1. SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY: SOCIAL INFLUENCE PSYA2

2. Conformity to majority influence Kelman proposed three types of conformity:  Compliance – going along with others to gain their approval.  Internalisation – going along with others because you have accepted their view point as it is consistent with your own.  Identification – going along with others because you have accepted their point of view but only because of a desire to be like them. ASCH (Research into majority influence) Asch show volunteers the diagram on the right He asked the participants which line was the same as the standard line Participants didn’t know that all other people in the group were ‘confederates’ Asch found that 36.8% of the responses made were conforming with the confederates Why did people conform? Distortion of perception – began to see the lines the same way as the majority Distortion of judgement – felt doubt about their own judgement so went along with the majority Distortion of action – the majority of participants who did conform knew their own opinion was correct but gave incorrect answers to avoid disapproval from the group Variations in the study: Difficulty of the task – Asch made the differences in the line length smaller so the correct answer was more difficult. This led to the level of conformity being increased. Lucas et al found that when people were exposed to maths problems, high-self efficiency remained more independent than low-self efficiency participants when presented with a harder task. This shows that task difficulty and individual differences are important in determining conformity. Size of the majority Asch found there was very little conformity when the group size was small (one/two). Under the pressure of a large group the conformity rose to 30%. The unanimity of the majority When the task was repeated with 2 real participants the conformity level dropped to 5.5% Conclusion Asch concluded that it was the breaking of the groups consensus that was the major factor in conformity reduction. Individual Differences Females are more likely to conform as experiments were conducted by males who were more likely to find gender differences than women Females complied more because they were less confident, not because they were more conformist Evaluating Research into Conformity Validity – participants had to answer out loud in front of a group, even though the task was insignificant and easy they may have conformed so they were accepted by the group. It could be argued that conformity takes place under ‘special circumstances’ Ethics Asch’s participants did not know the real purpose of the experiment and didn’t know the group were confederates. Deception and lack of informed consent. Individual Differences Females are more likely to conform as experiments were conducted by males who were more likely to find gender differences than women Females complied more because they were less confident, not because they were more conformist Evaluating Research into Conformity Validity – participants had to answer out loud in front of a group, even though the task was insignificant and easy they may have conformed so they were accepted by the group. It could be argued that conformity takes place under ‘special circumstances’ Ethics Asch’s participants did not know the real purpose of the experiment and didn’t know the group were confederates. Deception and lack of informed consent. Criticisms of Asch’s Research The findings could be said to unique to one culture (all participants were American men) The experiment was conducted in a period of strong anti-communist feeling where people were afraid to be different Another similar study was carried out in the 1970’s with engineering students and out of 396 only 1 participant conformed. However another study was carried out on youths on probation, where the confederates were probation officers and the level of conformity was similar to what Asch found It must be remembered that only 1/3 of trials gave a conforming answer so 2/3 stuck to their original decision despite the confederates giving the wrong answer Criticisms of Asch’s Research The findings could be said to unique to one culture (all participants were American men) The experiment was conducted in a period of strong anti-communist feeling where people were afraid to be different Another similar study was carried out in the 1970’s with engineering students and out of 396 only 1 participant conformed. However another study was carried out on youths on probation, where the confederates were probation officers and the level of conformity was similar to what Asch found It must be remembered that only 1/3 of trials gave a conforming answer so 2/3 stuck to their original decision despite the confederates giving the wrong answer

3. Conformity to minority influence Moscovici et al proposed that if a minority were consistent in their views, the consistency will create conflict in the rest of the group, leading it to question and possibly change it’s existing views. Procedures  He tested 32 groups of 6 women, of the 6 participants in the group 2 were confederates and 4 were real participants  The group was shown 36 different blue slides (they were told the experiment was about colour and perception and were asked to describe the colour they saw)  The two confederates (who answered 1 st or 2 nd, or 1 st and 4 th ) consistently reported that the slides were green  In another part of this experiment the confederates answered inconsistently and said green 24 times and blue 12 times Findings  Participants agreed with the minority on 8.42% of the slides  32% gave the same answer as the minority at least once  When participants were inconsistent the agreement was reduced to 1.25%  When participants were allowed to write down their answer there was more agreement with the confederates as they were reluctant to be seen as part of the deviant minority in public. Explaining Conformity to Minority Influence Conversion Theory Moscovici Moscovici’s theory is based on the idea that if an individual is exposed to an argument that is contradictory to an attitude that is already held, this creates conflict. Conversion theory assumes that individuals are motivated to reduce this conflict, and will therefore examine the minorities arguments in order to understand why people do not hold the same opinions as the majority. As a result, when a minority attempts to put across it’s argument, the attention is on the content of the argument rather than the relationship between them and the group. Increasing the likelihood they will internalise their ideas. When is internalisation more likely? In-group minority – are people who are similar to the majority, they have a greater influence on the public. Out-group minority – are people who are different from the majority, can have as much, if not more influence when responses are made in private Both can lead to internalisation but effect may be masked when it is an out-group as people may not want to publically align themselves with a deviant minority. Explaining Conformity to Minority Influence Conversion Theory Moscovici Moscovici’s theory is based on the idea that if an individual is exposed to an argument that is contradictory to an attitude that is already held, this creates conflict. Conversion theory assumes that individuals are motivated to reduce this conflict, and will therefore examine the minorities arguments in order to understand why people do not hold the same opinions as the majority. As a result, when a minority attempts to put across it’s argument, the attention is on the content of the argument rather than the relationship between them and the group. Increasing the likelihood they will internalise their ideas. When is internalisation more likely? In-group minority – are people who are similar to the majority, they have a greater influence on the public. Out-group minority – are people who are different from the majority, can have as much, if not more influence when responses are made in private Both can lead to internalisation but effect may be masked when it is an out-group as people may not want to publically align themselves with a deviant minority. The Lessons of Minority Influence Research 1) The minority can actively promote a differing viewpoint, but need to be consistent in that viewpoint if they are to succeed. Without consistency, internalisation is unlikely. 2) Even with consistency and commitment, minorities often do not do not prevail as the person holding the minority viewpoint is often disliked and rejected by members of the majority. 3) Exposure to a minority view point stimulates those of the majority to become better and more creative problem solvers as they search for information on all sides of the issue. Minority influence is therefore a valuable process. Validity ‘Real World’ validity has shown that minority influence is relatively rare and that the majority view has a much bigger influence. This can be seen in politics where many discussions take place but rarely anything is changed. Ethics It was necessary to deceive the participants about the purpose of Moscovici’s experiment in order to investigate the hypothesis. Participants were told the real purpose of the experiment at the end, compensating from the deception. The task did not involve stress, could be ethically acceptable. The Lessons of Minority Influence Research 1) The minority can actively promote a differing viewpoint, but need to be consistent in that viewpoint if they are to succeed. Without consistency, internalisation is unlikely. 2) Even with consistency and commitment, minorities often do not do not prevail as the person holding the minority viewpoint is often disliked and rejected by members of the majority. 3) Exposure to a minority view point stimulates those of the majority to become better and more creative problem solvers as they search for information on all sides of the issue. Minority influence is therefore a valuable process. Validity ‘Real World’ validity has shown that minority influence is relatively rare and that the majority view has a much bigger influence. This can be seen in politics where many discussions take place but rarely anything is changed. Ethics It was necessary to deceive the participants about the purpose of Moscovici’s experiment in order to investigate the hypothesis. Participants were told the real purpose of the experiment at the end, compensating from the deception. The task did not involve stress, could be ethically acceptable.

4. Explanations of why people conform Normative Social Influence It is possible to behave like the majority without accepting their view. This type to conformity is called compliance. A majority may be able to control other group members by making it difficult for them to deviate from the majority view, putting pressure on them to conform. Going against the majority isn’t easy, demonstrated in Asch’s study where the participants felt awkward about having a different answer from the group. Humans are a social species whom have a fear of rejection. This forms the basis of normative social influence. Informational Social Influence In some cases individuals go along with others because they believe they are right. As a result we do not just comply, but also change our own point of view. This involves changing public and private attitudes it is internalisation. Informational social influence is most likely when:  The situation is ambiguous – i.e. The right course of action is not clear.  The situation is a crisis – i.e. Rapid action is required  We believe others to be experts – i.e. We believe that others are more likely to know what to do Wittenbrink and Henly found that participants who were exposed to a negative image of African Americans later reported more negative beliefs about a black target individual.

5. Obedience to Authority Milgram’s Study of Obedience Milgram set out to investigate whether ordinary people will obey a legitimate authority even when required to injure an innocent person. Procedures  40 male participants were recruited advertising for volunteers to take part in a study in how punishment effects leaning at Yale University. Everyone was paid $4.50 even if they left the study.  There were two confederates ‘the student’ and the ‘experimenter’. The confederate always ended up as the teacher. He was told he must administer electric shocks to the learner each time he got a question wrong on a task, which would increase each time the learner got a question wrong.  The (fake) shocks were received up to 315 volts and at this point the ‘learner’ banged on the wall and from then on did / said nothing  If the ‘teacher’ questioned the experiment the ‘experimenter’ gave a series of prods, such as ‘it is absolutely essential that you go on’ or ‘you have no choice, you must go on’. Findings Before the experiment, Milgram asked psychiatrists, college students and his colleagues to predict how far his participants would go before they refused. They expected very few to go on past 150 volts and only 4% to reach 300 volts. 1 in 1000 were expected to go to the full 450 volts. However 65% of the participants went to the full 450 volts, and all participants went to 300 volts. Conclusions These findings demonstrate that ordinary people are astonishingly obedient to authority, even when asked to behave in an inhumane manner. Suggesting that people who commit crimes are not evil, but simply obeying orders. Conclusions These findings demonstrate that ordinary people are astonishingly obedient to authority, even when asked to behave in an inhumane manner. Suggesting that people who commit crimes are not evil, but simply obeying orders. Situational Factors in Obedience Milgram carried out 18 different variations of the obedience experiment, some of the variations are described below: Proximity of the victim: In one of Milgram’s variations the ‘teacher’ was forced to hold the ‘learners’ hand onto a shock plate, here the obedience rate dropped to 30% Proximity of the authority figure: Only 21% of participants went to the full shock level if the experimenter was in a different room. Some people even gave the smallest shock repeatedly without telling the experimenter. Increasing the teachers discretion: In a variation where the ‘teachers’ were allowed to choose their own shock only one participant out of 40 delivered the maximum shock. 95% of participants refused to go on after the ‘learner’ refused for the first time. Ethical Issues of the Study Deception and lack of informed consent Milgram deceived his participants by telling them that they were involved in a study of the effects of punishment in learning, rather than telling them the real purpose. Right to withdraw? In Milgram’s study it was not clear to what extent participants felt that they had the right to withdraw. This could be argued that the prods from the experimenter made it difficult for some participants who felt they had no choice but to continue. Protection from psychological harm Milgram’s study was attacked, saying it put the participants under great emotional strain, caused psychological damage to them. It has also been argued that administering the shocks can activate a previously dormant aspect of an individuals personality and make them want to do it again. Why was the research subject to criticism? The findings were so shocking as they challenged Western assumptions about freedom and responsibility. Milgram’s research showed that every person is capable of evil. Validity of the Study Realism Some people questioned that due to the experimenter remaining so calm when the ‘learner’ was in pain, it could have meant people didn’t believe that they were causing any significant damage to the other person. Generalisability To test the possibility that obedience may occur in more realistic settings, a study was carried out in a hospital where Nurses were telephoned by ‘Dr Smith’ and he asked them to give a drug to a patient. 95% of the nurses did as requested even though they weren’t to take instructions over the phone and the dosage was double that on the bottle. Validity of the Study Realism Some people questioned that due to the experimenter remaining so calm when the ‘learner’ was in pain, it could have meant people didn’t believe that they were causing any significant damage to the other person. Generalisability To test the possibility that obedience may occur in more realistic settings, a study was carried out in a hospital where Nurses were telephoned by ‘Dr Smith’ and he asked them to give a drug to a patient. 95% of the nurses did as requested even though they weren’t to take instructions over the phone and the dosage was double that on the bottle.

6. Explanations of why people obey Why do people obey (Milgram)  Gradual commitment – as participants have already given lower level shocks, it becomes hard to resist the experimenters requirement to increase the shocks as the experiment continues. No shock administered is ever more that 15 volts more than the previous level. This is a foot-in-the-door method of persuasion.  Agentic Shift – this is a state where ‘the condition a person is in when he sees himself as an agent for carrying out another person’s wishes’ the individual comes to see themselves as an agent for executing the wishes of another.  The role of buffers – when the learner was in the same room the effect of buffers was reduced, as was the tendency to obey the commands of the experimenter.  Justifying obedience – when people were told to continue by offering an ideology (good for science, threat to national security etc) people were more likely to continue as they believed they were serving a justifiable cause. Criticising Milgram’s Explanation of Obedience  Monocausal emphasis - Mandel suggests that by focusing solely on obedience as an explanations for atrocities carried out in the Holocaust, Milgram ignored any other explanations.  Agentic Shift – In the holocaust people carried out atrocities in months and years rather than in just half an hour in a lab experiment. Also Milgram’s participants were told, although the shocks may be painful, there will be no permanent tissue damage.

7. Independent behaviour: Resisting social influence Resisting Pressures to Conform  Insights from Asch’s studies – the role of allies: Asch showed how introducing another confederate who supported the individual, caused conformity rates to plummet. If a supporter was introduced was seen as invalid (wearing thick lens glasses) and a support who was valid (normal vision) they both lowered conformity but the valid supporter had a bigger impact. Showing that the presence of an ally is helpful when they are perceived to offer valid support.  Non-conformist Personality – Individuals who respond to the majority with independence tend to be unconcerned with social norms. Not conforming to a norm is usually a result of indifference towards the group norm. Such individuals are said to have an anti-conformity orientation to their personalities. Resisting Pressures to Obey  Insights from Milgram’s studies - When the study was moved from Yale University to a down-town office, more people felt able to resist authority. This 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 us that being made aware of the effects of your actions and having social support are means of increasing resistance.  Moral Considerations - people were asked why people would behave in a certain way. Those who based their answers on general moral principles were more defiant in the study.

8. Individual differences in independent behaviour  Locus of control- locus of control refers to a person’s perception of a personal control over their own behaviour. ‘High internals’ perceive themselves as having a lot of control over their own behaviour and are more likely to take personal responsibility. ‘High externals’ perceive their behaviour as being caused by more external influences or luck.  1) high internals – are active seekers of information that is useful to them, and so are less likely to reply on the opinions of others  2) high internals – tend to be more achievement-orientated and consequently are more likely to become leaders and entrepreneurs.  3) high internals – are better able to resist intimidation from others Americans are increasingly believing that their lives are controlled by outside forces than their own behaviour, as many people are believing that aspects of their lives are beyond their control. Attributional Style Attributional style is a personality attribute that indicated how people explain to themselves why they experience a particular event.  Personal (dispositional vs. Situational) an individual may see themselves as the cause of an event or may attribute the event to cause to situational factors. ‘I failed my A-level because I am stupid’ (dispositional, internal) ‘I failed my A-level because I used the wrong text-book’ (situational, external)  Permanent (stable vs. Unstable) ‘it’s pointless me trying again, I’ll just fail my A-levels’ (stable) or ‘Next time it'll be different’ (unstable)  Pervasive (global vs. Local) ‘I can’t seem to do anything right’ or ‘Never mind I’ll concentrate on my other subjects’.