Social Influence: Paper 1 Flashcards
What is compliance?
When an individual adopts a belief publicly to fit in with the group, even though they may disagree with the belief privately.
What is internalisation?
When an individual adopts a belief publicly and eventually it becomes a part of their belief system, leading them to believe it privately too in the long-term.
What is identification?
When an individual adopts a belief publicly and agrees with it privately but this belief may only be adopted in the short term in the presence of a group.
What is informational social influence?
When a person conforms when they do not know the answer and or wants to be right, so they look to others for this information.
What is normative social influence?
When an individual follows the norms and values of the group, adopting the belief of the group publicly in order to fit in with the group and avoid disapproval, even if they disagree with the belief privately. (punishment)
Research Support for NSI (2)
A03: Conformity: Types & Explanations
Asch’s study into conformity provides research support for Normative Social Influence. This is because when asked to judge the lengths of lines and match them to a standard line, many of the participants went with the majority who obviously had wrong answers.
When Asch asked participants in a post-experimental interview why they did this, they changed their answer to avoid disapproval from the rest of the group, which clearly shows NSI occurred as they conformed to ‘fit in’.
This was further demonstrated in a later variation, whereby the pressure to conform publicly is removed as participants had to write down their answers on a sheet of paper and conformity rates fell to 12.5% as the fear of rejection became far less.
Individual differences in NSI (2)
A03: Conformity: Types & Explanations
For example, McGhee and Teevan found that students high in need of affiliation were more likely to conform. This shows that the desire to be liked underlies conformity for some people more than others. Therefore, there are individual differences in the way some people respond.
Perrin and Spencer: They carried out an exact replication of the original Asch experiment using engineering, mathematics and chemistry students as subjects. They found that on only one out of 396 trials did an observer join the erroneous majority. May have been more confident in their answers as their subjects involve precise and accurate calculations
Research Support for ISI
A03: Conformity: Types & Explanations
Lucas et al asked his students to give answers to mathematical problems that were easy or more difficult. There was greater conformity to incorrect answers when they were difficult rather than when they were easier ones. This study demonstrates ISI as people conform in situations where they feel they don’t know the answer.
ISI and NSI work together.
A03: Conformity: Types & Explanations
For example, conformity is reduced when there is one other
dissenting participant in a variation of the Asch experiment, even if dissenter wears thick glasses and has trouble with his vision.
This dissenter may reduce the power of NSI (because the dissenter provides social support) or may reduce the power of ISI (because there is an alternative source of information.
This supports the view that resistance is not just motivated by
following what someone else says but it enables someone to be free
of the pressure from the group.
Research support for informational influence
A03: Conformity: Types & Explanations
Studies to demonstrate how exposure to other people’s beliefs and opinions can shape many aspects of behaviour and beliefs
Wittenbrink and Henley found that ppts exposed to negative information about African Americans later reported more negative attitudes towards black individuals
This info produced large shifts in their judgements of the candidates’ performance and shows importance of informational influence in shaping behaviour
Normative influence may not be detected
A03: Conformity: Types & Explanations
Although normative influence has a powerful effect on the behaviour of the individual, it is possible they do not actually recognise the behaviour of others as a causal factors in their own behaviour
Nolan et al. investigated whether people detect the influence of social norms on their energy conservation behaviour.
When asked about what factors had influenced their own energy conservation, people believed that the behaviour of neighbours had the least impact on their own energy conservation, yet results showed that it had the strongest impact.
Suggests that people rely on beliefs about what should motivate their behaviour and so under-detect the impact of normative influence.
Research support for normative influence for smoking
A03: Conformity: Types & Explanations
This showed a relation between people’s normative beliefs and the likelihood of them starting smoking
Linkenbach and Perkins (2003) found that adolescents who were told that most of their peers didn’t smoke were less likely to start
This supports the claim that people shape their behaviours to fit in with a group.
Lacks ecological validity
A03: Conformity: Types & Explanations
The task in Asch’s line experiment was unusual and not like a task performed in day to day life, therefore lacks mundane realism.
One could argue that conformity would act differently in real world situations
What is Authoritarian Personality?
Certain individuals are more likely to obey authority figures due to their personality traits, such as following orders without questioning them.
Adorno et al suggested that authoritarian personality develops due to harsh parenting styles that do not encourage independent or critical thinking,
More likely to obey authority figures even when following orders that they do not agree with.
What is the F-scale?
Questionnaire used to measure an individual’s potential for fascist beliefs. People who score more highly on the F-scale are more likely to be rigid in their beliefs and tendency to follow authority figures (authoritarian personality)
They are more likely to engage in behaviours that are consistent with fascist ideologies such as belief in having a strong military.
Research support for Authoritarian Personality
Altemeyer reported in 1988 that participants with an authoritarian personality type were more likely to give themselves higher voltage shocks when asked to, in comparison to those who did not have the personality type.
That people with an authoritarian personality type are more likely to obey, even if this is in detriment to themselves.
Large sample size & biased sample (2)
- Adorno research had a large sample size making his research representable to a larger population.
- However, Adorno’s study has been criticised for focusing exclusively on a sample of white, middle-class, and college-educated participants. This limited the generalizability of the findings to other populations or cultures, as individuals from different backgrounds may have different experiences or beliefs that could affect their attitudes towards authority.
However, psychologists found a major limitation to the study - that flawed methodology was used to explain authoritarian personalities
The researchers in Adornos Study knew the hypothesis, conducted the interviews and knew the results so they already knew who had an authoritarian personalities.
This suggests that Adornos study suffered from confounding variables like investigator bias.
This means that we are unable to generalise findings to real life situations as the various flaws in methodology may have had a heavy impact on explaining authoritarian personalities.
Impractical to explain German public behaviour regarding the Nazis (2)
Another limitation is that it cant explain a whole countries behaviour.
For example, almost all individuals in Germany displayed obedient and Anti Semitics views to jews but we cant say that all of them had authoritarian personalities.
Its highly unlikely that Germany’s population all had this personality.
However we can say that Germans identifies with a Nazi state. Therefore, alternative explanations such as the social identity theory could be a better explanation for this.
Research support from Hyman (2)
Milgram interviewed participants with a high score on the f scale and found a correlation between obedience and people who have an authoritarian personality.
However, the link is merely a correlation between two variables and thus a cause and effect relationship cannot be established, and a third factor could be involved. Hyman suggested that this third factor could be associated. with lower levels of education.
But, It has been found that when participants’ education level is controlled in studies and experiments, the more obedient participants were still those with higher levels of authoritarianism.
Therefore, can see authoritarian personality is a very strong explanation for obedience and has many links to it across the research.
Political Bias
Adorno’s study has been criticised as his F-scale had a degree of bias towards right-wing questions. For example, the F-Scale overemphasised right-wing political beliefs and values, such as obedience to authority and traditionalism, while underemphasizing left-wing political beliefs and values.
This potential bias could affect the accuracy of the F-Scale as a measure of authoritarianism, particularly for individuals who have an authoritarian personality and also hold left-wing political beliefs or values.
Further methodological weaknesses (lack of validity)
Unlike Milgram’s study which was carried out using a lab experiment, Adorno measured attitudes using an attitude scale, which is limited because participants may not be telling the truth.
This reduces the validity of the dispositional explanation for obedience.
Predictions from the theory are not always upheld.
Pettigrew found that F-scale scores were no higher among Southerners in USA than Northerners, even though anti-black prejudices were more common in south than the north at that time.
As prejudice is meant to be a component of the authoritarian personality, this simply does not fit with the theory.
What is the agentic state theory?
The agentic state is a mental state in which individuals view themselves as carrying out the wills of others.
They do not see themselves as responsible for the actions they commit because they are following orders rather than making their own decisions.
This shift in mindset can occur when they perceive someone as a legitimate authority figure and have a clear hierarchy of structure.
What is legitimacy of authority?
Legitimacy of authority refers to the belief that an authority figure has the right to exert influence over others. When an individual is perceived as an authority figure, people are more likely to obey their orders.
Research support for legitimacy of authority
There is research support from Blass and Schmitt who showed a film of Milgram’s study to students and asked them to identify who they felt was responsible for the harm to the ‘learner.’
They found that the students blamed the ‘experimenter’ rather than the participant and indicated that the responsibility was due to legitimate authority (the experimenter was top of the hierarchy and had legitimate authority) but also due to expert authority (because he was a scientist).
This is significant because they recognised legitimate authority as the cause of obedience therefore supporting Milgram’s explanation for obedience.
Cultural differences provide support for legitimacy of authority playing a factor in obedience
Many studies show that countries differ in the degree to which people are traditionally obedient to authority. For example, Kilham and Mann (1974) found that only 16% of Australian ppts went to the top of the voltage scale, whereas Mantell (1971) found that 85% of Germans did
Therefore, in cultures where authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimate, obedience is higher, which increases the validity of the explanation, suggesting legitimacy of authority does play a part in obedience.
Behaviour of Nazi’s cannot be explained in terms of legitimacy of authority and an agentic shift. (2)
However, other research shows that the behaviours of the Nazis cannot be explained in terms of authority and an agentic shift.
Mandel(1998) described an incident involving the German Reserve Police Battilion 101 where men obeyed orders to shoot civilians despite the fact that they did not have direct orders to do so (they were told they could be assigned to other duties if they preferred.)
Their behaviour suggests that they acted individually and did not engage in an agentic shift due to legitimacy of authority, as Milgram suggested
Mandel goes on to argue that it offers an excuse or ‘alibi’ for evil behaviour. In his view, it is therefore offensive to survivors of the Holocaust to suggest that the Nazis were simply obeying orders and were victims themselves of situational factors beyond their control.
A limited explanation
The agentic shift explanation also does not explain the findings from Holfing et al.’s study.
The agentic shift explanation predicts that, as the nurses handed over responsibility to the doctor, they should have shown levels of anxiety similar to Milgram’s participants, as they understood their role in a destructive process.
But his was not the case suggests they 𝒅𝒊𝒅𝒏’𝒕 𝒆𝒙𝒑𝒆𝒓𝒊𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒔𝒂𝒎𝒆 𝒎𝒐𝒓𝒂𝒍 𝒔𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒏 .
This suggests that, at best, agentic shift can only account for some situations of obedience, limiting its application
Real life crimes of obedience
A strength of the legitimacy of authority explanation is that it can help
explain how obedience can lead to real-life war crimes. Kelman and
Hamilton argue that the My Lai massacre can be understood in terms of the power hierarchy of the US Army.
This is a strength because it provides an explanation for why people would perform such heinous activities despite experiencing a moral strain regarding their actions.
Tarnow (Pilots as legitimate authority figures)
He provided support for the power of legitimate authority through a study of aviation accidents, where flight crew actions were a significant factor.
He found an excessive dependence on the captain’s authority and expertise (e.g. an officer claimed that although he saw the captain taking a risky approach he assumed that he knew what he was doing)
These events and recordings support the impact of the presence of a legitimate authority figure, increasing the validity of the legitimate authority figure theory.
What did Fennis and Aarts (2012) find?
- Claim ‘agentic shift’ more likely in situation where individual experiences reduction in sense of personal control.
- They found a reduction in personal control resulted in greater obedience to authority as well as bystander apathy and greater compliance with behavioural requests.
- Therefore, the process of agentic shift is not confined to obedience to authority, decreasing the validity of the agentic state theory as an individual’s sense of control could effect whether someone obeys authority or not.
What is a weakness on the agentic state as an explanation for obedience? (low ecological validity)
The theory relies on an authority figure being present and so it therefore does not explain obedience to authority when an authority figure is distant (e.g. following the law when the police are not around)
Thus it does not fully apply to real life scenarios and thus lacks mundane realism.
What is minority influence?
When a person or group of people influence the behaviours and beliefs of others. This is likely to lead to internalisation where both the public and private behaviour is changed by minority influence.
Moscovici’s research into minority influence
Moscovici – Asked participants if the slides were blue or green? Slides were all blue.
Experiment of 172 women. Condition of 36 slides, two confederates said green for all of them
Told participants were in a colour perception test
Condition of 36 slides, two confederates said 24/36 slides were green.
1/3 of participants conformed at least once that the slide was green.
8.4% conformed to minority position.
What is consistency?
Minorities must demonstrate consistency of their message (by repeating the same accuracy of their message) both over time through diachronic consistency and by maintaining the same messages between all members of the group (synchronic consistency). This is used to draw a cause to the situation by providing social proof of the situation through their message.
What is commitment?
Sometimes minorities are prepared to engage in tasks in which they may suffer in order to draw attention to their views, demonstrating commitment to the cause.
If activities come at personal risk, more impact as they demonstrate greater commitment, increases attention drawn to cause - augmentation principle.
What is flexibility?
Members of the minority have to be prepared to alter their point of view and accept and address counter-arguments, so they aren’t seen as rigid. To be effective, minorities have to strike a balance between consistency and flexibility.
Research support for consistency
A strength of this is that there is research support for consistency. Moscovici’s ‘blue slide, green slide’ study showed that a consistent minority group had a greater effect on changing the views of others.
Wood (1994) carried out a meta-analysis of almost 100 similar studies and found that minorities who were being consistent were most influential. This suggests that being consistent is the minimum requirement for a minority trying to influence a majority.
Not applicable to real-life situations
Another limitation of minority influence research is that the tasks involved are artificial and may have been viewed as trivial and of little importance. This includes Moscovici’s study. Research is therefore far removed from how minorities attempt to change the behaviour of majorities in real life.
This means that findings are lacking in external validity and are limited in what they can tell us about how Minority influence works in real world social situations.
Research support for deeper processing
Another strength is evidence showing that a change in a majority’s position does involve deeper processing. Martin et al. (2003) presented a message and measured the participants’ agreement.
One group of participants heard a minority group agree with the initial view, while another group heard a majority agree with the view.
People were less willing to change if they had listened to a minority group than if they had listened to a majority. This suggests that the minority message had been more deeply processed and had a more enduring effect.
Limitation of Martin’s findings
However, research studies make clear distinctions between the majority and minority. Doing this in a controlled way is a strength. But real life situations are more complicated. In the real world, majorities have more power and a higher status than minorities.
Minorities are very committed to their cause; this is because they face a very hostile opposition and may even partake in activities that come at a personal risk to draw attention to their cause (augmentation principle).
Therefore, Martin et al’s findings are very limited in what they can tell us about minority influence in real world situations.
Individual Differences
Also, Moscovici (1969) used only female students as participants (i.e., an unrepresentative sample ), so it would be wrong to generalize his result to all people – they only tell us about the behavior of female students.
Also, females are often considered to be more conformist than males.
Therefore, there might be a gender difference in the way that males and females respond to minority influence.
Research support for internalisation
In Moscovici et al’s study, agreement with the minority was very low, about 8%. This suggests that minority influence is rare. But when participants wrote their answers down privately, they were more likely to agree with the minority view.
This shows that people may be reluctant to admit their ‘conversion’ publically and thus provides support for Moscovici’s minority influence process as this demonstrates internalisation took place.
Barriers to social change
Bashir et al – people resist social change even when they believe it is necessary because they associate minority beliefs with negative stereotypes.
This is a weakness of minority influence as stereotypes can prevent minority views from being majority views. For example, Bashir investigated why ppl reject the idea of being environmentally conscious and found that people want to be labelled as ‘weird’ or ‘tree-huggers’.
This suggests that to be effective in bringing about change, minority groups should avoid behaving in ways that reinforce negative stereotypes about themselves as this will always put off the majority from supporting them
Nemeth et al (Ski-accident experiment)
Used groups of three participants: one confederate in two conditions.
1st Condition: Minority shows inflexibility by arguing for a low level of compensation for the victim in the case of an imaginary ski lift accident, and does not change from that level.
2nd Condition: Confederate shows flexibility by raising his offer slightly.
In the second condition (flexible) the majority was much likely to lower the compensation level closer to the confederate than the inflexible condition.
