limitation of Zimbardo’s research is that it has received many ethical criticisms, including lack of fully informed by participants as Zimbardo himself did not know what would happen in the experiment (it was unpredictable). Also, the prisoners did not consent to being 'arrested' at home. Another example of ethical problems includes that fact participants playing the role of prisoners were not protected from psychological harm, experiencing humiliation and distress. For example, one prisoner had to be released after 36 hours because of uncontrollable bursts of screaming, crying and anger. However, in Zimbardo's defence the emotional distress experienced by the prisoners could not have been predicted from the outset. In addition, Zimbardo did conduct debreifing sessions for several years afterwards and concluded they were no lasting negative effects.

A third limitation is the ethical issue that arose because of Zimbardo's dual role in the study. For example on one occasion a student who wanted to leave the study spoke to Zimbardo in his role as superintendent. The whole conversation was conducted on the basis that the student was a prisoner in a prison, asking to be 'released'. Zimbardo responded to him as a superintendent worried about the running of the prison rather than as a researcher with responsibilities towards his participants.

There is also a lack of research support. Reicher and Haslam's (2006) partial replication of the SPE known as the BBC Prison Study had very different findings. It was the prisoners who eventually took control of the mock prison and subjected the guards to a campaign of harassment and disobedience. They argued that the guards failed to develop a shared social identity as a cohesive group but the prisoners did.

A final limitation of Zimbardo’s research is that individual differences and personality might also determine the extent to which we conform to social roles. For example, despite randomly allocating participants to the different roles, in Zimbardo’s study the behaviour of the guards varied from extremely sadistic to those that helped the prisoners by offering support, sympathy and treats like cigarettes that other guards had disallowed. Also, some of the prisoners were more resistant to the harassment of the guards (one went on a hunger strike and refused to eat whilst they were behaving aggressively towards him). This suggests that situational factors are not the only cause of conformity to social roles and

Dispositional factors like personality, also play a role

• Like SPE, participants were randomly assigned the role guard or prisoner.

• They found that participants did not automatically conform to their assigned role like in SPE

• Prisoners increasingly identified as a groupand worked collectively to challenge the authority of the guards and establish a more egalitarian set of social relations within the prison.

• The guards also failed to identify with their role, which made them reluctant to impose their authority on the prisoners. This led to a shift of power and the collapse of the prison.

Zimbardo's explanation for the guards and prisoners' behaviour in SPE was that they 'naturally' conformed to the social role that had been given. Being given the role of guard means that the participants will inevitably behave brutally because that is the behaviour of someone with that role. Likewise, the prisoners inevitably became subdued and submissive in conformity with their roles in the prison.

However, Reicher and Haslam in the BBC study criticise Zimbardo's explanation because it does not account for the behaviour of the non-brutal guards; two thirds of them did not behaviour brutally and some of them actively tried to support the prisoners.

They use social identity theory (SIT) instead to argue that the 'guards' had to actively identify with their social roles to act as they did. SIT suggests that conformity to social roles does not necessarily come naturally and easily – it sometimes does not happen at all. The two-thirds of the guards did not actively identify with their roles as brutal prison guards.

Therefore, SIT is a better explanation – we can resist situational pressures to conform to a role as long as we do not identify with that role.

Investigate whether ordinary people would obey an unjust order from an authority figure and inflict pain and injure an innocent person

• 40 male participants recruited through a newspaper advert and were paid $4.50 ti take part

• They were all invited to Yale university where they met the experimenter and another participant ( both were confederates)

• They ‘drew’ to see who would be assigned each for role but this was fixed so that the real participant was always given the role of teacher

• Participants were instructed to administer an electric shock whenever the learner made a mistake

• The learner was strapped into a chair on the room next door and a shock was demonstrated to the teacher. The teacher was required to test the learners ability to recall pairs of words. Whenever an incorrect answer was given the teachers was required to give an electric shock off increasing voltage, starting at 15 volts going up in intervals of 15 to 450 volts

• At 300 volts the learner would bang on the the wall and after 315 volts there was no further response from the learner

• The experiment continued until the participant refused to continue or the maximum level of 450 volts was reached. If the teacher tried to stop the experiment, the experimenter would respond with a series of verbal prods

• Milgram found all that participants went to at least 300 volts and 65% continued to the full 450 volts

• Along with this quantitative data, qualitative observations were also made which reported that participants showed signs of distress and tension e.g. Sweating, stuttering and trembling

• Under the right situation, ordinary people will obey unjust orders from someone perceived to be a legitimate authority figure

• Participants were debriefed and assured thar their behaviour was normal and 84% reported that they were happy to have participated

• 74% were said to have learned something of personal importance

Participants were visibly distressed during the experiment and 16% reported they had not felt glad that they had participated. However, Milgram gained qualitative data which increases the validity

Participants were lied to about the aim of the study so they don't have informed consent either as they didn't know the entirety of what they were going to have to do

Milgram used male participants in his study meaning that it lacks population validity as it cannot be generalised to the rest of the population and by using an all male sample it is not representative

Hofling et al (1966) studied nurses on a hospital ward and found levels of obedience to unjustified demands by doctors were very high . An unknown doctor rang 22 nurses and asked them to administer an overdose of a drug that was not on the ward list . 95% obeyed without question - these results suggest Milgram's study can be generalised to other situations

Teacher and learner were in the same room

This impacted obedience rate by making it lower with only 40% of participants obeying

Milgram changed the location to rundown building rather than Yale University.

This made the rates of conformity lower with 47.5% of participants giving the full 450 volts

Rather than a lab coat uniform as in the original study, an ‘ ordinary member of the public’ in normal clothes took over from the experiment

This lowered conformity rates with only 20% of participants giving the full 450 volts

A mental state where no personal responsibility is felt for our behaviour because we are acting for an authority figure and that we are an agent for the authority figure and are powerless to disobey

Where someone acts on their own principles and a sense of responsibility for their actions

The shift from autonomy to agency - this occurs when aperson sees another as a figure of authority. This is because the other person has greater power because of their position in a social heirarchy

Aspects of the situation that allows the person to ignore or minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour and reduce the moral strain they are feeling

Research support: Milgram’s own research demonstrated that the majority of people of ordinary people will follow instructions even when they are acting against conscience. Blass and Schmitt (2001) found that people who saw Milgram's study blamed the experimenter , indicating that they believed the participants were agents of authority . The explanation is also supported by many historical events which demonstrate that as a result of social pressure , normal people can act in a callous and inhumane way

There are alternative reasons as to why people obey an authority figure. It could be due to personality rather thann the situation. |n addition , agency theory cannot explain why some people disobey , which was shown by a third of the participants in the original Milgram study

• Most societies are hierarchal in their structure

• People in certain positions have authority over us at times

• Their authority is legitimate because it has been agreed on by society

• Most of us accept the authority because it allows society to function smoothly

• This legitimacy of authority allows some people to punish others , and this is generally accepted

He believed that by focusing on the procedure and following the instructions , the participants were recognising the legitimate authority of the researche

At Yale , 65% went to the 450 volts whereas when the experiment was done in a run-down office conformity levels dropped to 47.5%

When the experimenter was a member of the public , the conformity levels dropped to 20%

It reduced the legitimacy of authority as participants were less likely to trust the experiment and the power of the authority figure was reduced

Destructive authority is when legitimate authority becomes destructive. Charismatic and powerful leaders (Hilter, Stalin) can use their legitmate powers for destructive purposes

Cultural Differences - Explains obedience in different cultures becuase it relfects different social heirarchies. This cross cultural research increases the validity of the explanation

Real-life application - My LaiMassacre can be understood in terms of the pwer heirarchy of the US army

The 'obedience alibi'- Mandel (1998) argues that research provides an excuse for evil behaviour and is offensive to survivors of the Holocaust

A type of personality that Adorno argued was especially susceptible to obeying people in authority .

Such individuals are also thought to be submissive to those of higher status and dismissive of inferior

He reached the conclusion that high levels of obedience was a psychological disorder , ans that causes could be located in the personality of the individual

He thought they were laid in early childhood as a result of harsh parenting , making the child feel that the love of their parent was conditional and dependent on how they behaved

It can create resentment within the child as they grow and , since they cannot express these feelings , they are displaced onto others who are seen as 'weak' or inferior , as a form of scapegoating

A psychodynamic one ; the idea that the adult personality is determined by childhood experience

They conducted a study using over 2,000 , white middle-class Americans to find out their unconcious attitudes to other racial groups

Used a questionnaire caled the F-scale , which measures fascist tendencies , as facism is thought to be at the core of the authoritarian personality

• Individuals who scored highly on the F-Scale ( those with an authoritarian personality) identified with 'strong' people and showed disrespect towards the 'weak'

• They were also very aware of status and showed excessive respect to those in higher power

• They found that authoritarian people had a cogntive style where there are clear differences between catergories of people , with distinctive stereotypes about other groups . There was a strong positive correlation between authoritarianism and prejudice

• Concluded that people with an authoritarian personality tend to be especially obedient to authority

• They are very submissive

• They show contempt for people they percieve as having inferior social status and have highly conservative attitudes towards sex,race and gender

• They view society as 'going to the dogs' and believe that we need strong powerful leaders to enforce traditional values such as love of country , religion and family

• They are inflexible in their outlook - there are no 'grey areas' - everything is good/bad , right/wrong

The pressure to conform can be reduced if there are other people present who are not conforming

In Asch's study , someone giving the wrng answer but still breaking the unanimity helps to enable a person to be free to follow their own conscience. The person acts as a 'model'.

The pressure to obey can be reduced if there is another person who is seen to disobey

In one of Milgram's variations , the rate of obedience from 65% to 10% when the genuine participant was joined by a dissenting confederate. They acted as a 'model' for the participant to copy if they choose to

Julian Rotter (1966)

Refers to the sense we each have about what directs events in our lives

Internals and Externals

They believe that the things that happen to them are largely controlled by themselves; e.g. , if they did well in an exam, it is because they worked hard

They believe things that happen to them are beyond their control . If they do well in an exam , they may put it down to luck

It tends to be a continuum rather than people being external/ internal

People who have an internal locus of control because they take personal responsibility for their actions and experiences.

Research Support : Holland (1967) repeated Milgram's baseline study. He measured whether participants were internals or externals using Rotter's LOC scale . He found that 37% of internals did not continue to the highest shock level compared to 23% of externals. This increases the validity of the LOC explanation

Not all research supports the link between the LOC and resistance to social influence. Twenge et al (2004) conducted meta-analysis of studies over four decades. they found that over time , people have become more external in their locus of control but more resistant to obedience which chellnges the link between internal locus of control and higher resistance.

A form of social influence in which a minority of people presuade others to adopt their beliefs, attitudes or behaviours. Leads to internalisation or conversion

The suffragettes

He wanted to see if a consistent minority could influence a majority to give an incorrect answer , in a colour perception task

• -His sample consisted of 172 female participants who were told that they were taking part in a colour perception task.

• They were placed into groups of six and were shown 36 slides , which were all varying shades of blue . They had to state the colour of each slide.

• Two of the six participants were confederates and in one condition (Consistent) , the two confederates said that all 36 slides were green

• in the second condition (Inconsitent)the confederates said that 24 of the slides were green and 12 were blue

Moscovici found that in the consistent condition, the real participants agreed on 8.2% of the trials, whereas in the inconsistent condition, the real participants only agreed on 1.25% of the trials .

They concluded that this shows that a consistent minority is 6.95% more effective than an incosistent minority and that consisitency is an important factor in minority influence

• Lack of Population Validity - this is because Moscovici used 172 female participants from America .

• This means that the results cannot be generalised to the rest of the population and research has shown that women are more likely to conform and therefore research would have to be done to detemine the effect of minority influence on male particpants.

Ethical issues - He decieved his participants , as they were told that they were taking part in a colour preception test meaning that he did not get fully informed consent from the participants

• Keeping the same view increases the amount of interest from other people.

• this can be through synchronic consistency (everyone in the minority group saying the same thing) or diachronic consistency ( keeping the same view over time)

• E.g. Moscovici et al (1969)

• Where the minority group demonstrates dedication to their position , for example by making personal sacrifices.

• This is effect as it shows they are not acting out of self-interest.

• E.g. Rosa Parks refusing to leave her seat and getting arrested which triggered the Civil Rights Movement

• The way in which minority influence is more likley to occur when the minority is willing to compromise.

• This means they cannot be viewed as too rigid or unreasonable.

• Members of the minority need to be prepared to adapt their POV and accept counter-arguements

• E.g. Nemeth (1986) conducted a study into flexibility and minority groups . In groups of 4 ( one was a confederate), they discussed compensation for a victim of a ski-lift accident.

1. In one condition, the minority argued for a low rate of compensation and refused to change their mind

2. In the second conditon, they started with a low offer , but then compromised by offering slighlty more compensation. Nemeth found that the second condition was more succesul at chnaging the minority groups views