Social Influence

- Influence of social factors (presence of others) on behaviour, for

example, how we think, feel and behave. Conformity and obedience
are example of social pressure
- Conformity- When someone changes their behaviour due to real or
imagined pressure from a group (giving into group pressure) can be
majority or minority influence.
- Research has shown that individuals will change their
behaviour/opinions as a result of group pressure. Kelman (1958)
argues that there are three levels of conformity: compliance,
identification and internalisation.

Compliance Superficial type of conformity to gain approval or avoid disapproval.

They publicly agree but privately disagree and it ends with no group
pressure.
Identification Deeper level of conformity. Accepts other point of view as you want them
to like you. Identified with the group (being compliant) and change in
beliefs may be temporary.
Internalisatio Deepest level of conformity. Accepts other point of view as it is
n consistent with yours. May involve engaging in a validation process.
Becomes internalised and may become permanent.

Normative Social Influence Informational Social Influence

Doing something to fit in. Changing our Not knowing what to do. Changning
behaviour to fit in with what other are doing to behaviour to fit in as we don’t know the
ensure we are liked or to avoid social right way to act in a certain situation.
disapproval by others. Looking to others for info and allowing
ourselves to be influenced by them.
Goldstein (2008) found that signs which said Should be treated with care- can lead to
most guests reused their towels (eco reasons) internalisation given that people are
were listened to more than a sign which asked accepting views on reality under
them to reuse their towels (eco reasons). NSI ambiguous situations, consider terrorism
can be used to change behaviour. + extremist groups.
Linkenbach and Perkins (2003) found that US Jenness (1932) glass bottle filled with 811
teenagers were less likely to start smoking if white beans. 101 psy students who
they saw posters that said ‘the majority of individually estimated number of beans.
teenagers do not smoke’. NSI can be used After group discussion they could
make people conform and change behaviour. individually estimate again, nearly all p’s
Individual differences, limited to specific changed their original answer. On average
situations and oversimplified- both answer was changed by 256 for male p’s
and 382 for female p’s.

Zimbardo Experiment

Participant 24 American male undergraduate students

s
Aim Understand influence of social roles on behaviour
Procedure In basement of Stanford Uni. Psychology building- converted into a prison.
21 healthy students were randomly allocated role of guard or prisoners
(social roles created by uniforms), paid to take part and instructions given
to guards to behave aggressively. Guards had handcuffs and sunglasses
(so eye contact with prisoners- impossible + reinforce boundaries
between the social roles in the established social hierarchy). Guards- 8
hour shifts, allowed to control behaviour + act aggressively but no
violence.
Findings Identification occurred quickly- both adopted new roles and played their
part quickly.
Guards became abusive figures of authority and prisoners submitted to
torture and guard’s behaviour. Pathology of power- some guards were
angry that the experiment stopped. Prisoners only talked about prison
issues (forgot about life before) + snitched on other prisoners- believed
prison was real + not just acting due to demand characteristics.
Increasingly internalised social roles- guards demanded more obedience
+ prisoners became more submissive. Ended 6 days early.
Conclusion Situational pressures can force even the worst human actions. Most
conformed to social roles.

Evaluating Zimbardo

Strengths Weakness
Insights into potential for ordinary people to Criticism over ethical concerns, P’s
engage in abusive behaviour (positions of subject to psy. distress without fully
power + authority) informed consent
Influence of situational factors on behaviour + Lack of clear guidelines for guards so
challenges assumption of stable dispositional abusive behaviour emerged, raised
traits determining behaviour ethical questions
Lasting impact on psy. + social sciences, Artificial nature of situation +
shapes discussions on ethics, power + effects awareness of being part of an exp.
of institutional. Environments Influenced behaviour, limited
Real world application e.g. Abu Gharib, Nazi generalizability of findings due to
Germany + Mai Lai demand characteristics
Control + selection of P’s to identity healthy Study never replicated (ethical issues)/
candidates- increased internal validity findings never replicated (i.e. Reicher
+ Haslam) so reduced scientific
credibility

Asch Soloman

Participant 123 male American undergraduates in groups of 7-9; consisting of 1 true

s participant and 5 confederates (actors/people in on the experiment), p’s
told it was a visual taks
Aim To investigate conformity and majority influence
Procedure  Participants and confederates were presented with 4 lines; 3
comparison lines and 1 standard line, answer was obvious
  Had to state, out loud, which of 3 lines was the same length as a
stimulus line
 The real participant always answered last or second to last
 Confederates would give the same incorrect answer for 12 out of 18
trials
 Asch observed how often the participant would give the same
incorrect answer as the confederates versus the correct answer
Results 36.8% conformed, 25% never conformed, 75% conformed at least once
In a control trial, only 1% of responses given by participants were incorrect
(eyesight/perception cannot be an extraneous variable, so validity is
increased)
Conclusion P’s were interviewed after study and said they conformed to avoid
s rejection- normative- fitting in. Majority influence affect conformity
Variations - Group size- a majority of 3+ is needed for conformity to occur
 Varied num. of confederates/stooges
- Task ambiguity- more ambiguous the task, the higher the conformity
will be
 Make the task harder so more people conformed
- Group unanimity- more unanimous the group, the higher the
conformity will be
 Added a partner for the real participant who gave a different
answer

Evaluating Asch

Strengths Weaknesses
Pioneer in conformity research Gender and Culture bias- only males from
+ further research w females America, generalisability, biased sample- lower
since conducted credibility
Product of his time- white male Majority is 3 people- could be inaccurate- effect
p’s tended to be used for of a larger majority
research + modern research Ecological validity- not applicable to everyday
promotes representation conformity
Lab experiment and well Temporal validity is likely low- 1950s America was
controlled a conformist era. What would happen if study
was replicated today?

Milgram

Participant Randomly selected participants - 40 male volunteers.

s
Aim To observe whether people would obey a figure of authority when told to
harm another person i.e. evaluating the influence of a destructive authority
figure.
Procedure Confederate (learner) + participant (teacher) meet + ‘random’ allocation of
roles
P taken to another room (confed. strapped to electric wires) + shown
generator (real and released painful shocks) labelled from 15v ‘slight shock’
 + 450v ‘danger’
P read out word pairs with 4 possible word pair answers but each wrong
answer- P told they had to move up 1 switch
Number on generator showed learner’s answers (pre-set + same answers
each time)
No protest up to 300v then learner wants to stop, bangs on wall + stops
answering
Exp. gives prods to P's to continue + follow ‘wrong answer procedure’ for
unanswered responses
Results 65% continued to the end 450v, at 300 v participants look to experimenter
for guidance and show signs of nervousness, stuttering, groaning and
digging fingernails to flesh
Participants thought the experiment was real (experimental realism
therefore high internal validity)
Conclusio Original prediction was wrong, and Milgram and colleagues shocked at
ns results
Demonstrates that social influence and power of authority is very strong
Variations Proximity of teacher to learner:
Same room-> Obedience to 450v fell to 40%
Hand over learners hand-> Obedience to 450v fell to 30%
Telephone instructions given from another room-> Obedience to 450v fell
to 21% + some lied that they were increasing shock levels
Location of experiment:
Rundown office block in Bridgeport + no obvious connections to Yale uni->
Obedience to 450v fell to just 48% (decrease of 17% from original 65%)
Uniform taken away-just dressed in normal clothes-> Obedience to 450v
fell to just 20%

After experiment

 Debrief was important

 Participants were glad they had taken part in the experiment
Strengths Weaknesses
Essential for Milgram to Deception- said it was on punishment and learning- measuring
deceive his p’s, remove obedience
right to withdraw to Difficult to withdraw- experimenter prompted p’s to continue
test obedience + Protection from harm- v stressed + anxious when taking past,
produce valid results felt guilty after knowing they could have harmed another
Did debrief and 83.7% person
said they were happy Ecological validity- in real life people follow more subtle
to have taken part + instruction, rather than administering electric shocks- unable to
contribute to scientific generalise to RW situations
research Population validity- bias sample of 40 male volunteers- unable
to generalise- can’t conclude if females would respond in the
same way

Dispositional explanations for obedience

 Disposition For obedience are personality factors that could affect
al levels of obedience
explanatio
ns
Situational For obedience include uniform, proximity and location-
explanatio essentially anything in the situation/environment that could
ns have exp/inf high levels of obedience

The Authoritarian Personality

- Milgram noted that some of his P’s felt ‘moral strain’ more than
other
- Milgram became interested in personality reasons as to why people
may/not okay- dispositional explanation
- Dispositional exp. is an ‘internal’ exp.- are there personality factors
into why people obey
- This was Milgram’s original research Q’s that German are diff. bc
there must be a personality trait

Characterised by:

- Right wing conservative views

- Belief in absolute obedience
- Belief in power + hierarchy

How is it formed?

- Adorno concluded it formed during childhood as a result of harsh

parenting
- Parenting involves:
 Particularly strict discipline
 Expectation of absolute loyalty
 Impossibly high standards
 Severe criticisms of perceived failings
 Involves conditional love

Procedure

- 2000 middle-class white Americans

- Investigated cause of obedient personality
- Used ‘unconscious attitudes’ towards other racial groups
- Developed several scales inc. the Potential for Fascism Scale- The F-
Scale
- 30 Q’s assessing 9 diff. personality dimensions

Agency Theory

Agentic An individual gives up some free will to behave as the agent of another
state person (figure of authority). They pass on responsibility for their actions
and the consequences to the other person.
Autonomou When people have control and act according to their own wishes
s state
Agentic When individuals shift from the autonomous to agentic state e.g. when P’s
Shift shifted into agentic when they started taking orders
Legitimacy Social rules in a hierarchy- higher up, more perceived authority, more
of authority likely to be obeyed by such figures e.g. parents, teachers, police.
Moral Strain P’s knew that what they were doing was wrong but felt unable to disobey-
consistent with an agentic state, P’s admitted this during de-brief

The Binding State

3 factors which may have made P’s stay in the agentic state:

- Insistence of authority - experimenter told p’s to continue even

when they displayed signs of stress.
- Pressure of location - study was conducted in a uni. P’s would see
experimenter as a legitimate authority.
- Unwillingness to disrupt – p’s may have felt like they couldn't stop
the experiment because they'd already been paid.

Strengths Weaknesses
Adorno also found that when the researchers were not in But not useful as an
the same room as the teachers and gave instructions via a excuse for criminal or
telephone, obedience fell from 62.5% to 20.4%. This is inhumane behaviours
consistent with an autonomous state. Other explanations e.g.,
Application: to real life events- agentic (Nazi) and nature, Reward Power- P
autonomous (Ghandi), to social hierarchical powers. was paid, Coercive
Explains different levels of obedience Power- they were
Usefulness: to people who wear uniform/in authority shocked so shock back,
positions, leaders of powerful systems (responsibility), Expert Power-
courts in understanding criminal behaviours (Eichmann) and prestigious uni. More of
further research for psychologists. a description rather than
an explanation

Minority influence

- Asch found that people’s main motivation appeared to be: need to

be accepted, fear of being rejected, this led to maj inf. (3 or more
people)
- Minority influence- Someone needs to introduce a novel idea to
change the majority idea
- Examples of people that resist conformity: Greta Thunberg, Ghandi,
Nelson Mandela, Rosa Parks, Emmeline Pankhurst
The Behavioural Style
 Consisten Repeating the same message, creates gradual change over A slogan
t time- hearing same message, draws attention to minority
view
Committe Shown when minority demonstrates dedication to their Making
d belief, more commitment may persuade majority to listen sacrifices
Flexible Rigid argument won’t change minds, flexibility in Making
negotiations- more likely to change minds. Too much/too compromises
little isn’t good
- Once the majority has been converted to a minority POV, these
views tend to be more long lasting-> social crytoamnesia

Process of minority influence

Rejecting Passively accepting climate change/being

established group ignorant on issues/not teaching climate
norms change in schools
Conversion Change belief system Targeted @ youths in Sweden, she begins
from majority striking alone
viewpoint to minority.
Happens thru ISI
Informational social Not knowing what to Greta provides new info to youths based on
influence do- looking for politics + science
information
The snowball effect Gradual process Greta’s viewpoint gains status, power +
acceptance in soc. 2 then 3 then tens of
students joined her every Friday
Social crypto- A forgetting of the Leads to SC until 2019 Global’s Week for
amnesia original majority/norm Future- series of 4500 strikes across 150
countries. Likely largest climate strikes in
world history.
Procedure

- 4 P’s in each group and 2 ‘minority’ confederates. 32 groups in total.

- All shown 36 BLUE slides of varying shades.
o Experimental ‘Consistent’ condition –minority consistently said
‘green’
o Experimental ‘Inconsistent’ condition – the minority said
‘green’ on 2/3 of the times and ‘blue’ 1/3 of the time
o Control condition – the minorities said ‘blue’ on all slides
Findings
- Consistent minority group 8% of the participants also said ‘green’
- Other two groups showed no significant difference
- Therefore CONSISTENCY is the most important factor in minority
influence
- Slides were deliberately ambiguous
 - 2nd task p’s had to order 16 coloured discs into either blue or green:
3 discs were clearly blue, 3 discs were clearly green and 10 discs
were ambiguous
- Those in the consistent condition judged more of the slides to be
‘green’
- Minority influence is actually quite influential in changing private
beliefs!

Strengths Weaknesses
Low eco validity: artificial task + Low generalisability due to small sample
not reflective of a ‘real life’ task. size (also P’s were all female, because
Lab set up they are more interested in colours!)
Valid measure of minority Ethical issue of deception – withholding
influence but 2 minorities may of aim of study
have had a bigger impact

Nameth (1986) importance of flexibility

 3 P’s + 1 minority confed, decide on a payout to a ski-lift accident

claimant
 Confed minority- unwavering- wants low payout= no change in
majority opinion
 When confed showed flexibility + slightly increased payout offer-
majority agreed
 Minorities need to be flexible to persuade the majority
Resisting Social Influence
Locus of Control
 There is a personality dimension (dispositional factor) in which
people perceive themselves as having high levels of control over
their own lives + choices identified by Rutter (1966)
 Measured along a dimension of 2 extremes

Strong internal LOC Strong external LOC

Behaviours, actions + consequences Behaviours, actions +
are a result of own beliefs, efforts + consequences out of control +
abilities and elements of choice/free down to fate, luck or acts of God.
will. More likely to show obedience +
More likely to resist obedience- be less individual behaviours, more
active in seeking info, rather than willing to allow others to take
opinion of others, be more blame for their behaviours, more
achievement oriented so more likely likely to succumb to the pressures
to become leaders not followers, of others + accept SI
more able to resist coercion from
others
Social support:
  Research suggests that when others are defiant or offer ally/social
support, it becomes much easier to disobey and not conform
 i.e. in Asch study – in the condition where the ally gave the right
answer, conformity dropped from 33% to just 5.5%!
How it affects conformity:

 Dissenters provide social support for p’s so to resist conformity

needed to break agreement of majority
 It breaks unanimity, raises the possibility of other ways of thinking
 Ally allows the P to feel less social pressure to conform + feel more
confident in their judgement
How it affects obedience:

 Ally willing to disobey authority will likely influence others to disobey

also
 Disobedient peers can act as role models i.e. ‘The Greta effect’
 Milgram’s exp – ally (confederate) disobeyed meant P’s were more
likely to disobey too (only 10% to 450v)
Evaluation of these 2 explanations:
Strengths Weaknesses
Research support for LOC and Social Social support + LOC- quite a reductionist
support is exp with good levels of controls way to view resistance to SI
Good examples from real life to suggest Ignores bio factors: personality + ignores
social support or the concept of puncturing developmental issues- age, gender +
the unanimity of the majority: votes for culture, i.e. some cultures demand a
women, civil rights higher obedience + group conformity is
Spector (1983) gave Rutter’s LOC their ‘norm’- regardless of allies/LOC,
questionnaire scale to 157 University gender difference
students + those with a high external LOC But data cannot establish cause + effect
conformed more than those with high as other factors may contribute to
internal LOC. But it was dependent on NSI – resistance to obedience i.e. situational or
have less need for social acceptance, so dispositional variables, social status,
more likely to resist pressures to conform money, power, motives…