Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Social Influence - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Research support for consistency
        
        There is research evidence that demonstrates the importance of consistency
        
        Moscovici et al.'s study showed that a consistent minority opinion had a greater effect on other people than an inconsistent opinion
        
        Woode et al. (1994) carried out a meta-analysis of almost 100 similar studies and fund that minorities who were seen as being consistent were most influential.
        
        This all suggests that consistency is a major factor for minority influence
  - - - This deep processing is what is most important in the process of conversion to a different minority view point
    - - This is called the snowball effect
  - - - There is research evidence to show that a change in a minority position does involve deeper processing of ideas
      - Martin et al. (2003) gave participants a message supporting a particular viewpoint and measured their initial support of the viewpoint. One group of participants then heard a minority group agree with the initial view while another group heard a majority group agree with the initial view. Participants were finally exposed to a conflicting view and attitudes were measured again
      - Martin et al. found that people were less willing to change their opinions if they had listened to a minority group rather than if they shared with a majority group
      - This suggests that the minority message had been more deeply processed and had more of an enduring effect, supporting the central argument and how the minority influence process works
    - - A limitation of minority influence research is that the tasks are involved are as artificial as Asch's line judgement task
      - Research is far removed from how minorities would attempt to change behaviour in real life
      - Minority influence studies, such as Moscovici et al.'s are lacking in external validity and are limited in what they can tell us about minority influence in real life
    - - In a variation of Moscovici's blue-green slide study, participants were allowed to write their answers down, so their responses were private, rather than out loud
      - Surprisingly private agreement with the minority position was greater in these private circumstances
      - It appears that members of the majority were being convinced by the argument and changing their own views but were reluctant to admit this publicly. Moscovici believed this was because they did not want to be associated with the minority position for fear of being considered 'radical', 'awkward' or 'weird'
    - - Research studies usually make a very clear and obvious distinction between the minority and the majority - being able to this is in a controlled way is a strength of minority influence research
      - A significant limitation is that real-life social influence situations are much more complicated
      - There is much more involved in the difference between majority and minority than just numbers. eg, majorities tend to have much more power and status than minorities
      - Minorities are very committed to their causes because they often face very hostile opposition
      - On the other hand, minorities can be tight-knit groups whose members know each other very well and frequently turn to each other for support
- - - - The opposite of being in the agent state
      - 'Autonomy' - to be independant or free
      - A person in an autonomous state is free to behave according to their own principles and therefore feels a sense of responsibility for their actions
    - - Binding factors are aspects of a situation that allow the person to ignore or minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour and thus reduce the moral 'strain' they are feeling.
      - Milgram suggested a number of methods an individual may use such as shifting the responsibility to the victim or denying the damage they were doing to the victim.
    - - The shift from autonomy to agency is called the agent shift.
      - Milgram suggested that this occurrs when a person perceives someone else as a figure of authority. This other person has greater power because of their position in the social hierarchy.
    - - A limited explanation
        
        The agentic shift does not explain many of the research findings
        
        It does not explain why some of the participants did not obey
        
        The agentic shift also does not explain the findings from Hofling et al.'s study.
        
        This suggests that, at best, agentic shift can only account for some situations of obedience
  - - - Problems arise when people of legitimate authority become destructive.
      - History has shown too often that charismatic people and powerful leaders can use their legitimate powers for destructive purposes .
      - Destructive authority was very clearly shown in Milgram's study, when the experimenter used prods to to order participants to behave in ways that went against their conscience
    - - People have the power to punish others
      - Most of us accept that the police and the courts have the power to punish wrongdoers.
      - So we are willing to give up some of our independence and hand over some control over our behaviour ro people we trust to exercise their authority appropriately
    - - 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 student.
        
        The students blamed the experimenter rather than the teacher because the responsibility was due to legitimate authority
        
        They recognised legitimate authority as the cause of the obedience, supporting the explanation
      - Cultural differences
        
        A strength of the legitimacy of authority is that it is a useful account of cultural differences in obedience
        
        Countries tend to differ to the degree of which people traditionally obey authority.
        
        Kilham and Mann (1974) replicated Milgram's procedure in Australia and found only 16% of their participants went all the way to the top voltage scale
        
        Mantel (1971) replicated Milgram's procedure Germany and found that 85% of the participants went all the way to the top voltage scale
        
        This shows that in some cultures, authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimate and entitled to demand obedience from individuals
        
        It shows the ways that different societies are structured and the way how children are raised to perceive authority figures
        
        Such supportive findings from cross-cultural research increase the validity of the explanation
  - - - The physical closeness/distance of an authority figure to the person they are giving an order to.
      - Milgram's study
        
        The teacher could not see the student, only hear them
        
        The physical closeness of the teacher to the student in Milgram's studies
        
        In the proximity variation, the student and teacher were in the same room. Obedience rates fell to 40%
        
        In an even more dramatic variation (touch-proximity condition), the teacher had to force the students hand onto an 'electroshock plate' when he refused to answer a question. Obedience rates fell to 30%
        
        The experimenter left the room and gave instructions to the teacher by telephone. Obedience fell to 20.5%. Participants also frequently pretended to give shocks or gave weaker shocks than they were ordered to.
    - - The place where an order is issued.
      - The relevant factor that influences obedience is the status or prestige associated with the location
      - Milgram's study
        
        Milgram's study took place in a lab at a prestigious university, Yale
        
        In another variation, Milgram changed the location of the study to a run-down building. In such a situation, the experimenter had less authority. Obedience fell to 47.5%
    - - People in positions of authority often have a specific outfit that is symbolic of their authority.
      - Uniform's indicate to the rest of us who is entitled to expect our obedience
      - Milgram's study
        
        In the original study, the experimenter wore a grey lab coat as a symbol of authority.
        
        Milgram carried out a variation of the study where the experimenter in the grey lab coat got an inconvenient telephone call and had to leave, he was replaced by 'an ordinary member of the public' in everyday clothes instead of a lab coat. Obedience rates fell to 20%. This is the lowest rates of the variations
    - - Research support
        
        Bickman (1974) - 3 confederates dress in 3 different outfits: jacket and tie, a milkman outfit, and a security guard's uniform. The confederates stood in the street and asked passers-by to complete tasks eg. picking up litter. People were twice as likely to obey the confederate dressed in a jacket and tie. This supports Milgram's conclusion that uniform coveys the authority of the wearer
      - Lack of internal validity
        
        Orne and Holland's criticism of Milgram's original study was that many of the participants worked out the procedure was faked.
        
        This makes it unclear whether the results are genuinely due to the operation of obedience or because the participants saw through the deception and acted accordingly
      - Cross-cultural replication
        
        The findings of cross-cultural research have been generally supportive of Milgram
        
        eg. Miranda et al. (1981) found an obedience rate of over 90% in Spanish students. This suggests that Milgram's findings are not limited to just American males
        
        However Smith and Bond (1998) make a crucial point that most replications have taken place in Western, developed societies. These are not that culturally different from the USA
      - Control of variables
        
        A strength of Milgram's variation is that he systematically altered one variable at a time to see what effect it would have on the level of obedience.
        
        All the other procedures and variables were kept the same as the study was replicated over and over again with more than 1000 participants in total
      - The 'obedience alibi'
        
        Milgram's findings from his variations support a situational explanation for obedience
        
        The proximity of the teacher, student and experimenter, the location of the study and the presence of a uniform are all factors within a situation that influence obedience.
        
        David Mandel (1998) argues that it offers an excuse or 'alibi' for evil behaviour. In his view, it is offensive to Holocaust survivors to suggest that the Nazi's were simply obeying orders given to them and were victims themselves of situational factors beyond their control
  - - - Low internal validity - One and Holland (1968) argued that participants only behaved the way they did because they didn't really believe the shocks
      - Good external validity - Milgram argued that the lab environment accurately reflected wider authority relationships in real life. Hofling et al. (1966) hospital study supports this argument. This shows Milgram's findings can be generalised to other situations
      - Ethical issues: Significant deception
      - Social identity theory - The key to obedience lies in group identification. In Milgram's study, the participants identified with the experimenter
- - - - Milgram and Elms (1966) conducted interviews with a small sample of participants that scored highly on the F-scale thinking there is a link between obedience and authoritarian personality.
      - However this link is merely a correlation between the two measured variables
      - It may be that there is a 3rd factor involved. Both obedience and authoritarian personality may be associated with education level for example.
    - - It is clear that an alternative explanation is more realistic
      - Any explanation for obedience in terms of an individuals personality will find it hard to explain obedient behaviour in the majority of a countries population
      - Social identity explains obedience
    - - F-scale measures the tendency towards an extreme form of right-wing ideology
      - Christie and Jahoda (1954) argued that it is a very politically biased interpretation the 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 political spectrum
    - - The authoritarian personality explanation is based on a flawed methodology
      - The F-scale has come in for severe criticism because every one of its items is worded in the same direction. This means it is possible to get a high score for authoritarianism just by ticking the same line of boxes down one side of the page
      - People who agree with the items on the F-scale are therefore not necessarily authoritarian, but merely acquiesces (someone who accepts something reluctantly but without protest)
    - - Adorno and his collegues measured an impressive range of variables and found many correlations between them
      - Even the strongest correlation cannot prove causation
      - Adorno could not claim that a harsh parenting style caused the development of an authoritarian personality
  - - - Participants: 2000 middle-class white Americans
      - Adorno et al. investigated the causes of the obedient personality of middle-class white Americans and their unconscious attitudes towards other racial groups
      - They developed several scales to investigate this, including the potential for the fascism scale (F-scale) which is still used to measure authoritarian personality
      - F-scale examples:
        
        'Obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtues children should learn'
        
        'There is hardly anything lower than a person that does not feel great love, gratitude and respect for their parents'
    - - People with authoritarian leanings (those that scored high on the F-scale) identified with 'strong' people and were generally contemptuous of the 'weak'.
      - They were very conscious of their own and others' status, showing excessive respect, submission and servility
      - Authoritarian people had a cognitive style with fixed and disticintive stereotypes about other groups
      - There was a strong positive correlation between authoritarianism and prejudice
- - - - A deep kind of conformity
      - It leads to far-reaching and permanent change in behaviour even when the group is absent.
      - It occurs when a person genuinely accepts the group norms.
      - This results in a private as well as a public change of opinions/behaviour
      - We take on the majority view because we accept it as correct.
    - - A moderate type of conformity
      - We act in the same way as the group when with the group because we value it and want to be a part of it
      - But we don't necessarily agree with everything the majority believes
      - Opinions/behaviour do change publicly
      - Private opinions and behaviour don't change
    - - A superficial and temporary type of conformity
      - Outwardly go along with the majority view
      - Privately disagree with the majority view
      - Change in behaviour only lasts as long as the group is monitoring us
      - 'Going along with the others'
  - - - We agree with the opinion of the majority because we believe it to be correct
      - We accept it because we want to be correct as well
      - This may lead to internalisation
      - 'Who has the better information'
      - Cognitive process - to do with what you think
      - Most likely to happen in situations that are new to a person or situations with some ambiguity.
      - Can occur when one person or group is seen as being more of an 'expert'
    - - We agree with the opinion of the majority because we want to be accepted
      - This may lead to compliance
      - NSI is about norms, ie what is 'normal' or 'typical behaviour'
      - Emotional process rather than cognitive
      - Occurs in situations with strangers where you may feel concerned about rejection.
    - - Individual differences in NSI
        
        Does not effects everyones behaviour in the same way
        
        The desire to be liked underlies conformity, therefore there are individual differences in the way people respond
      - ISI and NSI work together
        
        It isn't always possible to be sure whether NSI or ISI is at work
        
        eg. in Asch's experiment the dissenter may reduce the power of the NSI because the dissenter provides social support or may reduce the power or the ISI because there is an alternative source of information
        
        This is the case in lab studies but also is even-truer in real-life conformity situations outside the lab
  - - - Students were asked to give answers to mathematical problems that were easy and difficult.
      - There was greater conformity to incorrect answers when they were more difficult - this was most true for students who rated there mathematical ability as poor
      - The study showed that people conform in situations where they feel they don't know the answer
    - - Participants were shown 2 white cards at a time, 1 with a standard line, and the other with 3 comparison lines with only one being tehe same length as the standard. They were asked which one was the same length as the standard.
      - There were confederates used to give the wrong answer to see if participants conformed
      - 25% of participants did not conform to any of the trials
      - 75% of participants conformed at least once
    - - Stanford prison experiment
      - Set up a mock prison in the basement of a psychology department at Stanford university
      - Students were randomly assigned to roles of guards or prisoners
      - The guards took up their role with enthusiasm, their behaviour became a threat to the prisoners psychological and physical health
      - The study was stopped after 6 days instead of the intended 14
      - The simualtion revealed the power of situation to influence people's behaviour
      - Guards, prisoners, and researchers all conformed
      - Ethical issues: lack of fully informed consent, not protecting the participants from harm
- - - - People differ in the way they explain their successes and failures but it isn't simply a matter of being internal or external
      - There is a continuum with high internal LOC at one end and high external LOC at the other, with low internal and external LOC in the middle
    - - People with an internal LOC are more likely to be able to resist pressures to conform or obey
      - If a person takes personal responsibility for their actions and experiences then they are more likely to base their decisions on their own beliefs and thus resist pressures from others to conform or obey
      - People with a high internal LOC tend to be more self-confident, more achievement-orientated, have a higher intelligence and less of a need for social approval - these personality traits lead to a greater resistance to social influence
    - - Limited role of LOC
        
        The role of the LOC in resisting social influence may have been somewhat exaggerated
        
        Rotter (1982) points out that LOC only comes into play in novel situations. It has very little influence over our behaviour in familiar situations where our previous experiences will always be more important
      - Research support
        
        Evidence supports the link between LOC and resistance to obedience
        
        Holland (1967) repeated Milgram's baseline study and measured whether participants were internals or externals
        
        He found that 37% of internals did not continue to the highest shock level
        
        He found that 23% of externals did not continue to the highest shock level
        
        Internals showed a greater resistance to authority
        
        Research support of this nature increases the validity of the LOC and resistance
      - Contridictory research
        
        Not all research supports the link between the LOC and resistance
        
        Twenge et al. (2004) analysed data from American LOC studies over a 40-year period (1960-2002)
        
        The data showed that, over this time span, people have become more resistant to obedience but also more external
        
        If resistance were linked to internal LOC, we would expect people to have become more internal.
        
        This study challenges the link between LOC and increasing resistant behaviour
        
        The results could be due to a changing society where many things are out of personal control
  - - - Social support can help people to resist conformity
      - The pressure to conform can be reduced if there are other people present who are not conforming
      - Conforming does not have to be giving the right answer, just giving the answer the majority gives. As seen in Asch's research.
      - Someone else not following the majority appears to enable a person to be free to follow their own conscience. This person acts as a 'model'
      - Asch's research shows that if the non-conforming model starts to conform so does the naive participant.
    - - Social support can help people to resist obedience
      - The pressure to obey can be reduced if another person is seen to disobey
      - In one of the variations of Milgram's study, obedience rates dropped from 65% to 10% when the genuine participant was joined by a disobedient confederate
      - A participant may not follow a disobedient person's behaviour but the disobedient person acts a 'model' for a participant to copy that frees him to act from his own conscience
    - - Research support - resistance to conformity
        
        Research evidence supports the role of dissenting peers in resisting conformity
        
        Allen and Levine (1971) found that conformity decreased when there was one dissenter in an Asch-type study.
        
        Conformity still decreased even when the dissenter wore thick glasses and said he had difficulty with his vision - so was clearly in no position to judge the length of lines
        
        This supports the view that resistance is not just motivated by following what someone else says but enables them to be free from the pressures of the group
      - Research support - resistance to obedience
        
        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 due to the fact that the participants in Gamson's study were in groups
        
        In Gamson's study 29 out of 33 groups of participants (88%) rebelled. This shows that peer support is linked to greater resistance