Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Social Influence (Conformity (3 types of conformity (Compliance (It is…

- - - - Individual changes their b/h to fit in w/ the group
        
        Most shallow form of conformity
      - May not necessarily agree w/ the b/h or belief
        
        But go along w/ it publically
        
        E.g. laughing at a joke you don't find funny
        
        Bc you like that person / the group around laughing
      - It is superficial and contemporary
        
        Lasts only as long as the group is present
        
        E.g. saying you listen to Biebs in front of a friend who also does
        
        But at home listening to Lo-Fi Hip Hop
        
        Agreeing to avoid discomfort
    - - Individual acts in the same way as the group
        
        A moderate form of conformity
        
        They are conforming to the expectations of a social role
      - They value the group and want to be a part of it
        
        E.g. a teenager starts smoking to fit into a group of peers
        
        Action is only exercised to gain trust in the group
      - Publicly change their b/h
        
        But don't necessarily agree w/ e/thing the group believes
    - - Where the b/h or belief of the majority is accepted by the individual
        
        Most permanent form of conformity
        
        As it usually lasts even if the majority is no longer present
      - Both the public and private view of the individual has changed
        
        E.g. Vegetarianism
  - - - Want to be part of a group
    - - Leads to compliance
        
        But this could just be temporary while in the presence of the group
  - - - To reinforce our perception of a situation
      - Look to see what others are doing
        
        Then compare ourselves w/ the others
        
        And internalise their beliefs as out own
- - - - Which we measure by their position in our societies hierarchy
    - - Or bc they have the power to punish us
    - - Field experiment
      - Ordered passer-by to pick up litter
        
        Dressed differently
        
        Guard's uniform
        
        90% obeyed
        
        Supporting evidence that we will obey s/one we see as having authority
        
        Normal citizen
        
        50% obeyed
    - - Strengths
        
        Cross cultural differences
        
        Bc different countries have differing levels of obedience
        
        Due to viewing authority in different ways
        
        E.g. Australia = low (54%) America = high (65%)
        
        According to replications of Milgram's experiment in these countries
        
        Real life war crimes
        
        Such as Hitler in WW2
        
        Citizens trusted him as legitimate authority
        
        Thus followed his orders
      - Weaknesses
        
        Does not take into account for other factors that could affect obedience
        
        Situation the person is in
        
        Personality
        
        Does not account for alternate theories
        
        Agentic state
  - - - Bc we believe ourselves to be acting for an authority figure
        
        I.e. as their agent
        
        Frees us from the demands of our conscious
        
        Allows us to obey even a destructive authority figure
    - - = individual feels a sense of responsibility for their own actions
        
        In this situation, obedience is less likely
    - - 'Who will take responsibility if anything happens to this man?'
    - - Field experiment
      - Looked at nurses' responses to an order from a false doctor
      - Experimenter phoned 22 nurses at different hospitals
        
        Introduced self as 'Dr Smith'
        
        Asked them to give a patient 20mg of an unfamiliar drug
        
        Label on box stated the maximum dose was 10mg
        
        21/22 nurses obeyed
        
        Supporting explanation that we are more likely to obey when we shift responsibility onto s/one else
    - - Strengths
        
        Supporting evidence show high figures
      - Weaknesses
        
        Nurses may have obeyed due to legitimate authority
        
        Rather than agentic state
        
        Also part of their job description
        
        Nurses may not have looked at the label
        
        So did not think there was any blame to shift
        
        Due to field experiment nature
        
        Extraneous variables were not well controlled
        
        Not e/one who obeys enters an agentic state
        
        Some ppl have more obedient personalities
        
        Drug was unfamiliar to nurses
        
        Follow-up study of better known drug
        
        Vallium
        
        Only one nurse obeyed
        
        Sample is ungeneralisable
        
        All nurses
        
        Does not reflect those in different occupation
        
        Situation may have affected obedience
        
        You expect to obey a doctor in a hospital
  - - - Rather than part of our personality
    - - = the physical distance of an authority figure to the person they are giving orders
      - The closer to authority
        
        More likely to obey
      - Milgram variation: Gave orders by phone
        
        Authority figure not physically there
        
        Obedience dropped to 20.5%
        
        From 65%
        
        Obedience dropped by 44.5%
    - - =Refers to the place where the order is given
        
        Particularly the status or prestige associated with the location
      - If person commanding fits the location we are more likely to obey
      - Milgram variation: To run-down office
        
        Obedience dropped to 47.5%
        
        Had the least effect on obedience levels dropping
        
        Obedience dropped by 27.5%
    - - =Ppl in authority often have a specific outfit symbolic of their position
      - If the person giving orders is wearing a uniform
        
        Obedience is more likely
        
        Proves a sense of hierarchy over themselves
      - Police officers and judges wear uniform
      - Indicates to the rest of us who is entitled to expect our obedience
      - Milgram variation: Experimenter played by 'member of the public'
        
        Obedience dropped to just 20%
        
        Perhaps the most influential variable
        
        Obedience decreased by 45%
    - - Strengths
        
        Research to support
        
        Strengthening credibility of the explanation
        
        Reinforces psychology as a science
        
        Situational variables
        
        Uniform
        
        Bickman 1974
        
        Proximity
        
        Milgram 1963
        
        Location
        
        Hofling 1966
      - Weaknesses
        
        Ignores other reasons why ppl obey
        
        E.g. agentic state can explain why ppl will still obey a person w/o uniform
        
        They are in a state of mind to shift responsibility
        
        Ignore's ppls personalities to be more obedient
        
        Regardless of situational variables
        
        Does however correlate with legitimate authority
        
        As wearing a uniform would consolidate this legitimate authority
  - - - = highlights the importance of personality (i.e. their disposition) in contrast to situational variables
    - - Submissive to those of higher status
      - Dismissive towards those of lower status
    - - He wanted to look at ppl's personality to find the cause
    - - More than 2,000 middle class, white Americans
      - Studied unconscious attitudes towards other racial groups
        
        Developed several scales to do this
        
        Including the F-scale
        
        Scoring high - described as having an authoritarian personality
    - - Extreme respect for and obedience to authority
      - Conscious of their own and others' status
      - Fixed and distinctive stereotypes about other groups
      - Strong +ive relationship found between authoritarianism and prejudice
      - Highly conventional attitudes towards sex, race and gender
      - Believe we need strong and powerful leaders to enforce traditional values
        
        Such as love of country, family and religion
      - Inflexible
        
        E/thing is either right or wrong w/ no grey areas
    - - Follow-up study after Milgram's shock experiment
      - 20 'obedient ptps
        
        Those that continued to the final shock lvl
      - 20 'defiant' ptps
        
        Refused to continue at some point
      - To complete the f-scale
        
        Measure lvls of authoritarianism
      - Findings
        
        'Obedient' ptps showed higher levels of authoritarianism
        
        Saw the authority figure in Milgram's experiment as admirable
        
        Learner less so
        
        Not the case w/ defiant ptps
    - - Strengths
        
        Research support
        
        Link between obedient individuals and higher levels of authoritarian personality
        
        However, ignores other contributing factors
        
        Cannot claim direct cause and effect
      - Weaknesses
        
        The F-scale may produce response bias
        
        Social desirability
        
        = ptps answer questions which will be viewed favourably by others
        
        The results are a reflection of how they think they should answer w/
        
        Rather than what the truly believe
        
        Situational variables can have a large impact on obedience lvls
        
        Such as proximity, uniform, and location
        
        These are not accounted for
        
        May have a larger impact than having an authoritarian personality
- - - - = person who resists pressure to conform or obey
      - Help others to obey when present
        
        Act as a model to show others that resistance to social influence is possible
      - Reduce conformity by breaking the unanimity of the majority
        
        If the majority is not unanimous
        
        Their impact is greatly reduced
      - Demonstrate equally legitimate ways of b/hing
        
        Increase an individuals confidence that their own view or position is correct
      - Asch (1956) variation
        
        Introduction of an ally who also gave the right answer
        
        Appeared to resist the majority
        
        Conformity lvls dropped sharply to just 5.5%
        
        From 37% percent
        
        Suggests that breaking unanimity w/ the help of an ally allows the individual to resist conformity
  - - - Individuals are able to resist obedience if they have an ally
        
        Who is willing to join them in opposing the authority figure
        
        Disobedient b/h stands out less than if the individual acted alone
      - Individual may not follow the disobedient person's b/h
        
        But it frees them of their own conscience
      - Milgram variation
        
        Ptp put in a group of 3 to test the learner
        
        Other 2 were confederates who refused to shock the learner
        
        Their defiance had a liberating effect on the real ptps
        
        Obedience dropped from 65% to 10%
  - - - Usually measured along a scale, w/ ends being
        
        Internal locus of control
        
        = refers to ppl who see that they have a great deal of control over their own b/h
        
        Will take responsibility for their b/h
        
        Much more likely to resist the pressure to conform and obey
        
        Than those with external LOC
        
        They believe they are in control of their own circumstances
        
        Are confident and tend not to need social approval
        
        The way that those w/ n external LOC do
        
        External locus of control
        
        =refers to those who believe that their b/h is controlled by other forces
        
        Such as fate or luck
        
        Oliner and Oliner (1988)
        
        Interviewed two groups of non-Jewish ppl
        
        Who had lived through the Holocaust in Nazi Germany
        
        406 ppl who had protected and rescued Jews from the Nazi's
        
        The 'rescuers' had scores demonstrating an internal LOC
        
        Suggesting its importance in resisting social influence
        
        126 who had not helped Jews
        
        Twenge et all (2004)
        
        Meta-analysis
        
        Analysed data from American obedience studies over 40 year period
        
        From 1960 - 2002
        
        Data showed that over this time span ppl have become more resistant to obedience
        
        But also more external
        
        1 more item...
  - - - Strong researcher support for LOC explanation
    - - Social support cannot explain the dissenter's original b/h
        
        Which causes them to be disobedient / not conform
      - Ppl with an internal LOC may obey and ppl with external LOC may disobey
        
        Therefore, cause and effect cannot be established
      - In some situations other factors play a stronger role in disobedience
        
        E.g. as a psychology student you may be aware of this action
        
        Disobey if suspecting it's an experiment
        
        Rather voice your opinion
- - - - Minority influence is most effective if the minority keeps the same beliefs
        
        Over time
        
        E.g. they have all been saying the same thing since the beginning\
        
        Between all individuals that form the minority
        
        E.g. there is agreement between them and they say the same things as each other
      - Moscovici (1969)
        
        Groups of 6 ppl
        
        4 real ptps
        
        2 confederates
        
        Shown a series of 36 slides of different shades of blue
        
        Ask to name slide colour aloud
        
        Condition 1
        
        Consistent
        
        Confederates called all slides green
        
        Over 8% of ptps moved to minority position (green)
        
        Condition 2
        
        Inconsistent
        
        Confederates called 24/36 slides green
        
        1.25% of ptps moved to minority position (green)
    - - Minority influence is more powerful if the minority demonstrates commitment to their own cause
        
        E.g. by making personal sacrifices
        
        This suggests certainty and courage in the face of a hostile majority
        
        May persuade the majority to take them more seriously
    - - The minority should show flexibility by accepting the possibility of compromise
        
        They should be prepared to adapt their PoV
        
        Accept reasonable and valid counter-arguements
        
        Particularly important bc the minority are likely to be powerless
        
        Thus have to negotiate their position
        
        Rather than enforce it
      - Nemeth and Brillmayer (1987)
        
        Stimulated jury situation
        
        Group members discussed the amount of compensation to be paid to s/one involved in a ski-lift accident
        
        Flexible
        
        Confederate who compensated w/ majority
        
        Exerted an influence on the rest of the group
        
        Inflexible
        
        Confederate put forth alternate view and refused to change position
        
        No effect on group members
  - - - Real world applications
        
        Factors can be used by minority groups in society
        
        To achieve their goals
        
        E.g. recycling
        
        Began flexibly
        
        1 bin for all recycling
        
        Transition to separate bins as this became the majority view
    - - Research into minority influence involves using artificial tasks
        
        E.g. naming the colour of a slide
        
        Irl situations much more complicated than this
        
        E.g. legalisation of gay marriage
        
        Lacks external validity
        
        Limits the extent to which it is useful in e/day society
      - Difficult to test in a lab
        
        Irl minority influence takes place over a long period of time
        
        W/ many variables that affect it
        
        Such as feminism
        
        In these cases factors such as non-violent protesting, charisma and passion
        
        Also influence whether ppl will accept the minority view
- - - - 1) Drawing attention
        
        To the situation by providing social proof of the problem
        
        E.g. Suffragettes showed that women were denied the same voting rights as men
        
        Civil rights activists drew attention to segregation in public places
      - 2) Consistency
        
        All individuals in the minority keep the same beliefs over time
      - 3) Deeper processing
        
        Of the issue
        
        The attention drawn means many ppl who had simply accepted the status quo
        
        Begin to think about the unjustness of it
      - 4) Augmentation principle
        
        If the minority appears willing to suffer for their views
        
        Seen as more commited
        
        So taken more seriously by others
        
        E.g. hunger strikes risking imprisonment
      - 5) Snowball effect
        
        Minority influence initially has a small effect
        
        This spreads more widely as more ppl consider the issue being presented
        
        Explains how this change gathers momentum
        
        And gradually the minority becomes the majority
      - 6) Social cryptomnesia
        
        The new attitudes becomes an integral part of society
        
        Source of minority influence is often forgotten
        
        Ppl don't want to believe they were ever against the minority view
        
        They don't really understand why they've adopted the new view they simply have
    - - Strengths
        
        Moscovici
        
        Consistency can help a minority become a majority
        
        Thus creating social change
      - Weaknesses
        
        Minority influence is only indirectly effective
        
        It creates the potential for change
        
        Rather than actual social change
        
        This happens after laws / policies changed
        
        Being perceived as 'deviant' limits the influence of minorities
        
        Members of the majority may avoid aligning themselves with the minority
        
        Bc they don't want to be perceived as deviant themselves
        
        Some activists can become criminal in their augmentation principle
        
        E.g. those campaigning for animal rights breaking and entering
        
        But minority could simply agree, w/ no action
  - - - Environmental and health campaigners increasingly exploit this type of conformity
        
        By providing info on what other ppl are doing
        
        E.g. reducing litter by printing messages such as 'Bin it - others do'
    - - Strengths
        
        Research into why anti- smoking / drug campaigns would be unsuccessful
        
        Many teenagers ignore the risks of b/h
        
        Engage bc they believe others are doing it
        
        These campaigns would be counter-productive
        
        As NSI is used to know other young ppl are still b/hing this way
      - Weaknesses
    - - Investigated whether NSI led to a reduction in energy consumption in a community
        
        Hung messages on the front doors of houses in San Diego e/week for a month
        
        Key message was that most residents were trying to reduce their energy usage
        
        As a control
        
        Some residents has a different message
        
        Just asked them to save energy but made no reference to what other ppl were doing
        
        Found significant decreases in energy usage when the message made reference to other ppl
        
        Shows that when when residents believed others were trying to save
        
        They conformed using clear NSI
        
        Believed that's the way they should act too