Social influence

Conformity “a type of social influence involving a change in belief or behaviour in order to fit in with a group. This change is in response to real (involving the physical presence of others) or imagined (involving the pressure of social norms / expectations) group pressure.”

Explanations for conformity Normative social influence – the desire to be liked – when we conform to fit in with the group because we don’t want to appear foolish or be left out. Informational social influence – the desire to be right – when we conform because we are unsure of the situation, so we look to others who we believe may have more information than us.

Types of conformity COMPLIANCE Publicly changing behaviour to fit in with the group while privately disagreeing. Compliance usually occurs due to normative social influence. INTERNALISATION Publicly changing behaviour to fit in with the group and also agreeing with them privately. Internalisation is usually a result of informational social influence.

Studies into conformity Asch (1951)Sherif (1935)

Laboratory experiment using the auto kinetic effect – when a spot of light appears in a dark room it will appear to move (even though it doesn’t). Individual estimates of how far the light moved, then in groups of 3 – two similar, one different. The group converged to a common estimate. Conclusion: when we are unsure of the answer, we look to the group for guidance (informational social influence).

Asch (1951) Laboratory experiment using a line judgement task. Real participant placed in a group with confederates who gave incorrect answers out loud. Real participant is last or second to last to give their answer. On average, about one third (32%) of the participants in each trial conformed to the clearly incorrect majority. Three quarters of the participants (75%) conformed on at least one trial. Conclusion: People will conform to the group answer even when it is clearly incorrect.

Evaluation of Asch and Sherif Laboratory studies = low ecological validity and high risk of demand characteristics, but cause and effect can be established. Both used American males – low population validity. Both are quite old – people nowadays may be less likely to conform. Ethical issues – Ps were deceived as to the purpose of the research. This means that they did not give informed consent, which could have affected their right to withdraw (how can you withdraw if you don’t know what you are taking part in?)

Asch variations The experiment was modified to determine if the size of the group affected the participants’ reactions (the confederate group varied in size from one to fifteen). The optimum group size appears to be a majority of 4. After this there is little difference in levels of conformity.

Factors affecting conformity  NON CONFORMING ROLE MODEL  Asch (1951) - the presence of just one confederate that goes against the majority choice can reduce conformity by as much as 80%. ERA When Asch carried out his research, the USA was more conservative than they are now GENDER Eagly and Carli (1981) – women slightly more likely to conform, but may be due to nature of the tasks used. CONFIDENCE/DIFFICULTY OF TASK Perrin & Spencer (1981) – maths and engineering students far less likely to conform on Asch style task CULTURE: Smith and Bond (1996) – collectivist cultures more likely to conform.

Obedience ‘a form of social influence in which a person yields to explicit instructions or orders from an authority figure’

Milgram’s study of obedience Sample: 40 male, American participants with various educational backgrounds. Recruited by advertisement in local paper, paid $4. Experimenter: Dressed in a laboratory coat. PS told that the aim of the experiment was to find out the effects of punishment on learning. Task: The Ps were ordered to give the learner an electric shock if he made a mistake in the pairs of words he had to learn from 15v to 459v in steps of 15 v

Milgram’s study of obedience PRODS Prod 1: ‘Please continue’ or ‘Please go on’; Prod 2: ‘The experiment requires that you continue’; Prod 3: ‘It is absolutely essential that you continue’; Prod 4: ‘You have no other choice, you must go on’. RESULTS All participants shocked up to 300 volts and 65% of to 300 volts and 65% of participants shocked all the way up to 450 volts. all the way up to 450 volts.

Evaluation of Milgram’s study Internal validity – one of the main criticisms is that the participants knew they weren’t giving really shocks, so the study lacked validity (didn’t really measure obedience). Another reason for low internal validity could be demand characteristics – the participants guessed that they were taking part in an experiment so did not behave as they would have done in a real life situation. Ecological validity – because of the artificial nature of the laboratory experiment, the results may not be the same in real life settings. However, studies in real life situations (e.g. Hofling et al) have found similar results. Population validity - used only white male Americans (once again!) so low population validity.

Ethics of Milgram’s study Psychological harm (stress during the study) and learning something unpleasant about themselves but a year later did not present any long-lasting effects. Most said they were pleased that they had taken part. Protection of participants The participants gave consent to take part but it was not informed consent as they were not told the real aim of the study. Consent The participants could withdraw before reaching 450V and 35% of them did but the experimenter put them to continue using prods such as “the experiment require that you continue” and “you have no choice”. Withdrawal

Ethics of Milgram’s study The participants were told that the study was about the effect of punishment on learning and it was in fact about obedience. The participants did not know that Mr Wallace (the learner) was a confederate. They were told that they administering real electric shocks when they were not. Deception The participants were debriefed thoroughly and met Mr Wallace the learner. They were also assessed by a psychiatrist a year later. Debriefing Note that Milgram did NOT break any ethical guidelines because his research was carried out before they were implemented.

Variations of Milgram’s study

Other studies into obedience Hofling et al – Obedient nurses Rank and Jacobson – Not so obedient nurses Bickman et al – The power of uniforms

Why do people obey? 1.Buffers 2.Legitimate authority 3.Agentic state 4.Gradual commitment Remember, you can BLAG it!

Buffers Any aspects of a situation that protects people from having to confront the consequences of their actions. What aspect of the situation acted as a buffer in the original experiment? When the participant was ordered to hold the “learner’s hand on the shock plate only 30% of the Ps went up to 450v. Use the concept of buffers to explain this result.

Legitimate authority We feel obligated to those in power because we respect their credentials and assume that they know what they are doing. What evidence is there that this factor influenced the participants? Hofling (1966) and Bickman (1974) support the importance of legitimate authority.

Agency theory Milgram explained the behaviour of his participants by suggesting that people actually have two states of behaviour when they are in a social situation: – The autonomous state – people act according to their own values, and they take responsibility for the results of those actions. – The agentic state – people allow others to direct their actions, and the pass off the responsibility for the consequences to the person giving the orders. In other words, they act as agents for another person’s will.

Gradual commitment Also referred to as the ‘foot in the door phenomenon’. This refers to instances where a person might show some sort of commitment to a particular task e.g. by starting something and then as they continue it becomes harder to back down/change their mind. 30v15v45v60v75v 90v 105v.....v450v

Independent behaviour “Behaviour that is not influenced by pressures to conform or obey.”

Explanations for independent behaviour RESISTING PRESSURES TO CONFORM Giving answers in private – Asch found that p’s were more likely to act independently if they were able to give their answers in private. Non conforming role model – in a replication of the Asch study, he found that p’s were more likely to act independently if just one other person did not conform to the group. Size of group – the naïve participants in Asch’s study were most likely to act independently when faced with a group of two others. This decreased slightly with a group of three, and plateaued at a group majority of four others.

Explanations for independent behaviour RESISTING PRESSURES TO OBEY Disobedient role model – in Milgram’s study, independent behaviour increased when the ‘teacher’ was paired with another (confederate) teacher who refused to obey. Questioning the status and legitimacy of the person giving the order – this has been demonstrated in a number of studies, including Milgram (independent behaviour increased when the experiment was moved to a run down office block) and Bickman (where p’s were more likely to act independently when given an order from a civilian than when given the same order from someone in a guards uniform). Increasing sense of responsibility (removal of buffers) – in Milgram’s study, independent behaviour increased when the ‘teacher’ was in the same room as the ‘learner’. It increased even more when the ‘teacher’ had to force the ‘learners’ hand onto the plate they believed was giving an electric shock. Time to think and find social support – nurses in the Rank and Jacobson study were more likely to act independently when given an order from a doctor. This is believed to be because they had time to think about the order and consult with colleagues before deciding what to do.

Locus of Control The extent to which an individual believes they are in control of their destiny (internal LOC) or are at the mercy of events outside their control (external LOC) Research suggests that people with an internal locus of control are more likely to act independently because they believe they are in control of what happens to them. LOCUS OF CONTROL

Evaluation of explanations for independent behaviour Research into independent behaviour has real life implications – e.g. training of nurses and soldiers. Evaluation of studies – e.g. Asch, Milgram, Hofling, Bickman, etc. There is evidence to support the idea that those with an internal locus of control are more likely to act independently.

Social change “When society adopts a new belief or way of behaving which then becomes widely accepted as the norm” Examples of recent social change: Ban on smoking in public places Recycling

The importance of minority influence in social change Moscovici (1969) Clark (1998/1999)

Moscovici Procedures: The all female group of participants were first given an eye test to check that they were not colour blind. They were then placed in a group of four participants and two confederates. They were all shown 36 slides that were different shades of blue and asked to state the colour out loud. There were two groups in the experiment. – In the first group the confederates were consistent and answered green for every slide. – In the second group the confederates were inconsistent and answered green 24 times and blue 12 times. Findings: In the consistent group 8.42% of trials resulted in P’s answering green (agreeing with the minority). 32% of the P’s agreed at least once. In the inconsistent group 1.25% of trials resulted in P’s answering green. Conclusions: The study suggested that minorities can change the opinion of the majority, particularly if they are consistent.

Clark (1994) – 12 Angry Men 270 college students were read a summary of a court case presented in the film Twelve Angry Men. The students, who were all unfamiliar with the film, had to decide whether the accused was guilty. One group knew that the main character disagreed with the other 11 but were not told of his arguments. The other group also knew the arguments that he had used to convince the other jurors. Participants in the first group were prepared to reconsider their verdict if they knew that there was one dissenter. However, they were even more inclined to reconsider if they also knew his arguments (second group).

Behavioural characteristics of influential minorities Consistency The minority must be consistent in their opinion – not changing their views or demands. Flexibility The minority must not be dogmatic – they must be willing to compromise when appropriate. Commitment The minority should be willing to put time and effort into their cause, and make sacrifices where necessary.

Snow ball effect This occurs when a minority convert a small group of people to their views, and this small group gradually convert other people. Over a period of time the original minority view becomes the view of the majority.

Social crypto amnesia Change in opinions occur so gradually (as a result of the snowball effect) that by the time the minority becomes the majority, the original source has been forgotten.