Social Influence

Social Influence

1. Conformity

   • Kelman (1985): Types of Conformity
     • Compliance: going along with other to gain approval despite not agreeing privately
     • Internalisation: going along with others because you have accepted their point of view privately as well as publically
     • Identification: the changing of attitudes or behaviors due to the influence of someone that is liked in desire to build a relationship
   • Research Into Conformity
     • Asch (1956)
       • A- To investigate whether majority influence works
       • M- 3 lines, ppts (male US students) asked to identify which line was the same length as the 4th line, whilst confederates answered wrong
       • R- 36% of responses made by true ppts were incorrect, 1/4 of ppts never conformed
       • Why did Asch's ppts conform?
         • Distortion of Perception: a small number of ppt came to see the lines the same as the majority
         • Distortion of Judgement: ppts doubted accuracy of their judgement
         • Distortion of Action: publically agreed to avoid disapproval
       • Variations
         • Easier task = lower levels of conformity
         • Lucas et al: High self efficacy = less conformity
         • Majority of 3 led to optimum level of conformity
         • Importance of unanimity- one dissenter = conformity dropped to 5.5%, or dropped to 9% if dissenter gave a different wrong answer
       • Limitations
         • Validity
           • Insignificant task- conformity simply to save face
           • William and Sogon: higher conformity with people they knew
         • Ethics
           • Deception, lack of informed consent, some stress
             • Might have been overcome by debriefing
         • Eagly + Carli: females more conformist than males
         • Smith + Bond meta analysis: Collectivist cultures are more conformist
         • Related to era of McCarthyism
         • Mori + Arai: overcame problem of unconvincing confederates by using polarised lenses
         • Asch's results show more independence than conformity

2. Independent Behaviour

   • Resisting Pressure to Conform
     • Role of Allies- Asch: showed how introduction of another dissident gave social support to an individual and caused conformity rates to plumet
       • provides individual with independent assessment of reality that makes them feel more confident in rejecting majority position
     • Valid Social Support- Allen + Levine:
       • A- To investigate validity of support
       • M- Asch type study, 3 conditions, 1 had invalid social support (bad vision -thick glasses), 2 had valid support (normal vision), 3rd was a lone ppt
       • R- Conditions 1 + 2 were sufficient to reduce the amount of conformity compared to 3rd condition. However 2 had much more impact.
       • C- an ally is helpful in resisting conformity but more so if they are perceived as offering valid social support
     • Evaluation
       • more willing to maintain their judgement if they have to make a moral rather than physical judgement
       • Hornsey et al (2003): found remarkably little movement towards the majority on attitudes that had moral significance for the individual (e.g cheating)
         • Even when this involved public behaviours
   • Resisting Pressures to Obey: Status and awareness of consequences increases resistance
     • Milgram: investigated the situational conditions under which people felt able to defy the orders of an authority figure
       • When the study was moved from Yale Uni to a downtown office more people felt able to resist authority
         • tells us that status is a key factor in obedience/resistance.
       • Resistance was also increased when the victim could be seen or when other confederates were present
         • This shows being made aware of the effects of your actions and having social support are means of increasing resistance
     • Evaluation
       • Kohlberg: Resistance greater in people who base decisions on moral principles e.g Martin Luther King
   • Locus of Control: An aspect of our personality, internals rely less on others opinions, better able to resist coercion
     • differ in beliefs whether the outcomes of their actions are contingent on what they do (internal)or events outside their personal control (external)
     • research into this has found a number of characteristics that have an effect on independent behaviour
       • 1- High internals are active seekers of info thats useful to them, so they're less likely to listen to others
       • 2- High internals tend to be more achievement-oriented, so are more likely to become leaders
       • 3- High internals are better able to resist coercion from others
     • Evaluation
       • Meta Analysis Twenge et al: Externality is increasing
         • found young Americans believe their lives are controlled
         • LOC scores had become more external in student and child samples between 1960+2002
           • Twenge et al: implications are almost uniformly negative, externality is correlated with poor school achievement, poor self control + depression
         • since 1960s increase in social factors such as rise in divorce, violent crime, mental health and suicide
           • could explain increase in externality as people see many aspects of their lives as beyod their control
       • Linz + Semykina: gender differences in LOC with women more internal than men.
         • LOC made no difference to success of men, but 'internal' women more successful than 'external'

3. Understanding Social Change

   • Minority Influence: where people reject the established norm of the majority group members and move to the position of the minority
   • Social Change: When a whole society adopts a new belief or way of behaving which then becomes widely accepted as the 'norm'
   • Role of Minority Influence
     • without it we would have no innovation/social change
     • Conversion- Moscovici: individual exposed to a persuasive argument under certain conditions, they may change their own views to match the minority
   • Conditions for social change through minority influence
     • Drawing attention to an issue
       • creates conflict that we are motivated to reduce
       • widens audience e.g Father4Justice, costumed high profile stunts
     • Role of Conflict
       • can't dismiss a minority as 'odd' or 'abnormal'
       • examining arguments more closely means we think more deeply about the issues being challenged
       • e.g Animal Rights may create conflict about what we accept as inappropriate and our current behaviour supporting the industry by buying products
         • This may change behaviour which could spread across other people
           • As more people change their opinion to the minority it loosens the pressure to conform to the majority
     • Consistency
       • minorities are more influential and taken more seriously if they are consistent
       • Wood et al: Meta analysis of 97 studies of minority influence
         • found those who were consistent were more influencial
     • Augmentation Principle
       • if there are risks involved in putting forward a point of view, they taken more seriously
       • By taking up a position opposing the majority, may be subjected to abuse, this could be publically/through media/imprisonment/death
         • e.g Solidarity, emerged from a strike for workers rights. Despite Gvt initiated censorship, intimidation + imprisonment of its leaders
           • Grew to a social movement of 10m members.
             • Led to overthrow of Communist Gvt in 1989
   • Evalutation
     • + Suffragettes
       • Drawing attention: used a variety of educational, political and occaisionally millitant tactics to draw attention to the issue
       • Role of Conflict: those in the majority would experience conflict between the norms and the suffragettes views.
         • Some dismissed the suffragettes as troublemakers, others moved towards the suffragette position
       • Consistency
         • persistent regardless of attitudes around them
         • their fight for the vote continued 15 years even when imprisoned for civil disobedience their protests continued in jail
       • Augmentation Principle
         • willing to suffer to make their point, risking inprisonment/death from hunger stikes meant they were taken seriously
         • e.g Emily Davidson ran out infront of horses at the Derby of 1913, she died 4 days later
     • x Minority influence may have latent rather than direct effect on majority because of fears of being labeled as deviant or rejected by the majority

4. Obedience

   • Behaving as instructed, usually in response to an individual rather than group pressure.
   • Usually take place in a hierachy when the person ordering is of higher status.
   • It is unlikely to involve a change in private opinion
   • Milgram(1963):
     • A- To investigate whether ordinary people will obey a legitimate authority even when required to injure another
     • M- 40 male ppts, 2 confederates, experimenter + 'learner'. Ppts were the teacher. Told to administer shocks each time the ppt got question wrong
     • R- 65% continued electric shocks to a max voltage
     • C- This shows that ordinary people are astonishingly obiedient
     • Variations
       • Proximity of Victim: 62.5% obedience in voice feedback, 40% in proximity, 30% in touch proximity
       • Proximity of authority figure: 21% obedience when experimenter absent
       • Presence of allies: 10% obedience with 2 peers rebel study
       • Increasing teacher's discretion- 95% refused to obey
     • Validity
       • Realism- Orne + Holland: ppts knew study was fake
         • Milgram pointed to ppts distress
         • Sheridan + King: repeated experiment with a real puppy + shocks
           • found 20/26 participants complied to the end
             • the 6 that refused were male (54% of males were obedient, 100% of women obeyed)
       • Blass: looked at historical relevance and found no difference over time
       • Obedience alibi- Mandel: looked at WWII police battalion who obeyed despite presence of Milgrams inhibitory factors
       • Generalisability- Hofling et al: found high levels of obedience in nurses
         • Rank + Jacobsen: found opposite in more realistic study
     • Ethics
       • Deception: Lack of informed consent
         • OK because 74% said they learned something of personal importance
       • Right To Withdraw: Prods made this difficult
       • Baumrind: Psychological harm wasn't justified
       • Study criticised because of findings rather than procedures

5. Why Do People Obey?

   • Gradual Commitment: Because participants had already given lower level shocks it was harder to resist request to deliver higher shocks
   • Agentic Shift: ppt sees himself as an agent carrying out another persons wishes
   • Buffers: the screen the learner and teacher are separated by
     • protects teacher from seeing them be shocked.
     • Obedience lowered when buffer was removed
   • Justifying Obedience: makes people more willing to surrender their freedom of action in the belief they're serving a justifiable cause
     • e.g 'needed for science advancement'
   • Evaluation
     • Monocausal emphasis- Mandel argued that by focusing on obedience Milgram ignored other explanations
       • Goldhagen: e.g Anti Semitism
     • Agentic Shift: important differences between Milgram's lab and Holocaust crimes
       • Therefore comparison not appropriate
     • Obedience explanation as alibi: negative consequences because exonerates war criminals
       • does an obedience alibi act as an excuse for actions rather than a justification?

6. Why Do People Conform

   • Normative Social Influence
     • result of wanting to be liked and be part of a group
     • Humans have natural need for companionship and fear of rejection
       • going against conformity isn't easy e.g Asch
     • Evaluation
       • Garandeau + Cillessen: Normative Social Influence explain bullying
         • found groups with low quality of interpersonal friendships may be manipulated by a skillful bully
           • victimisation of another child provides group with a common goal
           • creates pressure on all children to comply so they're not cast out
       • Shultz et al: NSI used to increase conservation behaviour among hotel guests
       • Linkenbach + Perkins: Success of NSI in reducing smoking among young people
   • Informational Social Influence
     • result of wanting to be right, looking to others for the right answer
     • some cases we go along with others because we believe them
       • This leads us to change our own opinion (internalisation)
     • Likely to occur when situation is ambiguous/a crisis/others are experts
     • Evaluation
       • Witterbrink + Henly: changed social stereotypes of African Americans
         • ppts exposed to negative info later reported more negative beliefs about a black target individual
       • Fein et al (2007): important in shaping political opinion
         • judgements on US President candidate could be influenced through others reactions
   • Social Impact Theory
     • Number: more people=more influence
     • Strength: more important people=more influence
     • Immediacy: more likely to listen attentively in small groups
     • Support- Sedikides + Jackson:
       • high strength + imediacy exerted more impact than low stregth + immediacy