Social influence (Y1)

What is social influence?

The process by which attitudes and behaviours are influenced by the real or imagined presence of others

Can include obvious attempts to change the attitudes or behaviours of others e.g. persuasion, making requests and exerting authority
Influence of norms - social life is characterised by attitudinal and behavioural uniformities among people - group phenomena
Leaders play a central role in the development of norms and processes of influence and persuasion

Can include more subtle processes that occur within groups and society e.g. conformity

Different types of social influence -

Compliance / obedience - public behavioural change not accompanied by private attitude change - driven by coercion / social pressure
Conformity - change that restructures one's underlying beliefs (i.e. public behavioural change accompanied by private attitude)
Minority influence - numerical or power minorities change the attitudes of the majority

Compliance

Superficial, public and transitory changes in behaviour and expressed attitudes in response to requests, coercion or group pressure

Tactics to persuade compliance -

ingratiation; getting someone to like you
Multiple requests -
-> Foot in the door - small request followed by a big one
-> Door in the face - big request denied, follow up with true smaller request
-> Low ball - change terms of request after they have already committed, causing a sunk cost fallacy assessment

Ways to resist compliance -

Reactance; thought of losing autonomy and freedom leads to a severe rejection of compliance attempts - deliberate persuasion fails
Inoculation - exposed to smaller doses of compliance which we resist, building up ability to resist larger attempts
Selective avoidance - tendency to expose oneself to information we agree with / avoid exposure to contradiction
Forewarning - knowledge - being aware of the persuasion
Adorno - authoritarian personality as disobedience; Elms and Milgram, locus of control and social support

Classic experiments in social influence

Social influence are some of the most well known in psychology for 4 reasons:

They capture the essence of what social psychology is
They provide some of the most interesting, powerful and challenging findings in the field
They seem particularly and alarmingly relevant to our everyday lives
Because of the results of the above, they demand some satisfactory theoretical analysis

Milgram (1963)

Shock intensity increased at each mistake (15-450 volts, mild to XXX shock) - confederate, learner, teacher, different room with a shock generator to learner who made a mistake and should be shocked - experimenter encourages them to keep going

You have no over choice, it is essential for you to continue, the experiment requires you to continue and please continue
100% of people went to 240 volts, 63% went to full amount - way over the predicted amount

Variations of the procedure -

Proximity / immediacy to victim - visual contact - only 40% continued; even when a shock plate was used, 30% continued up to 450V
Immediacy of authority figure - instructions delivered by phone - only 20.5% continued, and when the experimenter gave no instructions at all, only 2.5% continued to the end
Legitimacy of authority - location; run down office building, obedience dropped to 48% - dropped in no uniform condition also
Social influence - if two other teachers present complied, obedience increased to 92%, but if two others refused, it dropped to 10%

Milgram's experiments are powerful because they are simple, real and disturbing - typical for 1970s research that focused on the dark side of human nature

Paints a bleak picture of people
Social influence equated with something negative and extreme and individualism is celebrated
Milgram's experiments also contributed to the end of high impact social psychological research because of the ethical issues raised
Deception, harm, lack of consent - some had stress seizures, no right to withdraw

Sherif - conformity (1936)

Explored ordinary and subtle forms of social influence -

Used autokinetic effect - phenomenon of human visual perception in which a stationary, small point of light in an otherwise dark or featureless environment appears to move
Asked participants to estimate how far the light moved on several trials (estimates converged on an idiosyncratic value - typical to individual)
Then asked people to estimate how far the light moved in groups of two or three people - estimate converged on normative values (typical to group)
Asked participants to perform task once more on their own - once established, group norms have an influence and the given value becomes closer to typical

Situation was ambigious and uncertain -
-> People look to others to help define 'reality' - once developed, the norms anchor perceptions of reality
-> If social influence is the product of ambiguity, would people be less influenced if they could objectively measure movement?
-> Frame of reference - when we have norms, we use these to define other ambigious situaitons - social comparative contexts

Asch, 1951 and 1956 - Conformity to incorrect majority -

3 lines v control line - asked in a group the correct answer, confederates gave incorrect answer
-> Informational and normative social influence, internalisation, compliance and identification
On 12 different occasions, the confederates unanimously give the wrong answer, 75% of participants follow the group at least once - average conformity rate of 33%
Asch's situation was not uncertain or ambigious, yet they still conformed -
-> Self-doubt
-> A minority said they actually saw the lines as the group did
-> Some said they did not believe the group was correct but simply went along with the group in order to fit in
-> Fear of social exclusion

Range of people not conforming -

Situational factors - group size (larger groups means more conformity, more group pressure), group unanimity, anonymity and task difficulty
Individual differences - low self esteem, low IQ, high need for social support and high anxiety
Cultural norms - lower conformity in individualistic cultures - higher conformity in interdependent / collectivistic cultures

Theories of social influence

Normative and informational social influence (Deutsch and Gerard, 1955)

Social influences can occur via two distinct and qualitatively different paths (dual process model of social influence) - dual process

Informational influence - achieve accurate perceptions in ambiguous settings e.g. Sherif - people want to be right
Normative influence - gain approval and avoid rejection - people want to be liked (Asch)
In order to test the idea, Asch was varied - participants given responses face to face, in the presence of a group with the goal to be as accurate as possible (high group pressure) or anonymously (no group pressure) - used original stimuli, either present or absent stimuli (vary ambiguity)
Most socially influenced in uncertain and high group pressure scenarios

Limitations - people are influenced by others because they depend on them for information that removes ambiguity or because they need social approval and acceptance

Informational - true, rational
Normative - compliance, irrational

Two criticisms -

Role of surveillance overemphasis - we conform also when anonymity and no reason to be influenced
Assumes all groups are the same - social identity also important

Single process model - both happen at the same time

According to Turner's self categorisation theory, group memberships are not necessarily external influences

Groups are part of the self and provide people with social identity, a sense of who they are and what that means
When the self is defined in social terms, we are influenced by groups because they are an important part of who we are
Informational and normative combined in a group situation
the influence of social groups is informational and normative at the same time
-> Values and standards of our group tell us what is right or wrong, correct and incorrect
-> Values of self-defining groups become internal standards and guide thought and action from within - we do not conform to people but to a group norm

Referent informational influence - Turner, 1991 -

Self-categorisation -> discover ingroup stereotype -> cognitive representation of ingroup norms -> self-stereotyping -> conformity behaviours driven by ingroup norms
In Asch's studies, other students were the ingroup and the experimenter an outgroup - participants may have inferred giving the wrong answer is what to do
Pressure to conform to a group norm that defines oneself as a group member

Evidence -
-> Social influence most likely when the source and target share a salient group membership
-> Ingroups are valid sources of information and influence without the need for surveillance
-> Outgroup sources can be effective with power and surveillance - without these, outgroup sources typically are ineffective or create reactance
-> meta-contrast principle - prototype of a group is that position within the group has the largest ratio of differences to ingroup position to differences to outgroup positions - outsiders are emphasised

Minority influence

Moscovici (1969) - criticised 'conformity bias' in previous social psychological research

Individuals have agency, and individuals can influence large majorities
Cannot explain norm change, innovation and conflict
Asch's conformity studies = studies of minority rather than majority influence (because in general population, actors would be minority)
Initiated program of research to explore minority influence

Conversion theory - dual process model -

Majority influence -> direct public compliance; people passively accept what majority have to say, little or no private attitude change short term - NSI or ISI
Minority influence -> indirect, latent, private change - people have to think about minority and try to understand them

More enduring
Occurs through process of conversion - minorities force us to think twice
Minority influence is different to majority in both process and effect
Flexibility, consistency and commitment - draw attention, show flexibility and consistency, cognitive conflict / deeper processing, augmentation principle, snowball effect and social cryptomnesia

Conversion effect - sudden, dramatic and internal change in majority - impacts direction of attention, content of thinking and differential influence

Maass and Clark (1983) - public views mirror majority but private views reflect minority opinions

Boundary conditions - although minorities can be influential, not all minorities are

Consistent minorities are more successful because they convey credibility draw attention to the minority as an entity, disrupt the majority norm and point to change as the only solution
Consistent minorities create conflict that can only be resolved through conversion
Consistency evidence - Moscovici, Lage and Naffrechoux (1969)

Summary - people seem to go against their own beliefs and harm others when instructed to do so by an authority figure

People use the opinions of others as a guide in situations that are ambiguous / uncertain
But, even in certain situations, social pressure can produce conformity to the majority
Minorities can be effective because they cause latent cognitive change as a consequence of challenging the majority's perspective

Often only persists under surveillance - power is the basis of compliance because if the target of influence has less power than the authority, they will comply

Strategic control over behaviour for self presentation and communication amplifies difficulty with observing full internalisation
Other forms of social influence produces private acceptance and internalisation - subjective acceptance and conversion
Conformity is based on the validity of social norms

Reference groups - psychologically significant for people's attitudes and behaviour as we seek to use them as a basis of norms or use them as an opposition point
-> Positive reference group is a source of conformity
-> negative reference group is a coercive power to produce compliance
-> Difference between coercive compliance and persuasive influence - dual-process dependency model, in which you comply with your membership group but conform to reference groups
-> Turner (1991) - two processes of dependency on others for social approval and for information about reality
Membership groups - groups to which we belong by some objective criterion, external designation or social consensus
Reject the negative reference group, accept membership and conform to positive reference group

Power and influence

Power - capacity or ability to exert influence, and influence is power in action:
Six bases of social power - Raven, 1959:

Reward power - ability to promise rewards for compliance
Coercive power - threaten punishment for non-compliance
Informational power - target’s belief that the influencer has more information than oneself
Expert power - target’s belief that the influencer has generally greater expertise and knowledge than oneself
Legitimate power - influencer is authorised by a recognised power structure to command and make decision
Referent power - identification with attraction to or respect for the source of influence

Reinforcement formulations tend to be unfalsifiable - focus more on cognitive and social processes as punishment and reward tend to be respectively decided

Information paired with other persuasion influences is effective - experts are more persuasive
Legitimate power rests on authority and is a consideration for obedience
Referent power may operate through a range of processes, including consensual validation, social approval and group identification - those who believe they have legitimate power are also more likely to take action to pursue goals - empowered (Galinsky, Gruenfeld and Magee, 2003)
Social cognitive and attributional analysis of power imbalance in a group (Fiske, 1993)

Moscovici - power and influence are two different processes - power is control through dominance and produces compliance and submission, and thus you do not need influence

If you can influence, you do not need power
Power can also be a role in a group defined by effective influence over others - most leaders gain power and persuasion by causing internalisation of their views, through charisma and legitimate authority
Power could be a social construct rather than a cause of effective leadership, and leadership could be associated more as a conformity process acting as a positive reference group people want membership of
Turner (2005) - criticised traditional perspectives on power and influence (that power resides in control of resources and is the basis of influence that psychologically attaches people to groups) whereas Turner suggests attachment to and influence with a group is the basis of influence Influence = power, power = resource control
Social identity theory of conceptualisation of influence in groups

Obedience and authority

Agentic state - absolve ourselves of responsibility by transferring it to an authority figure (agentic shift from autonomous state)
Legitimacy of authority - Milgram variations of location, proximity and uniform
Authoritarian personality - Adorno and Elms and Milgram Milgram replicated in many cultures, gender groups and ages and same effect is found
Variations of immediacy may prevent dehumanisation of the victim making it easier to empathise and avoid obedience

Reasons why -

Foot in the door obedience - started with small tasks, now committed to course of action
His research addresses the tendency for people to obey orders without first thinking about what they are being asked to do and the consequences of their obedience for others
However, obedience can also be beneficial for most workplaces and governments as well as emergency teams
Pitfalls of blind obedience, due to immediacy, group pressure, norms and legitimacy are an issue - medication errors in hospital are mainly due to nurses blindly obeying doctors despite concerns (Lesar et al, 1977)
Pharmaceutical scenario - 77% of people agreed to a hazardous drug because of the chair of the board (Brief, Dukerich and Doran, 1991)

Cialdini and Goldstein (2004) -

Milgram’s participants were still troubled by the orders - not thoughtless obedience, experimenter also had expert authority
Social identity theory of leadership - Haslam and Reicher, 2012; results reflect group-membership-based-leadership rather than obedience to an authority figure
Looked for certainty in an ambiguous situation

Ethics -

Influenced ethical guidelines - issues of withdrawal, deception, harm and debriefing
However, benefits outweighed the costs
Reasons for deception - convince into an unpleasant experiment, and to study automatic processes that require hypothesis naivety

Conformity

People constructs norms from other people’s behaviour in order to determine correct and appropriate behaviour for themselves - if you are confident about what is appropriate and correct, other’s behaviour is irrelevant and not influential

Ambiguity in Sherif’s study created a norm which influenced behaviour

Individual and group characteristics of those that conform -

Those who conform tend to have low self esteem, high need for social support or approval, a need for self control, low IQ, high anxiety, feelings of self-blame and insecurity in the group, feelings of inferiority, feelings of relatively low status in the group and an authoritarian personality
However, some people conform to some situations not others, suggesting situational factors have a role and are more important than personality

Eagly - gender difference in conformity - women influenced when they have less expertise than men, same in the opposite condition - but, conform equally on gender neutral stimuli (Sistrunk and McDavid, 1971)

Women conform more than men in public interactive settings, due to a higher concern for group harmony (Eagly, 1978)
Women conform equally in public and private situations, but men are more resistant in public settings (Eagly, Wood and Fishbaugh, 1981)

Why people do not conform - Hodges et al, 2014

Speaking-from-ignorance effect - layperson is invited by a group of experts to offer an opinion Asch - people are telling the truth as they see it, and thus react when the experts weigh in and correct it

Cultural influence - Collectivist cultures conform more than individualistic cultures (Smith et al, 2006)

Collectivist cultures see conformity as a positive thing as it provides a form of social cohesion, whereas individualist cultures see it as a negative loss of freedom of thought

Dissenters, deviates or independents
Minorities are less numerous, less legitimate authority and less worthy of serious consideration
Social change could not happen without minority influence innovating new ideas

Conformity bias -

In social influence research, there is a tendency to suggest people conform to majorities because they are dependent on them for normative and informational reasons
Social influence is also beneficial for status quo and uniformity reasons
However, innovation and normative change are sometimes needed, which is where social influence gets in the way

The certainty in which we hold views lies in the amount of agreements we encounter for those views ambiguity and uncertainty are not properties of objects but of other people’s disagreement with us

Moscovici (1976) believed that there is disagreement and conflict within groups, with three social influence modalities that define how people respond to these social conflicts

Conformity - majority influence in which the majority persuades the minority or deviates to adopt the majority viewpoint
Normalisation - mutual compromise leading to convergence
Innovation - a minority aims to create and accentuate conflict to persuade the majority to adopt the minority viewpoint

Behavioural style and genetic model

Moscovici (1976) - genetic as it is the dynamics of how social conflict can generate and are genetic of social change

To create change, active minorities go out of their way to draw attention to and accentuate conflict
All attempts at influence create conflict based on disagreement between the source and the target of influence - in the case of disagreement with a minority, it is easy and common to simply dismiss or discredit the minority
Difficult to dismiss a minority if they stand up to a majority and adopt that behavioural style in which they are an uncompromising certainty about and commitment to its position and a belief that the majority ought to change to adopt the minorities position - majority takes minority seriously, reconsidering its own beliefs and seeing the minority position as viable
Consistency and investment in messages, as well as autonomy by acting out of principle rather than ulterior motives

Consistency -

Disrupts the majority norm and produces uncertainty and doubtDraws attention the minority as an entity
Conveys clear impression of a coherent point of view
Demonstrates certainty and an unshakeable commitment to this point of view
Shows that the only solution to the conflict is espousal of the minority’s viewpoint

Conversion theory

How a member of the majority processes the minority’s message

Majority influence - produces direct public compliance for reasons of normative or informational dependence - people engage in a comparison process where they focus on what others say to fit in with them - majority views accepted passively without much thought - outcome is public compliance with majority views
Minority influence - indirect, latent, private change in opinion due to the cognitive conflict and restructuring that deviant ideas produce - people engage in a validation process where they carefully examine and cogitate over the validity of beliefs

Outcome of little or no overt public agreement with the minority, for fear of being viewed as a member of the minority, but private internal change may only happen later
Conversion effect - direction of attention (message focus), content of thinking (deeper processing) and differential influence (produces private rather than public agreement)Majority is instead direct, immediate behavioural compliance

Convergent-divergent theory - Nemeth (1986, 1995) - minority / majority differences

Because we are expected to share attitudes with the majority, when we do not this is surprising and stressful, and leads to self-protective narrowing of focus of attention
Produces convergent thinking that inhibits consideration of alternative views
Because we do not expect to agree with the minority, when we do disagree this is not surprising and leads to divergent thinking of many views
Exposure to minority views therefore stimulates innovation and creativity, by generating more diverse thinking

Social identity - Turner and David (2001)

Ingroup minorities have the problem of the majority group making intragroup social comparisons that highlight and accentuate the minority’s otherness, essentially concretising a majority v minority intergroup contrast
Key way to cause minority influence is for the minority to shift the majority’s level of social comparison to focus on intergroup comparisons with a genuine shared outgroup
This allows the minority to become an ingroup by comparison of a more different outgroup

Vested interest and leniency contract -

More influential if they can avoid being categorised by the majority as a despised outgroup
Challenge for minority to be able to achieve this at the same time as promulgating an unwaveringly consistent alternative viewpoint that differs from the majority position - have to be an outgroup and an ingroup
Crano’s context-comparison model of minority influence describes how minorities can establish legitimate ingroup credentials before drawing undue critical attention to the distinct minority outgroup viewpoint
Ingroup minorities can be quite persuasive - message is distinct, attracts attention and elaboration, and there is little derogatory threat
Outgroups just derogatory
When messages involve strong or vested (inflexible and absolute) attitudes, it is more difficult for a minority to prevail
Leniency contract - majority assumes because minority is an ingroup, it is unlikely to destroy any core attitudes and so they are more lenient to their views

Attribute theory -

Consistent, committed and flexible minorities encourage people to listen and consider their position
Social impact theory - source of influence increases influence relative to size, but as the cumulative power increases, each individual source is reduced - additional people to a minority influence has more impact than a majority