1. Social Influence
Topic Tuesday

2. 2017 Type of experiment (2) Outcome of experiment (3)
Address issue of participants in each condition (4)
Chi squared Significant (7)
Authoritarian personality (8)

3. 2017
Agentic state (2)
Minority influence (6)
Why people conform (16)

4. Questions
Juliana always wears her uniform for school and, if told by a teacher, will always adjust the length of her skirt to fit in with the rules.
With reference to the scenario describe two reasons why Juliana follows orders when she is in school. (4)

5. With reference to the scenario describe two reasons why Juliana follows orders when she is in school. (4)
Obedience is influenced by both situational and Dispositional factors. Juliana follows orders from teachers in school and this may be due to the location (school environment) and the fact that her teacher might be smartly dressed (uniform)She may score highly on authoritarian
Another reason is that she sees the teacher as having a legitimate authority. Teachers, in schools, are justified in their authority and are seen as having power because of their social role. Juliana may not obey the teacher outside of school as they do not have the same power to punish outside the school gates.

6. Two psychology students were discussing the topic of social influence.
‘I find it fascinating how some people are able to resist social influence’, said Jack.
‘It must be the result of having a confident personality.’
‘I disagree’, replied Sarah. ‘I think resisting social influence depends much more on the presence of others.’
Discuss two explanations of resistance to social influence. As part of your discussion, refer to the views expressed by Jack and Sarah in the conversation above.
(Total 16 marks)

7. Locus of control is how much a person believes that they have control over their own behaviour.
This is usually measured along a scale (created by Rotter) with internal control at one end and external control at the other. Internal control refers to those people who see that they have a great deal of control over their own behaviour and will take responsibility for their actions. External control refers to those who believe that their behaviour is controlled by other forces such as luck or fate.
locus of control – people with an internal locus of control more likely to resist pressure to conform and less likely to obey than those with an external locus of control; people with an internal locus of control believe they control own circumstances; less concerned with social approval.
social support – defiance / non-conformity more likely if others are seen to resist influence; seeing others disobey / not conform gives observer confidence to do so; description of forms of social support – disobedient role models (obedience), having an ally (conformity); explanation of why these produce resistance, eg breaks unanimity of group in conformity situations, challenges legitimacy of authority figure.

8. Jack suggests that dispositional factors in resisting social influence are more important: powerful ‘strong personality’ could be read as having an internal locus of control that makes someone better able to resist social influence
Sarah indicates that situational factors are more important
‘what other people are doing at the time’ relates to whether ‘they’ are seen to be conforming / obeying, suggesting social support is influential in resisting social influence.

9. Resistance to social influence
Research studies carried out by Asch, Zimbardo and Milgram have shown how many people conform or obey when put under pressure.
However, in each of these studies, some individuals resisted the pressure put on them and retained their independence.
How many participants in Asch, Milgram and Hofling retained their independence?
Asch: 24%
Zimbardo: 2/3
Hofling: 1
Milgram: 35%
(5 minutes)

10. Locus of Control
Elms and Milgram (1974) investigated the background of some of the disobedient participants from Milgram’s first four obedience experiments. They found that disobedient participants had a high internal locus of control and scored higher on a scale that measured their sense of social responsibility
On the big whiteboard write a conclusion, 2 evaluation points of each piece of research and one practical application from the research.
feedback

11. Oliner & Oliner 1988) interviewed two groups of non-Jewish people who had lived through the Holocaust in Nazi Germany. They compared 406 people who had rescued Jews with 126 who had not done so. Oliner & Oliner found that the ‘rescuers’ were more likely to have scores demonstrating a high internal locus of control than the non-rescuers, and also scored more highly on measures of social responsibility

12. Spector (1983) used Rotter’s locus of control scale to determine whether locus of control is associated with conformity. From 157 students, Spector found that individuals with a high internal locus of control were less likely to conform than those with a high external locus of control, but only in situations of normative social influence, where individuals conform to be accepted.
Rotter points out that LOC only is a factor in novel situations. It has very little influence over our behaviour in familiar situations , where our previous experiences will always be more important.

13. social support: obedience
Studies showing how social pressure can be resisted from the support of other people
Milgram variation: teacher paired with two confederates who either refused to administer the shocks or obeyed the order.
10% continued to max 450V shock. When both obeyed: 92.5%
This shows that if the real participant has support for their desire to disobey, then they are more likely to resist the pressure of an authority figure
10 minutes
Find an ally to join them in opposing authority figure. Milgram variation team of three testing learner. Other two, confederates, refused to shock learner. Only 10% continued to max 450V shock. When both obeyed: 92.5
Asch dropped from 33% to just 5.5% - breaks the unanimous position of the majority. Other equally legitimate ways of thinking. Presence of an ally provides the individual with an independent assessment of reality - feel more confident in own decision/stand up to majority. Even when the answer was incorrect still didn’t change.
However showed that if this non-comforming person starts conforming again. So does the naïve participant. Thus the effect of dissent is not long lasting.

14. social support: conformity
Asch: Unanimity variation.
Asch dropped from 33% to just 5.5%
This demonstrates that if the real participant has support for their belief (social support), then they are likely more likely to resist the pressure to conform.
10 minutes
Find an ally to join them in opposing authority figure. Milgram variation team of three testing learner. Other two, confederates, refused to shock learner. Only 10% continued to max 450V shock. When both obeyed: 92.5
Asch dropped from 33% to just 5.5% - breaks the unanimous position of the majority. Other equally legitimate ways of thinking. Presence of an ally provides the individual with an independent assessment of reality - feel more confident in own decision/stand up to majority. Even when the answer was incorrect still didn’t change.
However showed that if this non-comforming person starts conforming again. So does the naïve participant. Thus the effect of dissent is not long lasting.

15. Social support: conformity
Resistance to conformity: Allen & Levine (1971)
Whether social support that was not particularly valid would also be effective in helping participants resist conformity.
Conformity decreases when one person dissents even if they are not credible in an Asch type study
Resistance not just motivated by following what someone else says but it enables someone to be free of the pressures from the group.
10 minutes

16. Discuss at least two explanations for defiance of authority
Discuss at least two explanations for defiance of authority. Refer to evidence in your answer.
(Total 16 marks)
AO1
The influence of disobedient role models / presence of social support;
internal locus of control
lack of proximity of authority figure
lack of legitimacy of authority figure / uniform / setting
lack of authoritarian personality.

17. Elms and Milgram studied 20 of the obedient participants and 20 defiant participants.
Carried out a range of test including the F-scale
The found higher levels of authoritarianism among those participants who were obedient in the study.
The obedient participants admired the experimenter more suggesting they were higher on the trait of authoritarianism.

18. Research Evidence for Locus of Control
Elms and Milgram (1974) investigated the background of some of the disobedient participants from Milgram’s first four obedience experiments. They found that disobedient participants had a high internal locus of control and scored higher on a scale that measured their sense of social responsibility
On the big whiteboard write a conclusion, 2 evaluation points of each piece of research and one practical application from the research.
feedback

19. Oliner & Oliner 1988) interviewed two groups of non-Jewish people who had lived through the Holocaust in Nazi Germany. They compared 406 people who had rescued Jews with 126 who had not done so. Oliner & Oliner found that the ‘rescuers’ were more likely to have scores demonstrating a high internal locus of control than the non-rescuers, and also scored more highly on measures of social responsibility

20. Spector (1983) used Rotter’s locus of control scale to determine whether locus of control is associated with conformity. From 157 students, Spector found that individuals with a high internal locus of control were less likely to conform than those with a high external locus of control, but only in situations of normative social influence, where individuals conform to be accepted.
Rotter points out that LOC only is a factor in novel situations. It has very little influence over our behaviour in familiar situations , where our previous experiences will always be more important.

21. Research into social support
Studies showing how social pressure can be resisted from the support of other people
Milgram variation: teacher paired with two confederates who either refused to administer the shocks or obeyed the order.
10% continued to max 450V shock. When both obeyed: 92.5%
This shows that if the real participant has support for their desire to disobey, then they are more likely to resist the pressure of an authority figure
10 minutes
Find an ally to join them in opposing authority figure. Milgram variation team of three testing learner. Other two, confederates, refused to shock learner. Only 10% continued to max 450V shock. When both obeyed: 92.5
Asch dropped from 33% to just 5.5% - breaks the unanimous position of the majority. Other equally legitimate ways of thinking. Presence of an ally provides the individual with an independent assessment of reality - feel more confident in own decision/stand up to majority. Even when the answer was incorrect still didn’t change.
However showed that if this non-comforming person starts conforming again. So does the naïve participant. Thus the effect of dissent is not long lasting.