Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
PSYCHOLOGY: SOCIAL INFLUENCE - Coggle Diagram
PSYCHOLOGY: SOCIAL INFLUENCE
Conformity: types and explanations
A01
Types of conformity
Internalisation: A deep type of conformity where we take on the majority view because we accept it as correct. This leads to a far-reaching and permanent change in behaviour, even when the group is absent
Identification: 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. However we do not necessarily agree with everything the majority believes.
Conformity: A change in a person's behaviour or opinions as a result of a real or imagined pressure from a person or group of people
Compliance: A temporary type of conformity where we outwardly go along with the majority but privately disagree with it. This change in our behaviour only lasts as long as we are with the group.
Explanations of conformity
Informational social influence: An explanation of conformity that says we agree with the opinion of the majority because we believe it is correct. We then accept it because we also want to be correct.
Normative social influence: An explanation of conformity that says we agree with the opinion of the majority because we want to be accepted and liked.
A03
Research support for Informational social influence:
Lucas et al (2006) asked students to give answers to maths problems that were easy and difficult. He found that there was greater conformity to incorrect answers when they were difficult rather than easy. This study shows taht people conform in situations where they feel they don't know the answer.
Informational and Normative social influence:
Deutsch and Gerrard argued the 'two process' approach where both ISI and NSI work together. Conformity is reduced when there is a dissenter as the dissenter reduces the power of NSI and ISI.
Individual differences in Normative social influence:
Some research shows that NSI does not affect everyone's behaviour. Some people are less concerned with being liked and therefore are less affected by NSI than those who care about being liked.
Ash's Research
A01
Findings:
Asch found that 75% of participants conformed at least once, with 5% of participants conforming every time. However, 25% of participants never conformed. Asch found that people are less likley to conform if they can answer in private with the idea that in public participants conformed due to normative social influence.
Aschs variations
Unanimity:
The extent to which all the members of a group agree. In Asch's studies, the majority was unanimous when all the confederates selected the same comparison line. This produced the greatest degree of conformity in the naive participants.
Task difficulty:
Asch's line-judging task is more difficult when it becomes harder to work out the correct answer. Conformity increases because naive participants assume that the majority is more likley to be right.
Group size:
Asch increased the size of the group by adding more confederates, thus increasing the size of the majority. Conformity increased with group size, but only up to a point, levelling off when the majority was greater than three.
Procedure:
Asch tested conformity by showing participants one standard line with three comparison lines. Each participant is tested individually with six-eight confederates with the participant going last. Through the first through trials, the confederates gave the correct answers; after this all of the confederates gave the same wrong answer. The participants took 18 trials and within 12 of them, the confederates gave the wrong answer.
A03
Ethical issues:
One ethical issue is that the participants are decieved as they don't know about the confederates.
Another issue with Asch's study is that the participants may become tired or bored and therefore the last trials could be unreliable.
Methodological issues:
One issue is that the results cannot be applied to females.
Another methodological issue is thatit cannot be applied to other age groups
as well as being unable to be applied to other ethnic groups.
Finally the last issue with Asch's study is that the participants could genuinely be getting the wrong answer
Zimbardo's research
A01
Findings:
The guards took up their roles enthusiastically and their behaviour became a threat to the prisoners psychological health. The study was ultimately stopped after 6 days instead of 14. Within the study, the prisoners rebelled against their treatment and the guard played the prisoners against each other. One prisoner went on a hunger strike and the guards became brutal and agressive.
Conclusions:
The stimulation revealed the power of the situation to influence people's behaviour. The study showed that the majoriy conformed to their social roles.
Procedure:
Zimbardo set up a mock prison and advertised for 'emotionally stable young men'to sign up as volunteers. 21 students volunteered. The students were randomly assigned roles of guards or prisoners to create realism. To create realism within Zimbardo's study, the prisoners were arrested at their homes and were stripped and searched. The social roles of the guards were divided and the prisoners routines were heavily regulated. They had 16 rules and the guards were strickley told to not use violence. Each prisoner was referred to with their prison number and the guards had complete power over the prisoners
A03
Lacks internal validity:
Zimbardo's experiment lacked internal validity due to the fact that he got too involved in the experiment and manipulated the participants. Zimbardo and his colleagues had control over variables, one example of this is Zimbardo's selection of participants and how Zimbardo assigned some roles to participants by his own choice.
Validity and applicability:
Zimbardo's experiment was not valid or applicable due to the fact that Zimbardo used a small group of 21 American, male, emotionally stable people. This means that this evidence cannot be applied to any other group of people
Ethical issues:
The experiment was unethical as Zimbardo got too involved and wouldn't let a participant leave as he convinced them to stay, this being unethical as Zimbardo rejected their right to withdraw. After the study was over, Zimbardo also didn't provide a debrief.
Milgrams Research
A01
Findings:
Milgram's study found that all of the participants went to 300v with 65% of participants shocking the learner until 450v with most of the participants showing signs of stress however continued with the experiment.
Procedure:
Within the study their were 40 male participants . Participants were told the study was the role of punishment in learning . The participant (teacher) started at 15v increments to 450v. If the learner made a mistake in the questions, the teacher had to shock them and could hear the 'cries of pain' from the confederate. If the teacher hesitated then the researchers encouraged them to continue with verbal prods. The experiment continued until the teacher refused to continue or until 450v had been given 4 times. Furthermore, a debrief was given.
Conclusion:
Milgram concluded that people tend to obey orders from people who they view to be authority figures. When people occupy a subordinate position in a dominant hierarchy, they become liable to lose their feelings and empathy which leds to blind obedience.
A03
Low internal validity:
Orne and Holland (1968) argued that participants behaved the way they did because they didn't really believe the set up and guessed that there were fake electric shocks
Good external validity:
Milgram's study had good internal validity due to the central feature of the experiment being the relationship between the authority figure and the participant. Milgram argued that the lab environment accurately reflected wider authority relationship in real life.
Ethical issues:
One ethical issue within Milgram's study is that there is a lack of respect for the participants. Furthermore, there is a lack of informed consent and therefore the participants are deceived. As well as this, the study creates psychological harm to the participants. Another ethical issue is that it is difficult for participants to withdraw from the experiment
Situational variables
A01
Location:
When the location was moved to a run down office the percentage of participants that obeyed dropped to 48%
Uniform:
People in positions of authority often have a specific outfit that is symbolic of their authority. This indicates to the rest of us who is entitled to expect our obedience
Proximity
Proximity of the victim:
When the learner is in the same room as the victim, the percentage of participants that obeyed dropped to 40%
Proximity of the authority figure:
When the instructions were given by telephone , the percentage of participants that obeyed dropped to 21%
A03
Research support:
One study that supports Milgram's study is Bickman's field experiment in NYC. Bickman had three confederates dress in three different outfits - suit, milkman's outfit and security uniform. The confederates stood in the street and asked passers by to pick up litter etc. People were twice as likley to obey the confederate the security guard than the milkman. This supports Milgram's conclusion that a uniform conveys the authority of its wearer and is likley to produce obedience.
Lack of internal validity:
Orne and Holland's criticism of Milgram's original study was that many of the participants worked out that the procedure was faked. It is even more likley that participants in Milgram's variations realised this because of the extra manipulation. This is a limitation of all Milgram's studies because it is unclear whether the results are genuinely due to the operation of obedience or because the participants saw through the deception and acted accordingly.
Cross-culture replications:
Milgram's findings have been replicated in other cultures. Miranda et al (1981) found an obedience rate of over 90% amongst Spanish students. This suggests that Milgram's conclusions about obedience are not limited to American males, but are valid across cultures and apply to females too.
Social-Psychological factors
Agentic State
A01
Agentic State:
A mental state where we feel no personal responsibility for our behaviour because we believe ourselves to be acting for an authority figure. This frees us from the demnds of our consciences and allows us to obey even a destructive autority figure.
Autonomous State:
Being aware of the consequences of one's own actions and therefore taking voluntary control of one's own behaviour. This explains why some individuals act independently rather than obediently, as in an agentic state .
A03
Research support:
Blass and Schmitt (2001) showed a film of Milgram's study to students and asked them to identify who they felt was responsible for the harm to the learner. The students blamed the experimenter rather than the participant. The students also indicated that the responsibility was due to legitimate authority. They recognised legitimate authority as the cause of obedience.
A limited explanation:
The agentic shift doesn't explain many of the research findings. For example, it does not explain why some of the participants did not obey. The agentic shift explanation predicts that, as nurses handed over responsibility to the doctor, they should have shown levels of anxiety similar to Milgram's participants, as they understood their role in a destructive processes, but that was not the case. This suggests that the agentic shift can only account for some situations of obedience
Legitimacy of authority
A01
Legitimacy of authority:
An explanation for obedience which suggests that we are more likley to obey people who we percieve to have authority over us. This authority is justified by the individual's position of power within a social hierarchy.
Research:
Kelman and Hamilton (1989) suggests three main factors that explain obedience: legitimacy of the system, legitimacy of authority within the system, and legitimacy of the demands or orders given
Legitimacy of the system:
This concerns the extent to which the body is a legitimate source of authority
Legitimacy of authority within the system:
The power individuals hold to give orders because of their position in the system
Legitimacy of the demands or orders given:
This refers to the extent with which the order is percieved to be a legitimate area for the authority figure
A03
Cultural differences:
A strength of the legitimacy of authority explanation is that it is a useful account of cultural differences in obedience. Many studies show that countries differ in the degree to which people traditionally obedient to authority. This shows that in some cultures, authority is more likley to be accepted as legitimate and entitled to demand obedience from individuals. This reflects the ways that different societies are structured and how children are raised to percieve authority figures. Such supportive findings from cross-cultural research increase the validity of the explanation.
Dispositional explanations
A01
Procedure:
Adorno et al (1950) investigated the causes of the obedient personality. They researched more than 2000 white, middle class americans and their unconscious attitudes towards other racial groups. They developed several scales to investiagte this, including the facism scale which is still used to measure authoritarian personality
Findings:
Adorno discovered that people with authoritarian learning, identified with 'strong' people and were generally contemptuous of the 'weak'. These people were very conscious of their own status as well as others, showing excessive respect, deference and sevility to those of a higher status. Adorno also found that people who had the authoritarian personality had a cognitive style where they had fixed and distinctive stereotypes about other people. There was a strong positive correlation between authoritarianism and prejudice
Authoritarian personality:
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 statis and dismissive of inferiors.
Authoritarian characteristics:
Adorno concluded that people with an authoritarian personality have a tendency to be especially obedient to authority. They believe we need strong and powerful leaders to enforce traditional values. For them everything is either right or wrong and they are very uncomfortable with uncertainty
Dispositional explanation:
Any explanation of behaviour that highlights the importance of the individual's personality. Such explanations are often contrasted with situational explanations.
Origin of the authoritarian personality:
Adorno et el concluded that the authoritarian personality type reformed in childhood as a result of harsh parenting. Adorno argued that experiences of impossibly high standards, severe criticism and conditonal love, creates resentment and hostility in the child but they cannot express this due to fear. This fear is then displaced onto others who are percieved to be weaker. This explains a central trait of obedience to higher authority, which is a dislike for people considered to be socially inferior. This is the psychodynamic explanation.
A03
Research support:
Milgram and Elms (1966) conducted interviews with a small sample of fully obedient participants, who scored highly on the F-scale believng their may be a link between obedience and the authoritarian personality. However this link is a correlation between two variables and a conclusion canot be drawn to say that the authoritarian personality causes obedience on the basis of this result.
Limited explanation:
The explanation of obedience is based on individuals personalities and therefore it becomes difficult to link it to explaining obedient behaviour in the majority of a countrys population, due to it being non-applicable to others. This is a limitation of Adorno's theory because it clearly states that an alternative explanation is more realistic
Political bias:
The F-scale measures the tendency towards an extreme for of right-wing ideology. Christie and Jahoda (1954) argued that this is a politically baised interpretation of authoritarian personality. This is a limitation of Adorno's theory because it is not a comprehensive dispositional explanation that can account for obedience to authority across the whole politicl spectrum.
Resistance to social influence
Social support
A01
Conformity:
Social support can help people to resit conformity. The pressure to conform can be reduced if there are other people present who are not conforming. As showed in Asch's research, the person not conforming doesn't have to be giving the 'right' answer but simply the fact that someone else is not following the majority appears to enable a person to be free to follow their own conscience.
Obedience:
Social support can also help people to resist obedience. 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 dropped from 65% to 10% when the genuine participant was joined by a disobedient confederate.
A03
Research support: resistance to conformity:
Research evidence support the role of dissenting peers in resisting conformity. Allen and Levine (1971) found that conformity decreased when there was one dissenter in a study. This supports the view that resistance is not just motivated by following what someone else says but it enables someone to be free of the pressure of the group.
Research support: resistance to obedience:
Another strength is that there is research evidence that supports the role of dissenting peers in resisting obedience. Gamson et al (1982) found higher levels of resistance in their study than Milgram. This was probably because the participants in Gamson's study were in groups. In Gamson's study, 88% rebelled. This shows that peer support is linked to greater resistance.
Locus of control
A01
Locus of control:
Locus of control refers to the sense we each have about what directs events in our lives. Internals believe they are mostly responsible for what happens to them (internal locus of control). Externals believe it is mainly a matter of luck or other outside forces (external locus of control).
Resistance to social influence:
People who have an internal locus of control are more likley to be able to resist pressures to conform or obey. People with internal LOC take personal responsibility for their actions and experiences then they are more likley to base their decisions on their own beliefs and resist pressures form others.
A03
Research support:
Research evidence supports the link between LOC and resistance to obedience. Holland (1967) repeated Milgram's baseline study and measured whether participants were internal or external. He found that 37% of internal did not continue to the highest shock level, whereas only 23% of externals did not continue. This research shows that internals showed greater resistance to authority.
Contradictory research:
However not all research supports the link between LOC and resistance. Twenge et al (2004) ananlysed data from American locus of control studies over a 40-year period. The data showed that, over tis time span, people have become more resistant to obedience but also more external. This challenges the link between internal LOC and increasing resistant behaviour.
Minority influence
A01
Consistency:
Minority influence is the most effective if the minority keeps the same beliefs, both over time and between all the individuals that form the minority. It's effective because it draws attention to the minority view.
Commitment:
Minority influence is more powerful if the minority demonstrates dedication to their position. This is effective because it shows the minority is not acting out of self-interest.
Flexibility:
Relentless consistency could be counter-productive if it is seen by the majority as unbending and unreasonable. Therefore, minority influence ismore effective if the minority show flexibility by accepting the possibility of compromise.
Minority Influence:
A form of social influence in which a minority of people persuade others to adopt their beliefs, attitudes or behaviours. Leads to internalisation or conversion, in which private attitudes are changed as well as public behaviours.
Moscovivi et al (1969)
Findings:
Moscovici showed that participants would conform to an incorrect answer from a minority. As long as they were consistent in their answers. He found that only 25% of the control groups responses were green, not blue. Participants in the consistent condition yielded and called all slides green in 8.4% of trials. 32% of participants in the consistent condition reported a green slideat least one. Participants in the inconsistent condition yielded and called all slides green in 1.3% of the trials.
Evaluation:
all female participants
all american participants
its a lab experiment: can be controlled, artificial
ethical issue of deception
Procedure:
172 participants were shown 36 studies which were clearly different shades of blue and asked to state the colour of each slide out loud. In the first part of the experiment the two confederates answered green for everything. This was the constant trail. In the second part of the experiment they answered green 24 times and blue 12 times, this was the inconsistent trial. A control group was also used for comparison which did not include confederates.
A03
Research support for consistency:
There is research evidence that demonstrates the importance of consistency. Moscovici's study showed that a consisitent minority opinion had a greater effect than an inconsistent opinion. Wood et al (1994) carried out a meta-analysis of almost 100 similar studies and found that minorities who were seen as being consistent were most influential. This suggests that consistency is a major factor in minority infuence.
Artificial tasks:
Research is limited to mndane activities such as stating if something is blue or green and it is akso hard to apply this research to real life
Social influence and social change
A01
Social change:
This occurs whe whole societies rather than just individuals, adopt new attitudes, beliefs and ways of doing things.
Lessons from conformity research
Dissenters make social change more likley:
Asch's research demonstrated that when one confederate alwasy gave the correct answer, this then broke the power of the majority which enabled others to dissent. This demonstrates the potentialfor social change.
Majority influence and normative social influence:
Environmental and health campaigners exploit conformity by appealing to normative social influence. They provide information about what others are doing. Social change is encouraged by drawing attention to the majoritys behaviour.
Social influence:
The process by which individuals and groups change each other's attitudes and behaviours. Includes conformity, obedience and minority influence.
Lessons from obedience research
Disobedient models make social change more likley:
Milgram's research demonstrated the importance of disobedient role models. In his variation, when one confederate refused to give shocks, the rate of obedience in genuine participants dropped significantly .
Gradual commitment leads to 'drift':
Zimbardo suggested how obedience can be used to create social change. Once a smaller commitment has been made, it becomes more difficult to resist a bigger one. People 'drift' into a new kind of behaviour.
A03
Research support for normative influences:
Nolan (2008) investigated whether majority influence led to a reduction in energy consumption in a community: the researchers hung messages on the front doors of houses in San Diego, California every week for a month. The key message was that most residents were trying to reduce their energy usage. As a control, some residents had a different message that just asked them to save energy but made no refrence to other peoples behaviour. Findings showed significant decreases in energy usage in the group that were informed 'most residents' were trying to reduce energy usage showing how conforming to a majority group can lead to social change
Minority influence is only indirectly effective:
Nemeth (1986) suggested that the effets of minority influence may only be indrect and delayed. They are indirect because the majority is only influenced on matters related to the specific issue and not the central issue itself. The effects of minority influence are delayed because the effects may not be seen in society for some time. This suggests that minority influence has limited effect in the short-time and genuine social changes caused by minority influence only occur after long periods of time: minority influence is frequently more latent than direct as it creates the potential for social change rather than actual social change
Role of deeper processing:
The potential for minorities to influence to influence social change is often limited because they are seen as 'deviant' in the eyes of the majority. Members of the majority may avoid aligning themselves with the minority position because they don't want tto be seen as deviants themselves. The message of the minority would then have very little impacts because the focus of the minorities attention would be the source of the mesage rather than the message itself. In trying to bring about social change, minorities face the double challenge of avoiding being portrayed as deviants and also making people directly embrace their position.