Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

social influence - Coggle Diagram

- - - - = In the autonomous state, people assess actions against their morals. But in the agentic state, they feel detached from their actions, making immoral behaviour “guilt-free.
        -Binding factors like fear of being rude or breaking commitment keep people obedient
        
        In Milgram’s study, participants continued obeying partly because rejecting the experimenter’s authority would seem arrogant or disrespectful = illustrates binding factors.
      - People may adopt the agentic state to protect their positive self-image and avoid guilt.
    - - A weakness is that obedience might be due to sadistic tendencies, not just agentic state.
      - Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment (Haney et al., 1973) showed that guards acted with cruelty despite no explicit orders — suggesting some people use situations to express sadism.
        
        Obedience may come from individual personality, not just psychological state — challenges the idea that all obedience is agentic
  - - - Legitimacy of authority = obedience is more likely when authority figures are seen as socially recognised and in control.
      - People are socialised to expect someone to be ‘in charge’ in certain situations (e.g. labs, police). The power doesn’t come from personal traits but from perceived position
        
        Milgram (1974) found high levels of obedience when the authority figure acted confidently within a formal setting — supporting the influence of perceived legitimacy.
    - - A danger is that legitimate authority can justify immoral actions.
      - When people defer moral responsibility to an authority, they may follow orders that go against their values — they stop thinking critically
        
        Can lead to destructive obedience (e.g. war crimes), showing how blind trust in authority can be dangerous.
  - - - Agentic state is when an individual sees themselves as acting on behalf of an authority figure.
      - This means they shift from an autonomous state (where they feel responsible for their actions) to an agentic state (where they feel the authority is responsible).
        -Milgram (1974) called this shift the agentic shift. Obedient individuals may feel responsible to the authority figure, but not for the consequences of their own actions.
        
        Milgram’s participants often said things like “I wouldn’t have done it by myself. I was just doing what I was told.” = showing how they felt detached from responsibility in the agentic state.
    - - A limitation is that the theory doesn’t explain gradual and permanent changes in behaviour
      - Lifton (1986) found that Nazi doctors at Auschwitz irreversibly changed from caring professionals to people capable of atrocities — this isn’t explained by a temporary state shift.
        
        Suggests obedience may be more due to long-term exposure to evil not just a momentary agentic
        shift → challenges Milgram’s explanation.
  - - - People tend to accept the authority figure’s definition of a situation, especially in institutional settings.
      - Even when someone personally feels the situation is wrong (e.g. hearing learner in pain), if a legitimate authority defines it as safe, they continue. Institutions strengthen this effect
        
        Milgram’s variation at “Research Associates of Bridgeport” still produced high obedience, showing perceived institutional legitimacy overrides setting quality.
    - - Tarnow (2000) found that in 9 out of 37 plane crashes, crew failed to challenge the captain's authority similar to how Milgram's participants accepted the experimenter's authority
        
        Real-life validation of how institutionalised and perceived authority can suppress critical judgement,
        leading to fatal consequences.
      - A strength is Real-world evidence supports the role of legitimate authority in dangerous obedience
- - - - The Rosenstrasse Protest (1943): German women resisted Gestapo and saved 2,000 Jewish men → shows disobedient peers provide strength in numbers.
        
        = Demonstrates how social support operates in real-life defiance, echoing Milgram’s lab findings.
      - A strength is Real-world support from historical events.
    - - Social support enables resistance to obedience by offering a model for defiance
      - When others disobey authority, individuals feel more confident resisting too. Disobedient peers offer a role model for defiance, reducing perceived pressure to obey.
        
        Milgram variation: when two confederates refused to give shocks, obedience dropped to 10% → peer
        defiance gave participants confidence to disobey
  - - - Locus of control is how much control someone believes they have over their life.
      - Internals believe outcomes depend on their own actions so more likely to resist social influence. Externals believe outcomes are due to luck or others so more likely to conform/obey.
        
        Internals show more independent behaviour; externals = more passive. Internals = less vulnerable to social pressure.
    - - A weakness is LOC relates to normative, but not informational influence.
      - Spector (1983): externals were more likely to conform to normative pressures but not informational ones
        
        LOC explains some but not all forms of conformity → limited explanatory power.
  - - - When another person resists the majority, it breaks the group's unanimity and provides an alternative viewpoint. This reduces pressure to conform and increases confidence in one's own ] judgment.
        
        Asch (1956): When one confederate gave the correct answer, conformity dropped from 33% to 5.5%
        → shows that an ally reduces conformity by breaking unanimity.
      - Social support helps individuals resist conformity to group pressure
    - - Research supports social support’s role in resisting conformity
      - Rees & Wallace (2015) found that adolescents with friends who resisted drinking were less likely to conform to peer pressure to drink.
        
        Real-life support for lab findings → boosts ecological validity + shows how support helps people resist group norms
  - - - Internals actively seek info, are achievement-oriented, and show leadership. They’re less reliant on others’ views and better resist coercion.
        
        Hutchins et al= (1978): internals in a POW simulation resisted interrogation better than externals, especially under pressure
      - Internals possess traits that help them resist social influence.
    - - People are becoming more external over time.
      - Twenge et al. (2004): meta-analysis showed increasing externality in young Americans from 1960– 2002 → linked to alienation and blaming outside forces.
        
        Suggests social trends may reduce resistance to influence → concerning shift toward passivity
- - - - physical closeness between teacher and learner affects obedience.
      - When the learner was in the same room, obedience dropped to 40%. In the touch proximity condition (forcing the learner’s hand onto a shock plate), it dropped further to 30%. When the experimenter was absent and gave orders via telephone, obedience fell to 21%
        
        Participants disobeyed more when they directly experienced the learner's suffering or when the authority figure was less physically present.
    - - A criticism is that real-life atrocities can’t always be explained by proximity effects.
      - Mandel (1998) points to Reserve Police Battalion 101, who obeyed orders to kill Jews despite being in close contact and offered a choice to opt out.
        
        This suggests proximity alone can’t explain obedience in real-world situations, and deeper factors like ideology may play a bigger role.
  - - - the setting in which obedience takes place affects authority perception.
      - Milgram's original study was conducted at Yale, which carried authority. When moved to a run-down office in Bridgeport, obedience fell from 65% to 48%, showing that prestigious settings increase perceived legitimacy.
        
        Participants stated they were less likely to obey in a less official-looking location, highlighting the influence of institutional context on authority.
    - - A criticism is that obedience may have been artificially high due to the lab setting
      - Fromm (1973) argued participants obeyed more because the experimenter symbolised science and authority in a Western culture context.
        
        Real-life obedience (e.g. genocide) requires long-term social manipulation, so Milgram’s findings may overstate the ease of eliciting destructive obedience.
  - - - Milgram's study investigated how far people would obey an authority figure, even when it involved harming another person.
      - Participants believed they were part of a study on learning and punishment. They were assigned therole of "teacher" and instructed to deliver increasingly severe electric shocks to a "learner" (confederate) for wrong answers—up to 450 volts.
        -Despite the learner's distress, 65% of participants went to the maximum shock level, showing strong obedience to perceived authority
        
        Before the study, experts predicted almost no one would go past 150V. But 26 out of 40 participants delivered the full 450V, suggesting people will obey authority figures even when it goes against their morals
    - - A criticism is that Milgram’s study may lack internal validity due to participant suspicion.
      - Orne & Holland (1968) argued that participants might not have believed the shocks were real.
      - This questions the study’s validity—if participants didn’t believe the setup, it’s unclear whether their behaviour reflects real obedience
  - - - Uniforms act as a visual symbol of authority, increasing obedience
      - Authority figures in uniform are perceived as more legitimate. In Bushman's (1988) study, a female researcher dressed in a police-style uniform had a 72% obedience rate vs. 48% (executive)
        
        People said they obeyed because the uniform signalled authority, showing how visual cues can
        override deeper judgments
    - - Research supports how visual cues like uniforms influence perceptions of authority
      - Durkin & Jeffery (2000) found children identified authority by uniform, not role—e.g. a non-policeman in uniform was seen as able to arrest.
        
        This highlights how authority is often judged superficially, especially by children, which supports
        uniform’s psychological power.
- - - - A strength is Asch’s findings were replicated using improved methods.
      - Mori & Arai (2010) used polarised glasses instead of confederates to avoid deception. Female results matched Asch’s original findings.
        
        Supports the validity of Asch’s conclusions + shows his findings weren’t just due to poor acting by confederates.
    - - Asch’s study investigates normative social influence and how group pressure affects conformity.
      - In his experiment, 123 male students had to match a standard line to one of three comparison lines. Confederates deliberately gave wrong answers on 12 out of 18 trials. Asch wanted to see if participants would conform publicly, even when the correct answer was obvious.
        
        Participants conformed on 33% of critical trials. Post-study interviews revealed most conformed to avoid disapproval (compliance), even though they knew the answers were wrong.
  - - - Unanimity in the group strongly influences conformity levels
      - When one other person gave the correct answer (or a different wrong one), conformity dropped drastically. This suggests that breaking group consensus reduces pressure to conform
        
        Conformity fell from 33% to 5.5% with a supporter, and to 9% even when the supporter gave a
        different wrong answer
    - - A strength is the Study shows people often resist conformity even without discender
      - Only one-third of critical trials resulted in conformity. The majority of participants stuck to their own
        judgement despite pressure.
        
        Highlights human tendency for independent thinking, supporting the idea that people aren't blindly conformist.
  - - - Group size affects conformity, but only up to a certain point.
      - Asch found little conformity with 1–2 confederates, but conformity rose to ~30% with three. Beyond this, more confederates didn’t increase conformity much, suggesting diminishing returns
    - - A criticism = Limited range of group sizes studied
      - Bond (2005) pointed out most studies used 2–4 confederates; only Asch tested beyond 9. This restricts understanding of how very large majorities influence conformity
      - Limits generalisability of findings to real-life groups, where group sizes can be much larger.
  - - - A weakness is that Asch’s study may be a 'child of its time'
      - Conformity levels may have been inflated due to the McCarthyist era of the 1950s, where social pressure to conform was high. Perrin & Spencer (1980) found much lower conformity in UK students.
        
        Suggests Asch’s findings may lack temporal validity and may not generalise to modern-day behaviour
    - - Task difficulty increases conformity, especially in those with low self-confidence.
      - When Asch made line lengths more similar (harder task), conformity increased. Lucas et al. (2006) found this effect was moderated by individual self-efficacy – confident participants resisted more.
        
        Lucas et al. found high self-efficacy participants conformed less than low self-efficacy ones during difficult maths tasks, showing interplay between situational and individual factors
- - - - Altemeyer (1981) proposed RWA as a refined explanation of authoritarianism related to obedience.
      - RWA includes three key traits: conventionalism (upholding traditional norms), authoritarian aggression (hostility to norm violators), and authoritarian submission (obedience to authority).
        
        In his study, participants who scored high on RWA gave themselves stronger shocks when instructed.
    - - Political orientation affects obedience — left-wing individuals show lower levels.
      - Bègue et al. (2014) replicated Milgram’s study in a fake game show. Left-leaning participants gave weaker shocks compared to those identifying with right-wing views.
        
        Highlights that dispositional factors, like political ideology, do affect obedience, supporting individual differences in obedience beyond just situational explanations.
  - - - Elms & Milgram investigated whether obedience was linked to personality, specifically authoritarian traits
      - They compared 20 obedient and 20 defiant participants from Milgram’s original study using the Fscale and MMPI. Obedient participants scored higher on authoritarianism and viewed authority figures more positively
        
        Obedient participants reported colder relationships with their fathers and were more admiring of the
        experimenter, aligning with the authoritarian personality profile.
    - - A weakness is not all obedient participants fit the authoritarian profile.
      - Many obedient participants reported warm, supportive childhoods, not the harsh environments typically linked to authoritarian development.
        
        Suggests obedience may not be fully explained by personality alone; situational factors may play a larger role than Adorno proposed.
  - - - The Authoritarian Personality is a dispositional explanation for obedience measured by Adorno’s F scale.
      - This personality type involves rigid thinking, submission to authority, and hostility towards outgroups.
        -Adorno et al. (1950) suggested it develops from strict, punitive parenting, where obedience is heavily enforced. These individuals see the world in black and white and favour hierarchies and rules.
        
        Adorno et al. found that high F-scale scorers had been raised in authoritarian homes and were more likely to obey authority figures, , suggesting a learned personality trait through imitation of parental attitudes
    - - Participants who scored high on Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) were more likely to deliver maximum shocks in a simulated environment, even when they knew it was not real
        
        Supports a link between authoritarian traits and obedience, strengthening the dispositional explanation, even under low-stress simulated conditions.
      - Strong support comes from Vatiné’s et al (2010) virtual obedience study
- - - - Social norms interventions aim to reduce risky behaviours by correcting misperceptions about peer behaviour
      - People often overestimate how common harmful behaviours are (e.g., excessive drinking), so campaigns share actual norms to encourage healthier choices These are delivered via media and
        promotional strategies to reduce behaviours like binge drinking or drink-driving.
        
        E.g. campaigns correcting beliefs around alcohol use in students – if people believe their peers drink less than expected, they may reduce their own intake to match.
    - - A criticism = Social norms campaigns can cause the boomerang effect.
      - Schultz et al. (2007) found that those already behaving better than the norm may increase risky behaviour to match the perceived average.
        
        This means well-meaning interventions might backfire, increasing undesirable behaviours in low-risk groups.
  - - - Most people believed that drink-driving was more common than it was. The message 'Most Montana Young Adults Don't Drink and Drive' corrected this By aligning perceived norms with reality, the
        campaign encouraged safer behaviour.
        
        The campaign led to a 13.7% reduction in drink-driving reports in targeted counties vs. non-targeted areas, showing norm correction can positively influence attitudes and behaviours.
      - This real-world social norms campaign aimed to reduce drink-driving among young adults in Montana
    - - A weakness is Minorities may be ignored due to being seen as 'deviant'.
      - Majorities may resist change if the minority is viewed negatively, focusing on the messenger rather than the message.
        
        This makes social change harder, as people avoid associating with unpopular or radical groups, limiting the effectiveness of minority influence.
  - - - Social change through minority influence occurs when a small group successfully persuades the majority to adopt their beliefs or behaviour.
      - Drawing attention to an issue (e.g., suffragettes highlighting voting inequality).
      - Cognitive conflict, causing people to question current norms.
      - Consistency of position, increasing credibility.
      - Augmentation principle, where suffering for the cause (e.g., hunger strikes) shows commitment.
      - Snowball effect, where influence spreads and leads to large-scale change.
      - The suffragette movement followed all five stages – using protest, consistency, and personal sacrifice – eventually leading to universal suffrage in the UK.
    - - A weakness is that Social change via minority influence is often slow and limited.
      - People tend to conform to the majority and maintain the status quo, making it difficult for minorities to cause rapid or widespread change.
        
        This suggests minority influence may create awareness or potential for change but doesn’t always result in immediate transformation.
- - - - minority influence increases when the group shows strong dedication to their position.
      - High commitment signals confidence and that the minority is willing to face consequences to stand by their beliefs. This makes the majority take them more seriously and consider their views.
        
        Xie et al. (2011) found a ‘tipping point’ where just 10% of committed individuals expressing a consistent alternative view could cause a shift in majority opinion (snowball effect).
    - - Xie et al.’s (2011) computer model showed that consistent and committed minorities can eventually shift majority views once a small but significant number holds the belief.
        
        Demonstrates how commitment can trigger large-scale social change, supporting the minority influence process
      - A strength is the evidence for real change occurring once commitment reaches a critical mass.
  - - - minority influence is more effective when the group shows willingness to compromise.
      - rigid minorities appear dogmatic and are likely to be ignored. But being too flexible can seem inconsistent. A balanced, flexible approach allows negotiation and shows open-mindedness, increasing influence.
        
        Nemeth & Brilmayer (1987) found in a jury simulation that confederates who showed late flexibility (compromised during discussion) were more influential than those who stuck rigidly to their point
    - - A strength is research support for flexibility being more effective than rigidity
      - Nemeth & Brilmayer’s study shows that flexibility – especially when shown later rather than early – makes the minority appear more reasonable and persuasive.
        
        Suggests flexibility enhances credibility and influence, but only when well-timed – it needs to be perceived as thoughtful, not as giving in
  - - - Consistency is a key element in minority influence; it involves maintaining the same position over time.
      - When a minority group consistently presents their view, people begin to reassess the situation rather than dismissing it.
        
        Nemeth (2010) argues consistency makes others think the minority must have a point worthconsidering. It shows confidence and conviction.
    - - A limitation is that consistency may lead to minority influence in name only
      - Nemeth (2010) argues people tolerate dissent superficially but actually resist it when it threatens group harmony or social approval. Dissenters may be ridiculed or ignored.
        
        This may mean consistency alone isn't enough for real change – the majority may still reject the minority view to avoid conflict, limiting innovation.
- - - - AO1
        
        Identification is conforming to be associated with a person/group
        
        This Combines compliance (public behaviour) + internalisation (some private acceptance). The individual adopts views to feel part of the group, even if beliefs aren’t fully accepted long-term.
        
        E.g. a teenager smokes to be seen as part of the “cool” group, even if they wouldn’t smoke alone = behaviour is influenced by group identity
      - AO3
        
        a weakness is Difficult to distinguish from other types (Hard to tell when someone is complying vs. internalising.)
        
        Someone may agree with a group publicly but still change their mind in private later – was it internalisation or just short-term compliance?
        
        Reduces the clarity of conformity types, making real-life classification and research harder.
    - - AO1
        
        Internalisation is genuinely adopting the group’s beliefs and behaviours
        
        Its the deepest level of conformity – both public and private beliefs change. This usually happens when a person trusts the group or finds their position credible.
        
        someone converting to veganism after being influenced by a group’s ethical arguments – beliefs and actions change even when alone
      - AO3
        
        A strength is research support for informational influence as others’ views can deeply change personal beliefs.
        
        Wittenbrink & Henley (1996) – participants exposed to negative majority views about African Americans later held more negative attitudes.
        
        Supports idea that internalisation is driven by informational social influence when we accept others’ views as accurate.
    - - AO1
        
        Compliance IS going along with others to gain approval or avoid disapproval.
        
        This is based on normative social influence. The person changes public behaviour but not private beliefs. This is driven by a desire to fit in, avoid rejection, or gain social rewards.
        
        E.G. someone laughing at a joke they don’t find funny just to fit in with a group. The attitude hasn’t changed internally, just behaviour.
      - AO3
        
        A strength is Research support for normative influence US studies show people conform to perceived social norms.
        
        Linkenbach & Perkins (2003) – teens who believed most peers didn’t smoke were less likely to start smoking
        
        Strong support for how normative beliefs shape behaviour
  - - - AO1
        
        Normative social influence is conforming to be liked or accepted.
        
        Driven by fear of rejection and desire for approval. Most likely when people feel watched (under surveillance). It leads to compliance
      - AO3
        
        A weakness is Normative influence may go undetected
        as People may not realise norms influence them.
        
        Nolan et al. (2008) – participants claimed neighbours had little effect on energy saving, but data showed social norms had the strongest influence.
        
        Suggests we underestimate how much normative influence affects behaviour, limiting its recognition in decision-making.
    - - AO1
        
        Informational influence is conforming because others are seen as more knowledgeable.
        
        Happens in ambiguous situations or when others are perceived as experts. Leads to internalisation – deep, lasting change as people believe others are right
        
        E.g. during a fire alarm, if someone unsure sees others leaving calmly, they follow assuming others know best.
      - AO3
        
        A weakness is effect depends on the task as some tasks are more affected by informational influence than others.
        
        Laughlin (1999): social influence stronger for subjective judgments (e.g. “Which city is most fun?”) than for objective ones (e.g. “Which city is largest?”).
        
        Shows informational influence is more powerful in social/ambiguous contexts than when facts can
        be independently verified.
- - - - A criticism is that conformity to social roles may not be automatic
      - A criticism is that the findings may be due to demand characteristics
      - Haslam and Reicher (2012) found guard behaviour varied – not all guards were sadistic; some were kind and resisted cruel behaviour, suggesting personal choice played a role.
        
        This may mean Zimbardo overstated the power of roles, and individual agency was more influential than he proposed.
      - Banuazizi et al (1975) found that students unfamiliar with the SPE could accurately predict the behaviours based on the setup – suggesting participants acted as expected rather than truly conforming.
        
        This may mean the findings reflect expectations of the study, not genuine role conformity, undermining the internal validity.
    - - Procedure
        
        The Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE) involved a simulated prison environment to study conformity to social roles
        
        Zimbardo randomly assigned 24 psychologically stable male students to roles of 'guards' or 'prisoners 'in a mock prison at Stanford University. Prisoners were arrested at home, deloused, given uniforms and ID numbers; guards received uniforms, sunglasses, and batons.
        
        This immersive setup created a powerful sense of realism, allowing researchers to observe how easily
        people conformed to imposed roles in a controlled setting
      - Findings
        
        The SPE demonstrated how people conformed to social roles under situational pressures.
        
        Guards became increasingly abusive, forcing prisoners to clean toilets with bare hands and perform degrading acts. Prisoners Showed extreme distress, With five being released early. The Study was ended after six days due to ethical concerns raised by an observer, despite being planned for two weeks.
        
        One prisoner requested 'parole' rather than withdrawal, showing how deeply participants internalised their roles, forgetting the artificial nature of the study
  - - - The BBC Prison Study investigated social role conformity using a similar setup to the SPE but with greater ethical safeguards.
      - Fifteen male participants were randomly assigned to guard or prisoner roles. Unlike SPE, prisoners Fifteen male participants were randomly assigned to guard or prisoner roles.
        -Unlike SPE, prisoners developed group identity and challenged guard authority. Guards failed to unite and assert control, leading to a breakdown in the hierarchical system.
        
        Rather than conforming, prisoners worked collectively to create an egalitarian environment, showing that role conformity is not inevitable and depends on group dynamics.
    - - A strength is that the BBC study was more ethically sound than SPE
      - Reicher and Haslam created a challenging yet safe environment, avoiding long-term psychological harm by implementing strict ethical controls.
        
        This allows for the investigation of social roles without violating ethical standards, making the findings more ethically acceptable and replicable.