Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Social influence - Coggle Diagram

- - - - when an individual goes along with the group to gain approval/ avoid disapproval
      - this doesn't result in a change of underlying attitudes, only what is expressed in public
      - e.g eating vegetarian food so as to not be left out but not an actual veggie
    - - when an individual accepts influence as they go along with the group
      - can lead to acceptance of the group views both publicly and privately
      - e.g becoming a veggie to fit in
    - - when an individual goes along with the group because they want to be associated with the group
      - they accept the views of the group as correct (internalisation) but they do this to be accepted as a member of the group (compliance) so it’s basically internalisation + compliance
      - e.g indiv wanna be associated with a popular group but they are all vegetarian so the indiv decides to go veggie to be associated with them
    - - occurs when individuals go along with the majority because of a desire to be liked rather than an acceptance of the majority’s POV
      - based on the need for companionship and fear of rejection :,) relatable ngl
      - indivs must believe Their behaviour is being monitored by the group
      - conform in public but not private
    - - when idiv accepts the majority viewpoint because it’s most likely to be correct
      - if objective tests against reality are not possible, indivs rely on the opinions of others
      - more likely in ambiguous situations where others are seen as experts
      - indivs change their behaviour to fit in with the group position
      - e.g looking to see what fancy fork to use at a fancy dinner
    - - hard to distinguish between compliance and internalisation
        
        the distinction is complicated because of difficulties in knowing when each is happening
        
        if indiv agrees with the majority view in public but not in private it’s assumed they are showing compliance
        
        however, it is possible that indiv originally internalised but then changed their mind after receiving new info
      - research supports the concept of normative influence
        
        normative beliefs have an important role in shaping behaviours like smoking and energy conservation
        
        linkenback and Perkins (2003) found that adolescents exposed to the message that the majority of their peers didn't smoke they wouldn’t want to
        
        this supports the definition and concept
      - research supports the concept of informational influence
        
        MIlgram's study was done at Yale univeristy and had high levels of conformity
        
        Ps would most likely belive that the researcher is well educated and knows what they are doing
        
        Ps may also not know how many volts it takes to kill someone (50+) and assume that the researcher does and won't let them
        
        Shows that people will conform when they want to be correct and want to do the right thing
      - normative influence may not be detected
        
        it’s possible that indivs don’t recognise the behaviour of others as a causal factor in their own behaviour
        
        Nolan et al (2008)
        
        found that people judged the behaviour of neighbours as having the least effect on their own energy conservation. However, results showed that it was actually the most influential thing
        
        this suggests that people rely on beliefs about what motivates them and therefore don’t detect the impact of normative SI
  - - - Individual Ps were seated at a table with a group of confederates and asked to judge the length of different lines and match them to the “standard line”
        12/18 trial confederates gave wrong answers to see if Ps went along with the majority
    - - In these 12 trials, the average conformity rate was 33%
      - 1/4 of Ps never conformed
      - 1/20 confirmed on all 12
      - The majority of those who conformed admitted to conforming to avoid disapproval from the rest of the group
    - - Asch's findings may be unique because the study took place at a time when conformity was important
        
        However, in a subsequent study with youths on probation as Ps and probation officers as confederates, they found similar levels of conformity as Asch did
        
        This conformed that conformity is more likely if the cost of non-conformity is high
        
        Perrin and Spencer (1980)
        
        repeated Asch’s study with Uk students but obtained virtually no conformity
        
        1950’s where there were suspected communists in the USA, which explains why Ash’s Ps didn’t want to be seen as an outcast from the group
      - There are problems with determining the effect of group size
        
        Bond (2005)
        
        suggested a limitation of research on conformity is that studies have used only a limited range of sizes
        
        Bond points out that no studies other than Asch have used a size over 9 ps and the range of sizes in usually between 2 and 4 ps
        
        this means that we know very little about the effect that larger groups have
      - Asch’s study showed independent behaviour rather than conformity
        
        Only a 1/3 of the critical trials produced a conforming response
        
        on 2/3 trials the ps stuck to their guns despite the overwhelming majority saying otherwise
        
        Asch believed that since ps tended to keep the same answer this was evidence of independent behaviour instead of conformity
      - Cultural differences
        
        we are likely different levels of conformity depending on the culture
        
        Smith et al (2006)
        
        analysed the results of conformity studies and found that the average conformity level for individualist countries was about 25% whereas for collective it was 37%
        
        Markus and itayama (1991)
        
        suggest the reason that conformity rates are higher in collectivist cultures is that conforming is viewed more favourably in those cultures
  - - - A mock prison set up under Stanford Uni
      - Male students were randomly assigned ‘guard’ or ‘prisoner’
        
        Prisoners wore a mock uniform and were assigned an ID number which they used instead of their name
        
        Guards were given uniforms, batons, whistles and reflective sunglasses that hid their eyes (dehumanising them)
      - Originally planned to last 2 weeks
    - - The guards grew increasingly tyrannical and abusive, making the prisoners perform various degrading tasks
      - despite the fact that it was a study, all Ps conformed to their roles
      - 5 were released early because of their extreme reactions
      - the study only lasted 6 days and ended due to the intervention of another psychologist
    - - Procedure
        
        male Ps randomly assigned roles
        
        divided into groups of 3 with 2 prisoners closely matched with each other and a guard
      - Findings
        
        Ps didn't conform
        
        prisoner worked collectively to challenge the authority of guards
        
        guards were reluctant to impose authority on prisoners which lead to a collapse of the prisoner-guard system
    - - conformity to roles isn’t automatic
        
        Haslam and Reicher (20012 BBC recreation study) challenged Zimbardo’s belief that the guard's behaviour was just them embracing the roles
        
        they pointed out that even tho there were bad guards there were good guards who didn’t degrade prisoners
        
        they argue that this shows that the guards chose how to behave rather than blindly conforming as Zim suggested
      - Demand characteristics
        
        Banuazizi and Mavahedi (1975) claimed that Ps acted the way they did because they guessed how the researcher wanted them to behave
        
        they presented details of the study to a large sample of students and the vast majority guessed the true aims and predicted that the guards would be hostile
        
        suggests that the guards didn’t conform and just acted the way they thought Zim wanted them to
      - Unethical
        
        despite he followed all the guidelines at the time, it’s very clear that the Ps suffered distress
        
        Zim acknowledged that that study should’ve been stopped earlier but several debriefing sessions over several years found no lasting negative side effects
        
        Reicher and Haslam reacted to this issue and took a greater step to minimise any harm so the BBC version is less harmful
      - Can help explain Abu Ghraib
        
        Zim argues that it can be used to explain the Iraqi prisoner abuse by those US military d*cks
        
        Zim believes that the guards who did the abuse were “victims of situational factors” e.g lack of training or accountability to a higher authority
        
        he thinks these factors were present in his study and in Abu Ghraib
        
        he concludes that these factors combined with the opportunity to misuse the power associated with their role are what drove them to abuse
  - - - Asch found very little conformity with a majority of one or two but above this conformity rose to 30%
      - Group size is more significant when the individual is concerned about fitting in
      - It is less significant when there is a correct response and the individual wasn't to be correct
      - fitting in = more conformity, being correct = less conformity
    - - when a confederate (a ps who is actually working for the researcher) gave correct answers conformity rates dropped to 5.5%
      - even when a confederate went against the majority giving a different wrong answer, conformity rates still dropped to 9%
      - suggests that the unanimity of the majority is s key factor in breaking conformity
    - - when the task was harder conformity levels also increased
      - people wanted to be correct and didn’t have enough self-efficacy (self-confidence basically) to give a different answer
      - when an individual had a high self-efficacy then they are more likely to not conform and give the correct answer despite the majority
- - - - suggests certainty and confidence
        
        majority will take them seriously and may convert
    - - minorities must negotiate their idea
      - rigid minority is problematic
      - one that compromises is seen as inconsistent
      - so a balance is best
    - - others will consider the issue more carefully as there must be a reason wh the minority is so confident all this time
  - - - 4 ps and 2 confederates
      - showed various shades of blue on slides
      - consistent trial
        
        confeds said green on every run
      - inconsistent trial
        
        confederates said green on 2/3rds of the runs and said blue in 1/3rd
    - - Consistent
        
        minority influenced ps to say green on over 8% of the trials
      - Inconsistent
        
        very little influence
      - After the main study Ps sorted 16 discs into blue or green
        
        6 were either obviously green or blue, 10 were ambiguous
        
        those ps from consistent trial judged more to be green than inconsistent trials
        
        effect was even greater for those who hadn’t gone along with the minority
      - demonstrates that a consistent minority is more effective
  - - - As a result, we are unable to generalise the results to other populations,
        
        for example male participants, and we cannot conclude that male participants would respond to minority influence in the same way.
      - Furthermore, research often suggests that females are more likely to conform and therefore further research is required to determine the effect of minority influence on male participants.
    - - did not gain fully informed consent.
      - Although it is seen as unethical to deceive participants, Moscovici’s experiment required deception in order to achieve valid results.
      - If the participants were aware of the true aim, they might have displayed demand characteristics and acted differently.
      - Therefore the deception is reasonable
- - - - Doesn’t explain real-life obedience
        
        Lifton 1986 argues that Milgram’s agentic state doesn’t explain the behaviour of those at Auschwitz
        
        Those doctors changed gradually from medical professionals concerned with patient's health to executioners
        
        Staub 1989 suggested it was the experience of carrying out these actions over a long time that changed the doctors thoughts rather than them just shifting between states
      - Milgram’s Ps may have just been cruel
        
        Milgram did conclude that there may have been other factors
        
        the possibility that obedient Ps used the situation an excuse to be cruel was given back up by Zimbardo's prison experiment where those guards seemed to seize the opportunity to be mean
        
        This suggests that although obedience may be due to shifting states for some, for others they may just be ~~assholes~~ wanting to inflict pain on others
  - - - can account for some examples of destructive obedience
        
        can serve as justification for causing harm to others
        
        if people are willing to be dictated by an authority figure then they no longer feel that their morals and values are relevant to how they behave
        
        a consequence is that people may readily engage in unquestioning obedience to authority no matter hoes destructive the orders are
      - Provides a test of the legitimate authority explanation
        
        Tarnow 2000 provided support for the importance of obedience to legitimate authority in a study of legitimate authority in aviation accidents
        
        He Tarnow found that excessive dependence on the Captain (lack of monitoring errors) was the most common factor in a lot of the crashes
        
        this gives an IRL example of legitimate authority figures to enforces obedience around them
  - - - Procedure
        
        A follow up study with 20 obedient and 20 non-obedient Ps from Milgram’s study
        
        each completed a personality scale (MMPI) and the F scale
        
        also asked questions about their upbringing and their attitude to the experimenter and the learner in Milgram’s study
      - Findings
        
        little difference between obedient and non on the MMPI test
        
        higher scores on the F scale in obedient Ps
        
        obedient Ps reported being less close to their fathers during childhood and saw the authority figure as more admirable than the learner.
    - - there is research evidence for the authoritarianism/obedience link
        
        suspicion if Milgram Ps really believed they were really giving shocks
        
        Research support
        
        used an immersive visual environment
        
        Ps still responded as if the situation was real
        
        significant correlation between RWA scores and max shock level
        
        Ps who displayed high RWA levels obeyed the most
        
        confirm link between authoritarianism and obede=ience
      - the social context is more important
        
        Milgram didn’t believe the evidence for a dispositional basis of obedience was strong enough
        
        showed that variations in the social contest (e.g proximity of the victim) were primary cause of differences in Ps levels of obedience not personality
        
        Relying on explanation of obedience based purely on authoritarianism lacks flexibility for variations
      - differences between authoritarian and obedient ps
        
        Elms and Milgram's research found important differences in the characteristic of the AP and obedient Ps
        
        obedient Ps reported having good parental relationships rather than growing up with an overly strict family like with the AP
        
        Given the large number of people who were obedient in the study, the idea that they all have AP despite a non-strict family doesn’t make sense and doesn’t support the idea of AP
      - any causal relationship between authoritarianism and obedience may be more illusory than real
        
        research suggests that education plays a role in authoritarianism AND obedience
        
        found that less-educated people are more authoritarian
        
        Milgram also found that Ps with lower levels of education also tended to be more obedient
        
        Suggest that instead of authoritarianism causing obedience, lack of education could be responsible
        
        links to informative social influence- if someone isn’t well educated they’d assume that other people are and want to be right
        
        Milgram’s study took place at Yale so they could’ve assumed that the researcher knew best and was higher educated so followed their lead
        
        further suggests that authoritarianism has nothing to do with obedience
- - - - if views are different to the majority, that creates conflict that they are motivated to reduce
      - e.g suffragettes using educational, political and militant tactics to draw attention to the issue
    - - minority create conflict in the minds of the majority
      - makes the majority think about their issue being challenged
    - - more likely when consistent
      - established that minorities tend to be more influential when they express their argument consistently over time
    - - if a minority is willing to suffer for their views they are more likely to be taken seriously
    - - initially has a small effect but will spread until it leads to large-scale change as more and more people consider the issues promoted until it reaches a tipping point leading to wide scale social change
  - - - attempt to correct misperceptions of the normative behaviour of peers in an attempt to change the risky behaviour of a target population
      - typically start by identifying a misconception relating to a risky behaviour
      - aim is to communicate to the target the actual norm
      - by advertising the norms, researchers hope people will moderate their own behavior to be more in line with peers
      - e.g Most Of Us dn’t drink campaign
        
        aimed at young adults in Montana
        
        92% believed the majority of their peers drink and drive but only 20% do
        
        campaign told everyone the actual levels and managed to decrease it by 13%
  - - - the role played by minority influence may be limited since minorities rarely bring about social change quickly
        
        because humans tend to confomr to majority, prople are more liklye to maintain the staus quo
        
        this suggest that the influence of a minority creates th potential for change rather than actually briingin it about
    - - while socialnorms intervention have shown positive results ina a number of settings, the y have their limitations
      - Dejong et al
        
        tested the effectivemess of social norms campaigns to reduce alcohol among student
        
        depsite receiving normative information that corrected their misperceptions of drinking norms students did not report lower alcohol consumptions as a result
      - appears that not all social norms interventions are able to produce social change
    - - social norm interventions are aimed at individuals whose behaior is less desirable that the norm
      - but those whose behaior is more desriable also receie the message
        
        for those who already engage in the constructie behavior being advocated, a normative meddafe can cause them to behave more in line with the norm
        
        e.g drink less
      - Shultz refer to this as the boomerang effect
        
        where a social norms campaign might be effective in getting heay drinkers to drink less but can also cuase light drinkers ot drink more
    - - the potential fo rminorities ot influence cosial chaneg is often limited as they are seen as deviant
        
        minorities therefore face he challenfe of aoiding being seen as deviants and also persuading people to embrace their veiws
        
        means that members of the majority may avoid aligning themsleves with the minority position becayse they do not want ot be seena s deviant themselves
- - - - Ps always acted as the teacher and an actor as the learner
      - The teacher tested Leaner’s memory and go them to repeat words back to them from another room through radio and shocked them with increasingly intense shocks if they were wrong
      - The learner stopped responding after 315 volts
      - whenever the teacher asked to stop the experimenter would try and convince them to continue
    - - Milgram asked various groups to predict how far Ps would go before refusing to continue, predictions thought that most wouldn’t go beyond 150
      - ALL Ps went to at least 300 volts with only 12.5% stopping there
      - -Contrary to predictions 65% went to 450 (the max)
        
        btw “As a rough rule of thumb, more than fifty volts is sufficient to drive a potentially lethal current through the body."
    - - Suffered from lack of realism
        
        Orne and Holland 1968 claimed that Ps have learned to distrust experimenters as the real aims of studies are often disguised
        
        Perry 2012dicovered that many of Milgram's Ps were skeptical about whether the shocks were real, and those who did believe that they were real were less likely to obey
        
        this challenges the validity of Milgram’s study suggesting that IRL people would be more likely to obey
      - Found to have historical validity
        
        MIght be dismissed as it was done over 50 years ago
        
        However, Blass (1999) in an analysis found no relationship between the year of publication and levels of obedience
        
        this suggests that Milgram’s studies are still relevant today (have historical validity)
    - - Someone else gave the shock
        
        92.5% went all the way
      - The experiment took place in a run down building
        
        48% went all the way
      - The teacher and learner were in the same room
        
        40% went all the way
      - The teacher had to force their hand on a shock plate
        
        30% went all the way
      - The experimenter gave instructions over the phone
        
        21% went all the way
      - The experimenter was replace by a plain clothes "Ps"
        
        20% went all the way
  - - - with the learner in the same room levels of obedience dropped to 40%
        
        when the teacher had to force the learner’s hand onto the shock plate levels dropped again to 30%
        
        when the authority figure left the room obedience dropped to 21%
    - - Milgram was done at Yale Uni so Ps reported that this gave them confidence I n the study integrity
        
        as a result, this made them more likely to obey
        
        when the study was moved to run-down offices, the obedience levels dropped to 48%
    - - Uniform influence obedience because they are easily recognisable and covey power/ authority
        
        Brushman
        
        found that people were more likely to copy someone dressed in a police style uniform than a business executive
        
        remember that video of the woman asking people to do dumb things in different clothes (police uniform, business clothes, homeless clothes)
    - - Increasing proximity doesn’t always lead to increased obedience
        
        Mandel 1998
        
        Study of the Reserve Police Battalion found that close proximity didn’t stop them from conforming when they were ordered to murder their Jewish victims
        
        Mandel concludes that using “obedience” as an excuse for this makes the real reasons behind the actions
        
        claims that Milgram’s findings about the influence of proximity aren’t backed up by real-life events
      - Locataion: high levels of obedience aren’t that surprising
        
        Fromm 1973
        
        b/c the experimenter represents an institution (science) this makes them a representative.
        
        claims that as Milgram’s Ps knew that they were part of a study that made them more likely to obey
        
        suggests that 65% obedience was less surprising that the 35% disobediance
        
        as a result, we shouldn't generalise the study to actions of people like the holocaust
- - - - Evidence from one of Asch’s (1951) variations.
        
        one of the confederates was instructed to give the correct answer throughout.
        
        rate of conformity dropped to 5%.
        
        This demonstrates that if the real participant has support for their belief (social support), then they are likely more likely to resist the pressure to conform.
      - Evidence for this explanation comes from Milgram (1974).
        
        one of Milgram’s variations
        
        real participant was paired with two additional confederates, who also played the role of teachers.
        
        In this variation, the two additional confederates refused to go on and withdrew from the experiment early.
        
        percentage of real participants who proceeded to the full 450 volts, dropped from 65% (in the original) to 10%.
        
        This shows that if the real participant has support for their desire to disobey, then they are more likely to resist the pressure of an authority figure
  - - - when someone believes what happens to them is luck or fate and that they are not in control of their life
      - all due to external forces in their environment (for example other people).
    - - someone who believes they are in control of what happens to them
      - High internal and conformity
        
        active seekers of useful info so are less likely to rely on others opinions
        
        tend to be more achievement orientated so are more likely to be leaders
        
        better able to resist coercion
    - - Research supports the idea that individuals with an internal locus of control are more likely to resist the pressure to obey.
        
        Oliner & Oliner (1998)
        
        interviewed non-Jewish survivors of WWII and compared those who had resisted orders and protected Jewish people from the Nazis in comparison to those who had not.
        
        found that the 406 who had resisted orders, were more likely to have a high internal locus of control
        
        (in comparison to the 126 people who had simply followed orders)
        
        These results appear to support the idea that a high internal locus of control makes individuals less likely to follow orders,
        
        although there are many other factors that may have caused individuals to follow orders in WWII
        
        difficult to conclude that locus of control is the only factor.
      - Research supports the idea that individuals with an internal locus of control are less likely to conform.
        
        Spector (1983) used Rotter’s locus of control scale to determine whether locus of control is associated with conformity.
        
        From 157 students, Spector found that individuals with a high internal locus of control were less likely to conform than those with a high external locus of control
        
        only in situations of normative social influence, where individuals conform to be accepted.
        
        There was no difference between the two groups for informational social influence.
        
        This suggests that normative social influence is more powerful than informational social influence when considering locus of control.