4.1.1 Social Influence

Question 1

conformity

Answer 1

• when an individual changes their beliefs or behaviour in order to fit in with a group
• also known as majority influence
• types of conformity include compliance, identification, and internalisation

Question 2

compliance

Answer 2

• weakest type of conformity
• when a person changes their public behaviour but continues to disagree with them privately
• e.g. pretending you like a film just because everyone else does

Question 3

identification

Answer 3

• a stronger type of conformity
• when someone changes their public behaviour and private beliefs, but only when in the presence of the group (temporarily)
• e.g. being vegetarian when surrounded by vegetarians

Question 4

internalisation

Answer 4

• the strongest type of conformity
• when a person changes their public behaviour and private beliefs permanently
• e.g. joining a religion

Question 5

explanations for conformity

Answer 5

• normative social influence
• informative social influence

Question 6

normative social influence

Answer 6

• conforming due to the need to be liked
• an individual yields to group pressure because they want to fit in and don’t want to be rejected by them
• usually involves compliance

Question 7

informative social influence

Answer 7

• conforming due to the need to be right
• an individual lacks knowledge and subsequently looks to the group for guidance, so usually occurs in new / unambiguous situations
• usually involves internalisation

Question 8

explanations for conformity - strengths

Answer 8

• normative social influence support; Asch (1951) found that ppts claimed they gave the wrong answer even when they knew it was wrong as they felt self-conscious and didn’t want to go against the group and gain disapproval
• informative social influence support; Lucas et al. (2006) found that ppts conformed more when the maths problems were difficult compared to when they were easier, due to students being unsure of the answer and not wanting to appear wrong

Question 9

explanations for conformity - limitations

Answer 9

• it can be difficult to distinguish between normative or informative social influence within research studies and real life, suggesting both processes may work together
• it doesn’t take individual differences into account
• it can’t explain why some people don’t conform

Question 10

Asch’s Line Experiment

Answer 10

• Asch (1951) looked at the effects of normative social influence, as he wanted to investigate whether people would conform to the majority in situations where an answer was obvious
• method;
• he carried out a lab experiment with 123 male US students who believed they were taking part in a vision test
• each naive ppt joined a group of 7 confederates around a table and were sat last / 2nd last so they always heard the confederates’ answers first
• the confederates were told to give an incorrect answer on 12/18 trials in advance, (12 critical, but 6 control trials for naive ppts to gain the confederates’ trust)
• ppts had to say aloud which comparison line matched a standard line in length
• results;
• in critical trials, average conformity rate was 36.8%, so they conformed over 1/3 of the time
• 75% of ppts conformed at least once
• 25% never conformed at all, suggesting individual differences
• after the experiment, Asch conducted interviews with ppts, and some said they were aware of their wrong answers, but didn’t want to stand out from the group
• conclusion; ppts conform due to normative social influence

Question 11

Asch’s Line Experiment - strengths

Answer 11

• the task was unambiguous, making it easier to measure conformity levels
• there have been variations of this experiment, to further solidify his conclusion
• empirical method was used, so variables were highly controlled
• proved the aim that people give in to social pressures
• although it’s seen as unethical to deceive participants, his experiment required deception to achieve valid results and avoid demand characteristics

Question 12

Asch’s Line Experiment - limitations

Answer 12

• gender bias as the entire sample was males, so its unclear if his findings generalise to the rest of the world, hence a lack of population validity
• lack of cultural validity as they were all the same culture
• questions of ecological / external validity, as the task and situation are both artificial
• ethical concerns as the naive ppts were deceived to think they were taking part in a vision test and not an experiment on conformity
• ppts were also not protected from psychological harm, as many reported feeling stressed when they disagreed with the majority

Question 13

variables affecting conformity

Answer 13

• following Asch’s original study, many variations of his experiment were carried out, but with different situational variables to see how these affected conformity;
• group size
• unanimity
• task difficulty

Question 14

Asch - group size

Answer 14

• increasing the size of the group tended to increase conformity until a certain point
• in trials with just 1 confederate and 1 ppt, conformity rates were low
• when there were 2 confederates, conformity increased to 12.8%
• when confederates were increased to 3, conformity increased further to 32%
• however, adding extra confederates (4, 8, or 16) didn’t increase conformity beyond this

Question 15

Asch - unanimity

Answer 15

• conformity rates decline when the majority answer isn’t unanimous (all in agreement)
• ppt’s conformity declined from 32% to 5.5% when one confederate was instructed to give the correct answer and go against the incorrect answer of the majority

Question 16

Asch - task difficulty

Answer 16

• increasing the difficulty of the task was also found to increase conformity
• asch adjusted the lengths of the lines in the study to make it either easier or harder to match a comparison line to the standard line
• if the difference between the incorrect and correct answer was very small, ppts were more likely to conform to the incorrect answers of the majority

Question 17

conformity to social roles

Answer 17

• social roles are the ‘roles’ people play as members of various social groups / situations, e.g. parent, child, teacher, etc.
• we conform to social roles to behave correctly and appropriately in society
• Zimbardo investigated this idea in his Stanford Prison Experiment

Question 18

Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment

Answer 18

• Zimbardo (1973) wanted to investigate how readily people would conform to the assigned social roles of prisoners and guards in a prison situation, and whether the behaviour was due to dispositional (internal) or situational (environmental) factors
• method;
• Zimbardo et al. converted the basement of the Stanford University psychology building into a mock prison
• they advertised the role of prisoners and guards for a 2-week study and 21 male student volunteers, who were tested and found to be ‘emotionally stable’, were selected as ppts
• they were then randomly assigned the role of either a prisoner or guard (10 guards and 11 prisoners)
• prisoners were arrested realistically, fingerprinted, photographed and ‘booked’
• zimbardo himself was playing the role of the warden
• prisoners wore a loose smock, a cap, and a chain around one ankle and were only to be identified by an assigned number
• guards wore khaki uniforms, mirrored sunglasses (to prevent eye contact) and carried handcuffs and wooden batons
• both these uniforms caused de-individuation (a loss of the person’s identity), making them more likely to conform to their social roles
• results;
• the guards quickly became increasingly brutal and sadistic as they began to harass prisoners within hours
• prisoners also adopted their roles quickly, and within 2 days they rebelled, ripped their uniforms, shouted and swore at guards
• the guards retaliated by becoming more abusive, punishing and dehumanising prisoners, e.g. by using fire extinguishers on them and forcing them to clean toilets with their bare hands
• prisoners soon became more submissive, e.g. they became more obedient and tried to please guards by ‘snitching’ on other prisoners
• 5 prisoners were released early due to severe reactions to the torment, e.g. crying, screaming, extreme anxiety, etc.
• the guards’ sadism became so harmful that zimbardo ended the experiment after 6 days, instead of the scheduled 2 weeks
• this mirrored the abu ghraib prison, which zimbardo was a witness of
• conclusions;
• people conform quickly to social roles, even when it goes against their moral principles
• situational factors were largely responsible for the behaviour found
• a prison exerts psychological damage upon those who work and are incarcerated there

Question 19

Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment - strengths

Answer 19

• major practical applications of the study as practices were changed in US prisons to protect the vulnerable and make prisons safer
• it was in a controlled environment so variables could be controlled
• the allocation of prisoner / guard roles was random, increasing the control zimbardo had over the internal validity

Question 20

Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment - limitations

Answer 20

• individual differences also determine the extent to which a person conforms to social roles
• not all guards were so harsh or cruel
• lack of population validity as the entire sample consisted of males
• ethical issues as ppts were subjected to psychological harm, which could’ve been long-lasting
• the right to withdraw was questioned at points in the study, maybe because zimbardo was playing a role himself (the warden)
• lack of informed consent, as ppts didn’t explicitly consent to all aspects of the experiment, e.g. being ‘arrested’ at home
• questions of ecological / external validity as ppts knew they were taking part in a study, so it might’ve affected the way they behaved, e.g. exaggerated behaviour, so the findings may not apply to real life situations
• ppts may have been acting in a stereotypical way, e.g. one guard said he based his behaviour off a brutal character he’d seen in a film

Question 21

obedience

Answer 21

• complying with the orders of someone you see as an authority figure
• studied by Milgram through his shock experiment

Question 22

Milgram’s Shock Experiment

Answer 22

• Milgram (1963) wanted to investigate the extent to which people obey the orders of an authority figure
• he was inspired by the WW2 criminals (Nazis) who justified their actions as ‘following orders’
• method;
• 40 male american ppts were told they were taking part in a study about memory and learning, conducted at Yale university
• ppts were given the role of a teacher, which they believed was randomly assigned, and they were paired with a confederate who was given the role of a learner
• an experimenter (also a confederate) told the ppt the test would involve giving increasingly powerful electric shocks to the learner (confederate) in the room next door
• the learner had to learn a set of word pairs and the teacher ppt would test his knowledge
• the teacher was instructed to punish the learner with an electric shock after each incorrect answer, with the power increasing each time and volts ranging from 15-450v
• the ppt was given a 45v shock so he believed it was real, and had to watch the learner be strapped into a chair and have electrodes attached to his body
• once electric shocks reached 150v, the learner began to protest, (pre-recorded tapes were played), and these increased in intensity with the increasing voltage, e.g. at 315v the learner screamed in pain and after 330v he went silent
• if ppts asked to stop the experiment, the experimenter would reply with a prompt to continue
• results;
• 65% (26/44) of ppts administered shocks up to the maximum of 450v
• 100% of ppts went up to 300v
• most ppts showed physical discomfort when doing so, e.g. sweating, nervously laughing, etc.
• 3 ppts suffered seizures from the stress of their actions
• conclusions; under the right circumstances, ordinary people will obey unjust orders

Question 23

Milgram’s Shock Experiment - strengths

Answer 23

• his results have been replicated several times, suggesting they’re reliable
• practical and beneficial applications of this study as his findings demonstrate the extent to which humans obey authority, even if it’s dangerous, so e.g. there are many examples of nurses following orders that have injured patients, so they can be trained on the dangers of obedience to avoid this
• milgram debriefed ppts after the study and it can be argued the findings of the experiment are so valuable that the benefits of conducting it outweighs the distress caused to ppts

Question 24

Milgram’s Shock Experiment - limitations

Answer 24

• ppts were deceived as they thought the allocation of roles was random, and believed that the shocks were real
• an unethical study as ppts were subject to psychological harm due to the extreme stress placed upon them, as evidenced by the 3 who suffered seizures and the physical discomfort of the others
• lack of population validity, as the entire sample was males, so the findings can’t be generalised to everyone

Question 25

variables affecting obedience

Answer 25

• milgram conducted variations of his original study to test how different situational variables affect obedience;
• proximity
• location
• uniform

Question 26

milgram - proximity

Answer 26

• the teacher and learner were placed in the same room and the obedience rate dropped from 65% to 40%
• in a touch proximity variation, the teacher had to force the learner’s hand onto an electroshock plate and the obedience rate dropped further to 30%
• in the experimenter proximity variation, the experimenter left the room and gave instructions by telephone and the obedience rate dropped to 20.5%
• explanation; decreased proximity allows ppts to distance themselves from the consequences of their actions, but when it’s in front of them this becomes difficult

Question 27

milgram - location

Answer 27

• when milgram replicated the experiment in a run-down office block, the obedience rate dropped to 47.5%
• explanation; ppts were more likely to be obedient in the university environment as they perceived the experimenter had legitimate authority and obedience was expected

Question 28

milgram - uniform

Answer 28

• in another variation, the experimenter (who originally wore a lab coat) was replaced mid-way by someone wearing ordinary clothes, and the obedience rate dropped from 65% to 20%
• explanation; uniforms are associated with authority, so encourage obedience as those around them see them as legitimate authority figures

Question 29

milgram’s situational variables - strengths

Answer 29

• other studies have also demonstrated the influence of situational variables on obedience, e.g. Bickman (1974) found that 38% of ppts obeyed the orders of someone wearing a security guard’s uniform, compared to 19% when wearing ordinary clothes and 14% when wearing a milkman’s uniform
• there have been cross-cultural replications of his study

Question 30

milgram’s situational variables - limitations

Answer 30

• ppts may have known it was a fake study, so they displayed demand characteristics to do what they thought they had to in order to please the experimenter, especially as they were being paid to take part
• reduces the internal validity of the study as ppts real behaviour wasn’t being measured if they were displaying demand characteristics
• a dispositional explanation (authoritarian personality) may be better than a situational one, as it accounts for individual differences

Question 31

explanations for obedience

Answer 31

• agentic state (agency theory)
• legitimacy of authority

Question 32

agentic state

Answer 32

• agentic state is when a person believes someone else is responsible for their behaviour, so they feel no personal responsibility
• autonomous state is when a person is freely and consciously in control of their actions, and thus takes responsibility for them
• the agentic shift is when a person shifts from an autonomous state to the agentic state, i.e. they see themselves as an agent of external authority

Question 33

agency theory

Answer 33

milgram’s idea that people are more likely to obey orders, even if they go against their morals, when they’re in the agentic state as they believe they’re acting on behalf of their agent, so they don’t feel personal responsible for their actions

Question 34

legitimacy of authority

Answer 34

• we’re taught that obedience to authority figures, e.g parents, teachers, police, is necessary for an orderly society
• therefore. if a person accepts an authority figure as legitimate, they’ll feel a duty to do as the authority figure says
• e.g. variables like uniform in milgram’s study added to the perceived legitimacy of the experimenters authority in the ppt’s eyes
• in his study, the experimenter displayed destructive authority and ppts showed destructive obedience (when power and obedience is used for destructive purposes)

Question 35

explanations for obedience - strengths

Answer 35

• most ppts in milgram’s study believed the experimenter was responsible for the harm caused to the learner, supporting the agentic state explanation
• in countries where obedience to authority is less valued, e.g. Australia, obedience rates are much lower than in countries that value legitimate authority figures, e.g. Germany

Question 36

explanations for obedience - limitations

Answer 36

• the agentic shift can’t explain why some ppt’s in milgram’s study didn’t obey orders fully, as in theory they should’ve all been in an agentic state

Question 37

authoritarian personality

Answer 37

• a dispositional (internal) explanation for obedience
• identified by Adorno et al. (1950)
• it’s a type of personality that’s very susceptible to obeying people in authority
• those with an authoritarian personality are thought to be predisposed to fascist characteristics, such as being submissive to those of higher status and dismissive of inferiors
• Adorno believed in the psychodynamic theory as he thought that individuals with a strict upbringing were most likely to develop authoritarian personalities, as they couldn’t express hostility to their strict parents so they displaced this aggression onto safer / weaker targets

Question 38

authoritarian personality - Adorno’s F-scale

Answer 38

• Adorno et al. created the F-scale (fascist scale) personality test to measure the authoritarian personality in people
• it required ppts (2000 white middle-class Americans) to rate the extent of their own agreement to certain statements using a Likert-style scale
• results showed that those who scored high on the F-scale (authoritarian attitudes) tended to be obedient to superiors, hostile to inferiors, rigid in their beliefs (black and white thinking), and have conventional opinions, upholding traditional values
• there were strong positive correlations between authoritarianism and prejudice

Question 39

authoritarian personality - strengths

Answer 39

• milgram found that ppts who were highly obedient in his experiments scored significantly higher on the F-scale than those who disobeyed, suggesting that the authoritarian personality type can explain obedience

Question 40

authoritarian personality - limitations

Answer 40

• has little ecological validity, as it can’t explain many real-life examples of mass-obedience, e.g. it’s unlikely that all Nazis had authoritarian personalities
• a harsh parenting style doesn’t always produce prejudiced children
• some prejudiced people don’t conform to the authoritarian personality type
• it doesn’t explain why people are prejudice against some groups and not others

Question 41

resistance to social influence

Answer 41

• the ability of people to withstand the social pressure to conform to the majority or to obey authority
• the two explanations are;
• social support
• locus of control

Question 42

social support

Answer 42

• the presence of a dissenting peer (people who resist pressures to conform or obey) can help others to do the same
• conformity research support; asch found that conformity reduced to 5.5% when one confederate gave a different answer to the rest of the group, and this stayed true even if it was a different wrong answer, so social support breaks the unanimous position of the majority
• obedience research support; milgram found that obedience dropped from 65% to 10% when the genuine ppts were joined by a disobedient confederate, so social support makes people more confident to resist obedience if they have someone willing to join them

Question 43

locus of control

Answer 43

• the extent to which we believe we have control over our own behaviour and life
• internal LOC; when a person feels they have control over their own life and behaviour
• external LOC; when a person believes their life is controlled by external factors out of their control
• people with a high internal LOC are believed to be more able to resist pressures to conform or obey
• they tend to be more self-confident, intelligent and achievement-orientated, which provides them with personality traits that give them greater resistance to social pressures
• research support; Holland (1967) repeated milgram’s study and found that 37% of ppts who were measured to have a high internal LOC didn’t continue to the highest shock level, compared to only 24% of ppts with an external LOC, showing that those with a high internal LOC have a greater resistance to authority
• However, Rotter (1982) suggests our LOC only has influence in new situations, as previous experiences of situations where we conform / obey will be more important in deciding whether to do so again

Question 44

minority influence

Answer 44

• when a small group of people change the attitudes, behaviours, and beliefs of the majority
• studied by Moscovici (1969)

Question 45

Moscovici’s study of minority influence

Answer 45

• he investigated how minorities can influence a majority
• method;
• 172 ppts (with no colour blindness) took part in a lab experiment
• ppts were in a group of 4 ppts (the majority) and 2 confederates (the minority)
• everyone was shown 36 blue slides, each with a different shade of blue, and were asked to say whether the slide was blue or green
• in the consistent condition, the 2 confederates called the slides green on all trials
• in the inconsistent condition, they called the slides green on 2/3 of the trials
• a control group consisting of no confederates (so no minority) was also used
• results;
• ppts in the consistent condition called the slides green in 8.4% of trials and 32% of ppts reported a green slide at least once
• ppts in the inconsistent condition called the slides green in 1.3% of trials
• in the control group, ppts answered incorrectly in 0.25% of trials
• conclusions; consistency is crucial for a
  minority to exert maximum influence on a majority

Question 46

variables affecting minority influence

Answer 46

• moscovici found 3 variables which increase the effectiveness of minority influence;
• consistency
• commitment
• flexibility

Question 47

moscovici - consistency

Answer 47

• his study clearly demonstrates that the minority are more likely to influence the majority when they’re consistent in their views, as it increases interest from others and gets people to rethink their own opinions
• this is due to 2 types of consistency;
• synchronic consistency - when all members of the group are consistent (in agreement)
• diachronic consistency - when the group remains consistent over time

Question 48

moscovici - commitment

Answer 48

• the minority is more likely to influence the majority when they’re committed, because if they have passion and confidence in their views, it suggests to the majority that their view must be somewhat valid, encouraging them to rethink their own opinions

Question 49

moscovici - flexibility

Answer 49

• the minority have to have a balance between consistency and flexibility, i.e. by adapting their point of view and accepting reasonable counter opinions
• being too consistent can suggest that the minority is inflexible, uncompromising and
  irrational, making their argument less appealing to the majority
• if they appear flexible, compromising and rational, they’re more likely to be seen as considerate and cooperative, so the majority are more likely to consider their ideas

Question 50

Moscivici’s study of minority influence - strengths

Answer 50

• it has practical real-life applications as the emphasis of consistency, commitment and flexibility can inform minority groups about the best way to behave to exert a maximum amount of influence on a majority

Question 51

moscivici’s study of minority influence - limitations

Answer 51

• the majority often has greater power over the minority, so consistency, commitment and flexibility may not always be enough to change the opinion of an audience
• his methodology lacks mundane realism as his experiment is reliant on artificial tasks which don’t reflect scenarios within which minority groups would act in real life

Question 52

social cryptoamnesia (the snowball effect)

Answer 52

• social cryptoamnesia is when the minority influences a few numbers of the majority at first, but as these numbers grow it causes a snowball effect where more and more members of the majority get converted at a growing pace, until the minority’s beliefs become the new majority and establish new social norms
• e.g. the shift in attitudes towards homosexuals; it was once the norm to be homophobic, but hateful acts like that are now illegal, and those who are homophobic are pressured to hide it or change

Question 53

social change

Answer 53

• the shift / change in society’s beliefs, behaviours and attitudes
• it’s a continuous but gradual change
• usually occurs when minority viewpoints slowly win over the majority, thus changing society’s views

Question 54

stages of minority influence in social change

Answer 54

1. drawing attention to an issue through social proof
2. displaying consistency, commitment, and flexibility in their views
3. deeper processing of the issue by the majority, i.e. if the minority draw more attention to it
4. the augmentation principle - when people take risks and make sacrifices for their cause
5. the snowball effect - small-scale protests lead to larger militant movements, which can eventually lead to acceptance from the government
6. social cryptoamnesia - the minority has become the new majority and social norms have changed

Question 55

impacts of other social influence processes in social change

Answer 55

• minorities often use informative social influence to change the majority’s beliefs, which can lead to internalisation and wider acceptance
• studies from asch have found that a confederate dissenting can break the power of the majority and encourage others to dissent, which has the potential to lead to social change
• for social change, the minority need to be able to disobey authority to drive their point into the limelight, and act as positive role models (dissenters) for other individuals to also be able to resist obeying the majority