social influence flashcards
(111 cards)
1
Q
what does conform mean?
A
a form of social influence that results from exposure to the majority position and leads to adopting the same behaviour, attitudes and values of other members of a reference group
2
Q
what is internalisation?
A
occurs when an individual accepts influence because the content of the attitude or behaviour proposed is consistent with their own value system
3
Q
what is compliance?
A
an individual accepts influence because they hope to achieve a favourable reaction from those around them. attitude or belief is not adopted because of the content, but for the rewards or approval associated.
4
Q
what is normative conformity?
A
an individual conform with the expectations of the majority in order to gain approval or to avoid social disapproval
5
Q
what is informational conformity ?
A
a form of influence, which is the result of a desire to be right - looking to others as a way of gaining evidence about reality
6
Q
what is identification?
A
an individual adopts an attitude or behaviour because they want to be associated with a particular person or group
7
Q
according to Kelman (1958), what are the types of conformity ?
A
compliance:
- focuses more on the reward reaction rather than the actual beliefs
- often changed at the request of another person
outwardly changing behaviour, but internal thoughts remain the same
internalisation:
- deepest level of conformity
- a person truly believes what they are saying
- usually a long term change
- unconscious mental process
- beliefs are permanent
identification:
- public and private beliefs change in the presence of a groups
- short term change
8
Q
what is involved in normative conformity?
A
- conforming in order to gain approval or avoid disapproval
- it is possible to go along with the majority without accepting their point of view = compliance
-as humans, we have a fundamental need for social companionship i.e to gain the approval and acceptance of others - an important condition for normative influence = the individual must think they are under surveillance by the group
- when this happens, people generally conform to the group in public but don’t necessarily internalise the view = does not carry into private settings and does not endure over time (Nail, 1986)
9
Q
what is involved in informational conformity?
A
- conforming in order to loon right, gaining evidence of reality from others
- as well as needing to be accepted, humans need to feel confident in their beliefs
- initially, one might make check of their reality (checking facts) but if this isn’t possible, we need to rely on the opinions of others
more likely in an ambiguous situation e.g Asch’s line study, or where others are experts e.g they have more information than we do
-as a result, very rarely just comply, usually change behaviour both publicly and privately = internalisation
10
Q
weakness of type of conformity: difficult to distinguish between compliance and internalisation
A
- the relationship between compliance and internalization is complicated because of difficulties in knowing when each is actually taking place
-for example, it is assumed that a person who publicly agrees with a majority yet disagrees with them in private must be demonstrating compliance rather than internalisation - However, it is also possible that acceptance of the group’s view has occurred in public, yet dissipated later when in private
- this could be that they have forgotten information given or because they have received new information
- this demonstrates the difficulty in determining what is, and what is not, simple compliance rather than internalisation
11
Q
strength of type of conformity: research support for normative conformity
A
- US research has supported the import role played by people’s normative beliefs in shaping behaviours such as smoking and energy conservation
- Linkenback & Perkins (2003) found that adolescents exposed to the simple message that the majority of their peer group did not smoke were less likely to take up smoking
- Schultz (2008) found that hotel guest exposed to the normative message that 75% of guests reuse their towels each day (an indication of energy conservation behaviour) reduced their towel use by 25%
-these studies support the claim that people shape their behaviour out of a desire to fit in with their reference group, and as such demonstrates the power of normative conformity
12
Q
strength of type of conformity: research support for informational influence
A
- Some studies have demonstrate how exposure to other people’s beliefs has an important influence on social stereotypes
-Wittenbrink and Henley (1996) found that participants exposed to negative information about African Americans (which they were led to believe was the opinion of the majority) reported more negative beliefs around black people. - Research has also shows how informational social influence can shape public opinion → Fien et al (2007) demonstrated how judgments of candidate performance in the US presidential debate could be influenced by the knowledge of others reactions
- Participants saw what were supposedly the reactions of their fellow participants on screen during the debate.
This produced large shifts in the participant’s judgements of the candidate performance
13
Q
weakness of type of conformity: Normative conformity may not be detected
A
- research on conformity has led to the conclusion that normative influence has a powerful effect on the behaviour of the individual. - - However, researchers have started to speculate whether individuals do actually recognise the behaviour of others as a causal factor in their own behaviour
-Nolan et al (2008) investigated whether people detected h=the influence of social norms on their energy conservation behaviour.
-When asked about what factors had an impact on their own energy conservation, people believed that the behaviour of their neighbours had the least impact on their own energy conservation, yet results showed that it had the strongest impact.
-This suggests that people rely on beliefs about what should motivate their behaviour and so under- decree the impact of normative influence
14
Q
what was the sample of Asch’s line study?
A
participants were 123 American male undergraduate students, tested with a group of between 6 and 8 confederates
15
Q
what was the procedure of Asch’s line study?
A
- On the first few trails, the confederates gave the correct answer, but then they started making errors
- All confederates were instructed to give the same wrong answer
- Each participant took part in 18 trials and on 12 ‘critical trials’ the confederates gave the wrong answer
- A trial was one occasion identifying the length of a standard line
16
Q
what was the findings of Asch’s line study?
A
- Participants got the answer wrong 36.8% of the time
- Overall, 25% of participants did not conform on any trails, which means that 75% conformed at least once
- The term Asch Effect has been used to describe this result - the extent to which participants conform, even when the situation is ambiguous
- When participants were interviewed afterwards most said they conformed to avoid rejection (normative conformity)
17
Q
Variables Affecting Conformity - Group Size (Campbell and Fairey 1989)
A
- Very little conformity when the majority consisted of one or two confederates
- However, when under pressure of three confederates, the proportion of conforming responses jumped up to 30%
- Further increases in the size of the majority did not increase this level of conformity substantially - size of majority is important, but only up to a point
- Campbell and Fairey (1989) suggest group size might have a different effect depending on the type of judgement made and the motivation of the individual
- Where there is no objectively correct answer (e.g musical preference) and the individual is concerned about ‘fitting in’ then the larger the majority the more likely they are to conform
- However, if there is a correct response and the individual is concerned about being correct, then the view of just one or two other will be sufficient
18
Q
Variables Affecting Conformity - Unanimity
A
- In Asch’s study, the confederates were asked to unanimously give the wrong answer
- When the real participant was given the support of either another real participant or a confederate who had been instructed to give the correct answer, conformity levels dropped significantly
- Reduced percentage of wrong answer from 33% to just 5.5%
- If a lone ‘dissenter’ gave an answer that was different from the majority but still correct, conformity levels dropped to 9%
- Asch concluded that it was breaking the group’s unanimity that was the major factor in conformity reduction
19
Q
variables affecting conformity - difficulty of the task
A
- Asch made the differences between the line length much smaller, the correct answer was less obvious and the task much more difficult
- level of conformity increased
- Lucas et al (2006) found that the influence of task difficulty is moderated by the self-efficacy of the individual
- when exposed to maths problems in a Asch style task, high self-efficacy participants (confident in their own ability) remained more independent than low self - efficacy participants, even under conditions of high difficulty tasks
- situational differences (task difficulty) and individual differences ( self efficacy) are both important in determining conformity
20
Q
limitation - Independent behaviour rather than conformity
A
- Only about ⅓ of the trials where the majority unanimously gave the same wrong answer produced a conforming response
- in ⅔ of these trails, participants resolutely stick to their original judgement despite being face with an overwhelming majority expressing a totally different view
- Asch believed that rather than showing human beings to be overly conformist, his study demonstrated a commendable tendency for participants to stick to what they believed to be the correct judgement i.e to show independent behaviour
21
Q
limitation- problems with determining group size
A
- Bond (2005) suggests a limitation of research into conformity is that studies have used only a limited range of majority size
investigators are quick to accept Asch’s conclusions that a majority size of three was sufficient, and therefore subsequent research using Asch’s procedure have used 3 as the maximum majority - no studies other that Asch have used a majority of greater than 9, the range of majority sizes is much narrower, typically between 2 and 4
- This means we know very little about the effect of larger majority sizes on conformity levels
22
Q
limitation -Asch’s research may be a “child of its time”
A
- It is possible that Asch’s finding are unique because the research took place in a particular period of US history when conformity was high
- In 1956, the US was in the grip of McCarthyism, a strong anti- communist period when people were scared to go against the majority and so were more likely to conform.
- Perris and Spencer attempted to repeat Asch’s study in the Uk in the 1980’s using students who were studying science and engineering.
- In their initial study, they obtained only one conforming response ouy of 396 trials where a majority unanimously gave the same wrong answer
- In a subsequent study, they used youths on probation and used probation officers as the confederates
- This time, they found similar levels of conformity to Asch’s study.
- This confirmed that conformity is more likely if the perceived cost of not conforming are high which would’ve been the case at the time of Asch’s study
23
Q
limitation of Asch’s study - lacks ecological validity
A
- Asch’s test of conformity, a line judgement task, is an artificial task, which does not reflect conformity in everyday life.
- Therefore, we are unable to generalise the results of Asch to other real life situations, such as why people may start smoking or drinking around friends, and therefore these results are limited in their application to everyday life.
24
Q
limitation of Asch’s study - cultural differences in conformity
A
- Research suggests that there are important differences in conformity and we might therefore expect different results, depending on the culture of the people we ask
- Smith et al (2006) analysed the results of Asch’s line study across a number of different cultures
- He found the average conformity rate across the different cultures was 31.8%.
- In more individualistic cultures, the conformity rate was about 25% whereas in more collective cultures, it was much higher at 37%.
- Markus and Kitayama (1991) suggest that a higher level of conformity arises in collectivist cultures because it is viewed more favourably, as a form of “social glue” that binds communities together
25
what was the sample of Zimbardo's Stanford prison experiment ?
Had 21 male university students who volunteered from a newspaper advert and were selected on physical and mental stability
26
what was the aim of SPE ?
His aim was to see whether people would conform to the social roles of a prison guard or prisoner
27
what was the procedure of SPE?
- He wanted to make the experience as realistic as possible, turning the basement of Stanford University into a mock prison
- The 'prisoners' were arrested by real local police and fingerprinted, stripped and given a numbered smocked to wear, with chains placed around their ankles
- The guards were given uniforms, dark reflective sunglasses, handcuffs an a truncheon
- The guards were instructed to run the prison without using physical violence
- The experiment was set to run for 2 weeks
28
what were the findings of SPE?
- Zimbardo found that both the prisoners and guards quickly identified with their social roles
- Within days the prisoners rebelled, but this was quickly crushed by the guards, who then grew increasingly abusive towards the prisoners
- The guards dehumanised the prisoners, waking them during the night and forcing them to clean toilets with their bare hands; the prisoners became increasingly submissive, identifying further with their subordinate role
29
what were the conclusions of the SPE?
- He concluded that people quickly conform to social roles, even when the role goes against their moral principles
- He concluded that situational factors were largely responsible for the behaviour found, as none of the participants had ever demonstrated these behaviours previously
30
limitation of SPE - conformity to role is not automic
- Zimbardo believed that the guard’s drift into sadistic behaviour was an automatic consequence of them embracing their role, which in turn suppressed their ability to engage with the fact that what they were doing was wrong
- However, in the SPE, guard behaviour varied from being fully sadistic to, for a few, benign “good guards”
- These guards did not degrade or harass the prisoners and even did small favours for them
- Haslam & Reicher (2012) argue that this shows that the guards chose how to behave, rather than blindly conforming to their social role
31
strength of the SPE - The SPE and its relevance to Abu Ghraib
- Zimbardo argues that the same conformity to social role effect that was evident in SPE was also present in Abu Ghraib, a military prison in Iraq, notorious for the torture and abuse of Iraqi prisoners by US soldiers in 2003 and 2004
- Zimbardo believed that the guards who committed the abuses were the victims of situations factors that made abuse more likely
- Zimbardo suggests that the situational factors such as lack of training, unrelenting boredom and no accountability to higher authorities were present in both SPE and Abu Ghraib
-these combined with an opportunity to misuse the power associated with the assigned role of “guard” led to the prisoner abuse in both situations
32
limitation of the SPE - demand characteristics
- Banuazizi and Movehedi (1975) argued that the behaviour of participants in the SPE was more a consequence of demand characteristics (i,e participants guessing how the experimenter wanted them to behave) than conformity to the roles
- They presented some of the details of the SPE procedure to a large sample of students who had never heard of the study
- The vast majority of them correctly guessed that the purpose of the study was to show that ordinary people assigned to the role of guard or prisoner would act like real prisoners or guards
- They predicted that the guards would act in a hostile, domineering way and the prisoners would react in a passive way
- This suggests that the behaviour of Zimbardo’s study was not due the their response to a “compelling prison environment” but rather it was a response to powerful demand characteristics in the experimental situation itself
33
limitation of SPE- ethical considerations
- Zimbardo’s study is often criticised for being unethical, despite the fact that it followed the guidelines of the Stanford University ethics committee that had approved it.
-Despite this, Zimbardo acknowledges that perhaps the study should have been stopped earlier as so many of the participants were experiencing emotional distress.
-He attempted to make amends for this by carrying out debriefing sessions for several years afterwards and concluded that there were no lasting negative effects
- Recognising the potential for harm in studies such as this, Reicher and Haslam used the same basic setup as Zimbardo, but took greater steps to minimise the potential harm to their participants.- -They created a situation that was harsh and testing, but not harmful
34
strength of SPE - led to change in ethical guidelines and the way those are treated
- It lead to change in the way that US prisoners are treated
- For example, juveniles accused of federal crimes are no longer housed before trial with adult prisoners (due to the risk of violence against them).
- to changes in the way that studies are conducted in terms of ethics, all experiments must go through an extensive review before it is conducted
35
what is obedience and how is it different to conformity?
Obedience is a form of social influence in which an individual acts in response to a direct order from another person, who is usually an authority figure. It is assumed that without such an order, the person would not act in this way
Obedience is generally different to conformity because behaviour can be influenced by one authority figure, whereas conformity produces behaviour intended to match a majority.
36
what is the background to Milgram's experiment ?
- Stanley Milgram (1963) sought out an answer to the question of why the German population followed the orders of Hitler and slaughtered over 10 million members of certain social groups in the Holocaust
- Wanted to know if Germans were different - were they more obedient?
- His fist, original study is the one against which all the other variations are compared (baseline study)
37
procedure for Milgram's experiment
- Recruited 40 male participants (20-50 years old, jobs ranged from unskilled to professional) through newspaper adverts and flyers in the post
- A confederate "Mr Wallace" was always the "learner" and the true participant was the "teacher"
- Another confederate was also an "experimenter" dressed in a lab coat
- Participants were told that they could leave at any point
- Learner was strapped to a chair in another room with wired electrodes
- Participant was required to give the learner an increasingly severe electric shock each time the learner made a mistake on a learning task (task involved matching word pairs)
- The shocks were demonstrated to the teacher, therefore the shocks were not real
- Shock level started at 15 (labelled 'slight shock' on shock-metre) and rose through 30 levels to 450 volts ('danger- severe shock')
- At 300V ('intense shock') the learner pounded on the wall and then gave no response to the next question
- After 315V learner pounded on the wall again but after that there was no future response from the learner
38
what were the findings of Milgram's experiment?
- No participant stopped below 300V, 12.5% (5 participants) stopped at 300V, 65% continued to the 450 V
- Qualitative data was collected, such as observations that the participants showed signs of extreme tension; many of them were seen to “sweat, tremble, stutter, bite their lips, groan and dig their fingernails into their hands” three even had “full-blown uncontrollable seizures”
- Prior to the study, Milgram asked 14 psychology students to predict the participants behaviour- students estimated no more than 3% of participants would continue to 450 V (shows that the findings were not expected)
- All participants were debriefed and assured that their behaviour was entirely normal, also sent a follow up questionnaire- 845 said they felt glad to have participated
39
what was the ethical guidance for Milgram?
- milgram was not breaking any ethical guidelines because there were no official guidelines
-it’s because of milgram and zimbardo that the guidelines were created - “Code of Ethics and Conduct
- a participants right to withdraw from the research
-they need to get fully informed consent form the participant
the use of deception
- the importance of protecting participants from the risk of psychological harm
40
what was the de brief like for Milgram?
- Milgram carried out debriefing sessions with his participants- opportunity to explain the true purpose and what had really happened
- Also intended to make the participants feel better about their role, especially if they had been completely obedient throughout
Part of the debrief was a structured interview to ask about their experience
- Also wanted to collect qualitative data about the reasons why participants obeyed or disobeyed
41
limitation of Milgram - low internal validity
- Orne & Holland (1968) argued that participants behaved the way that they did because they didn’t really believe in the set up - they guessed it wasn’t a real electric shock
-If this is true, Milgram wasn’t testing what he intended to test- the study lacked internal validity
- Gina Perry’s (2013) study confirms this - listened to taped of Milgram’s participants and reported that many of them expressed their doubts about the shocks
- However, Sheridan and King (1972) conducted a similar study were real shocks were given to a puppy - despite real shocks, 54% of male and 100% of female participants delivered what they thought were fatal shocks
- suggests that Milgram’s effects were genuine - Milgram himself reports 70% of participants said they believed the shocks were genuine
42
strength of Milgram- good external validity
- Milgram’s study may at first appear to lack external validity because it’s conducted in a laboratory setting, but central feature was the relationship between the authority figure (experimenter) and the participant
- Milgram argued that the lab setting reflected wider authority relationships in real life
- Other studies support this - Hofling (1966) studied nurses on a hospital ward and found the levels of obedience tp unjustified demands by doctors were very high (21 out of 22 nurses obeyed)
- this suggests that the processes of obedience to authority that occurred in Milgram’s lab study can be generalised to other situations
43
strength of milgram - historical validity - would the same thing happen today?
- We might be tempted to dismiss the relevance of Milgram’s study because it was carried out over 50 years ago, but what would happen in modern day society?
-Blass (1999) carried out a statistical analysis of obedience studies carried out between 1961 and 1985. By carrying out a correlational analysis relating each study’s year of publication and the amount of obedience it found, he discovered no relationship whatsoever i.e the later studies found no more or less levels of obedience than the ones conducted earlier.
-A more recent (Burger, 2009) found levels of obedience almost identical to those found by Milgram 46 years later
- This suggests that Milgram’s findings still appear to apply as much today as they did back in the early 1960’s
44
limitation of Milgram - location: high levels of obedience were not surprising
- Fromm (1973), claims that because Milgram’s subjects knew they were part of a scientific experiment, this made them more likely to obey than in real life
- In a laboratory setting, the experimenter acts as a representative of science, a prestigious institution in Western culture.
- Because of this, Fromm suggested that the high degree of obedience in the MIlgram experiment (65%) was less surprising than the 35% disobedience.
- In contrast to experiments that take place in scientific laboratories, real life obedience to authority (particularly destructive obedience) is a lot more difficult and time consuming to achieve
- Genocides such as the one witnessed in Rwanda in 1994 required years of manipulation of the masses and a systematic dehumanisation of the targeted groups
- As a result, we must be cautious about drawing broad generalisations from Milgram’s study, believing that the majority of people would commit crimes of obedience in real life
45
what happened to obediecne rates when teacher and learner were in the same room (milgram)
dropped from 65% to 40%
46
what happened to obedience rates when teacher had to force learners hand on a plate?
dropped to 30%
47
what happened to obedience rates when the experimenter left the room and teacher and learner were on the phone?
dropped to 20.5% and they pretended to give shocks
48
why did obedience levels drop at different proximities?
decreased proximity allows people to psychologically distance themselves from the consequences of their actions
49
what happend when the location of Milgram's experiment changed from Yale to a run-down place?
fell to 47.5%
50
why did obedience levels change based on location?
the university gives Milgram's study legitimacy and authority
51
how did obedience change when the "experimenter" wore ordinary clothes
dropped to 20% - lowest difference
52
why did the change in uniform affect obedience?
uniform encourages obedience and is seen as authority inducing
53
strength of situational factors - research support
- Bickman's study had 3 confederates in different uniforms - guard, milkman, and civilian
- asked participants to kick up litter, pay for a confederates car parking and stand on the other side of the bus stop
- in all 3 scenarios, the guard had the most authority
- this shows that uniform does have an effect on obedience
54
strength of situational factors- cross-cultural replications
- Wilm Meeus and Quintin Raaijmakers (1986) used a more realistic version of MIlgrams study on dutch participants
- particpants were ordered to say stressful things to someone who was desperate for a job
- 90% of participants obeyed
- when the person giving the orders left, obedience dropped
-this suggests that milgram's findings about obedience are not limited to american's or men but are valid across all cultures
55
weaknesses of situational factors - Orne and Holland
- Orne and Holland believed that the participants continued to administer the shock, not due to obedience, but because they saw through the experiment
56
counterpoint of cross-cultural replications
- Smith and Bond (1998) identified 2 replications between 1968 and 1985 that took place in Jordan and India - countries that re different to the US
- whereas other countries that are involved with countries like Spain etc are quite culturally similar to the US
- Therefore, it may not be appropriate to conclude that Milgram's findings to all countries and cultures
57
weakness of situational factors - low internal validity
- One limitation is that participants may have been aware that the procedure was fake
- Orne and Holland note that the participants may have known that the shock was fake, especially when it came to when there was a uniform difference
- Therefore, in all of Milgram's studies is it unclear whether the findings were genuine or if they were a result of demand characteristics
58
what is an authoritarian personality?
a type of personality that adorno argued was especially susceptible to obeying authority figures
59
according to Adorno, what are the features of an AP and how does it link to obedience
- show extreme respect and submissiveness to an authortiy figure
- traditional views
-no "grey" areas
- blindly follow orders from an authority figure
60
what are the origins of the authoritarian personality?
- forms in childhood as a result of harsh parenting
- parents have conditional loving
-these conditions create resentment and hostility
- these feeling are placed onto others - scapegoating
- psychodynamic approach
61
procedure of Adorno et al (1950)
- studied more than 2000 white, middle class, Americans and their unconcious attitudes to one ethnic minority group
- developed the F - Scale (fascist)
62
what were the findings of Adorno et al (1950)
- those who score higher on the F scale with authoritarian leanings often identified with the "strong" and looked down on the "weak"
- found that those with an authoritarian personality had a certain cognitive style
- strong correlation between authoritarianism and prejudice
63
what were the findings of Adorno et al (1950)
- those who score higher on the F scale with authoritarian leanings often identified with the "strong" and looked down on the "weak"
- found that those with an authoritarian personality had a certain cognitive style
- strong correlation between authoritarianism and prejudice
64
strength of authoritarian personality - research support
- Elms and Milgram (1966) interviewed those who were in the original study who fully obeyed
- the 20 participants scored significantly higher on the F scale than those who did not fully obey
- this finding supports Adorno et al's view that there is a link between obedience and authoritarian personality
65
counterpoint for research support
- when researchers analysed the individual subscales of the F scale they found that the obedient participants had a number of traits that were unsual for authortiarian personalities
- for example, they did not have certain issues with their parents. specifically their parents
- this means that the link between obedience and authoritarianism is complex
- the obedient participants were unlike authoritarians but still obeyed a lot more to an authority figure
66
limitation of authoritarianism - limited explanation
- can not explain obedient behaviour in the case of a whole country obeying
-in examples like Nazi Germany, it is impossible for everyone in the country to have an authoritarian personality
- there is also the possibility that they identify with the beliefs - social identity theroy and therefoer scapegoat those who are jewish
- therefore adorno's
67
limitation of authoritarianism - political bias
- only measures the tendency for right wing extremism
- Christie and Jahoda (1954) said that the F scale is politically biased interpretation of the F scale
- they point out forms of left wing authoritarianism
- similarities between right wing and left wing authoritarianism
- this means that adorno's theory is not a comprehensive explanation that accounts for obedience and authority in all areas
68
what is an agentic state?
an explanation of obedience offered by Milgram and is where an individual carries out the orders of an authority figure, acting as their agent.
69
what is an agentic shift?
. The shift from autonomy to 'agency' is referred to as the 'agentic shift'.
70
what is an autonomous state?
A mindset where we behave independently, make our own decisions about how to behave and take responsibility for the consequences of our action
71
how does self image impact agentic state?
- Need to maintain a positive self image
-The participant assesses the consequences of shocking the learner, and resists for the sake of their self image
B -ut, once in the agentic state, the action is no longer their responsibility so no longer reflects their self image
- Actions in this state are, from the participant’s perspective, virtually guilt-free, however inhumane they may be
72
how do binding factors impact agentic state?
- Milgram raised a question - ‘why does the individual stay in the agentic state?’
- Observed that many wanted to quit but seemed unable to do so
- Binding Factors - aspects of the situation allow the person to ignore or minimise the damaging effects of their behaviour & reduce the ‘moral strain’
- Number of strategies the individual might use: shifting the responsibility to the victim (‘he was foolish to volunteer’) or denying the damage they were doing
73
what is legitimacy of authority?
- The first condition needed for agentic state is legitimacy of authority, and a consequence is some people are granted authority to punish others
- E.g. accept the police and courts have power to punish, so we are willing to give up some of our independence & hand control to people we trust
- We learn acceptance of authority from childhood e.g. parents, teachers
74
what is legitimacy of authority - definition of the situation:
- Tendency for people to accept the definition of a situation provided by a legitimate authority figure
-Although the participant does the action, they allow the authority figure to define its meaning
- On the one hand, the teacher shouldn’t shock the learner
-On the other hand an authority figure orders the learner to continue and the subject feels some commitment to the cause
74
what is legitimacy of authority - definition of the situation?
- Tendency for people to accept the definition of a situation provided by a legitimate authority figure
-Although the participant does the action, they allow the authority figure to define its meaning
- On the one hand, the teacher shouldn’t shock the learner
-On the other hand an authority figure orders the learner to continue and the subject feels some commitment to the cause
75
what is legitimacy of authority - destructive authority?
- This makes sense, but problems arise when legitimate authorities become destructive
- Historically shown e.g. Hitler, Stalin; charismatic and powerful leaders ordering people to do cruel and dangerous action
- Very clearly shown in Milgram’s study
- If destructive, for them to be perceived as legitimate they must occur within an institutional structure
- Clear from Milgram’s study - doesn’t have to be reputable or distinguished
- Variation - moved from Yale to a run-down building, which still obtained high levels of obedience
- Possible that the category of institution, rather than relative status, causes obedience
76
limitation of agentic state - research findings
- Doesn’t explain many of the research findings e.g. why some people didn’t obey
- E.g. Hofling et al’s nurses study - agentic shift predicts that, as nurses handed responsibility to the doctor, they should have shown anxiety levels similar to Milgram’s participant as they understood their role in the destructive process. But this was not the case
- This suggests that, at best, agentic shift can only account for some situations of obedience
77
strength of legitimacy of authority - support from Blass & Schmitt (2001)
- Blass & Schmitt (2001) showed a recording of the Milgram experiment to students and asked them to identify who was responsible for harming the learner
-Students indicated the ‘experimenter’ was to blame rather than the participant
-Also indicated responsibility was due to legitimate authority (was on the top of the hierarchy) and was an expert authority (a scientist)
-They recognised legitimate authority as the cause of obedience, which supports this explanation
78
strength of legitimacy of authority - cultural differences
- Legitimacy of authority is supported by cultural differences.
- In countries where obedience and deference to authority is less valued (such as Australia), obedience rates are much lower than in countries that value legitimate authority figures (such as Germany), - suggesting legitimacy of authority does play a part in obedience.
79
strength of agentic state - research support
- Milgram's own studies support the agentic state
- most of milgram's participants resisted the shock at some point
- once they learned that the experimenter was "responsible" they proceeded with no further objections
80
limitation of legitimacy of authority - doesn't explain disobedience
- doesn't explain disobedience when there is clear authority figure
- even though they were the minority, there were some people in milgram's experiment that disobeyed
- this suggests that people may obey for innate reasons rather than whether there is legitimacy of authority
81
what is social support?
the perception that an individual has assistance available to them from other people and that they are part of a support network
- in Ash's study they introduced an ally who also gave the right answer (appeared to resist majority) caused conformity to drop significantly
- 33% with unanimous majority to 5.5%
- by breaking the unanimity, they raise the possibility that there are other, equally legitimate, answers; makes the feel more confident in their decisions to stand up to the majority
82
how does social support affect obedience?
- pressure to obey can be reduced if there is another person disobeying
- disobedient peers act as a role model on which the individual can model their own behaviour
- variation of milgram’s study:
- participants was on a team of three testing the learner
other two were confederates who, one after another refused to continue and withdrew
- defiance had a liberating effect: only 10% went to 450 V from 65%
83
what is locus of control?
- Julain Rotter (1966) = internal/ external locus of control
- internal = things that yahoo ti then are largely controlled by themselves e.g if you did well in an exam, its because you worked hard for it
- external= tendency to believe that things happen without their own control e.g if they did well in an exam its because they sued an excellent textbook
84
what is locus of control?
- Julain Rotter (1966) = internal/ external locus of control
- internal = things that yahoo ti then are largely controlled by themselves e.g if you did well in an exam, its because you worked hard for it
- external= tendency to believe that things happen without their own control e.g if they did well in an exam its because they sued an excellent textbook
85
what is continuum?
- people differ in their explanations of success, but not as black and white as internal/ external
- continuum with high internal locus of control on one side and high external locus of control on the other
86
what are the 3 things that cause resistance to social influence - LOC?
- high internals are active seekers of useful information, so they are less likely to rely on the opinions of others, making them less vulnerable to social influence
- high internals tend to be more achievement- oriented , so more likely to become leaders. E/g Specor (1982) relationship between LOC and leadership styles - internals more persuasive and goal orientated than externals
- high internals are better able to resist coercion from others e.g simulated pow camp internals better able to resist the interrogator attempts to gain information. the more intense the pressure the greater the difference between internal and external performance (Hutchins and Estey, 1978)
87
strength of resistance to conformity - research support
- supports the role of dissenting peers in resisting conformity
- allen and levine (1971) found that conformity decreased when
there was one dissenter in an Ash-style task
- even occured when the dissenter wore thick glasses and said he had issues with his vision
- 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
88
counter point to strength of resistance to conformity
- Twenge et al (2004) analysed American LOC data over 40 years (from 1960-2002) data showed that, over this time span, people have become more resistant to obedience but also more external
- if resistance were linked to an internal LOC, we would expect people to have become more internal
-this challenges the link between internal LOC and increasing resistant behaviour
89
counter point to strength of resistance to conformity
- Twenge et al (2004) analysed American LOC data over 40 years (from 1960-2002) data showed that, over this time span, people have become more resistant to obedience but also more external
- if resistance were linked to an internal LOC, we would expect people to have become more internal
-this challenges the link between internal LOC and increasing resistant behaviour
90
strength of resistance to obedience - research support
- another strength is that there is research evidence that support the role of dissenting peers in resisting obedience
- Gamson et al (1982) found higher levels of resistance in their study than milgram
- this was probably because the participants in Gamson’s study were in groups (they had to produce evidence that would be used to help an oil company run a smear campaign)
- In Gamson’s study, 29 out of 33 groups of participants (88%) rebelled
- This shows that peer support is linked to greater resistance
91
limitiation of LOC
- the role of the LOC has been exaggerated
- Rotter (1982) points out that LOC only comes into play in novel situations
-It has very little influence over our behaviour in familiar situations where our previous experiences will always be more important
- this point is overlooked in discussions of LOC and resistance it means that people who have conformed or obeyed in specific situations in the past are likely to do so again, even if they have a high internal LOC
92
what is minority influence?
a form of social influence in which a minority of people change the beliefs, attitudes and behaviours of a majority as a result of their exposure to a persuasive minority. leads if internalisation or conversion in which private attitudes are changed as well as public
93
how is minority influence difference to conformity?
- in both cases, the people being influenced might be an individual, small group or larger group
- minority influence more likely to lead to internalisation
94
what is the augmentation principle?
the tendency to attach greater importance to a potential cause of behavior if the behavior occurs despite the presence of other
95
what was the procedure of Moscovici?
- 2 different groups - each group consists of 4 naive participants and a minority of 2 confederated
- shown a series of blue slides that only vary in intensity and were asked to judge the colours
- “consistent” experimental condition: 2 confederates repeatedly called the blue slides “green”
- “inconsistent” condition: confederates called the slides green ⅔ of the slides
- “control” condition: 6 naive participants, all called the slides “blue”
96
what were the findings of Moscovici?
- consistent minority influence majority 88% of the trials
- inconsistent had little influence, did not significantly differ to the control
-after main study: individually aske to sort the 16 colour disks into blue or green
-3 disks were ambiguous in colour from blue end, 3 from the green end
- remaining 10 ambiguous in the that might be considered blue or green
- participants had to establish a threshold point where everything on one side was blue, and the other green
- “consistent” condition judged more to be green than “inconsistent”
- effect even greater for those who went along with minority in original study, suggesting initial influence was more private than public
97
strength of minority influence - support for depth of thought
- Research supports that change to a minority position does involve deeper processing of ideas
- Martin et al (2013)
-Gave participants a message supporting a viewpoint
measured their support
-one group heard a minority group agree with the initial view, which another group heard this from a majority group
-found that people were less willing to change their views if they had listened to the minority group
- this suggests that the minority messages had been more deeply processed and has a more enduring effect, supporting the central argument about how minority influence process works
98
weakness of minority influence - artifical scenarios
- research into minority influence involves tasks (such as identifying the colour of a slide) that are as artificial as Asch’s line study
- far removed from how minorities attempt to change behaviour of majority in rela life
- in cases such as jury votes and political campaign, the outcomes are vastly more important, even life or death
- this suggests that findings from minority studies e.g Moscovici are lacking external validity and are limited in what they can tell us about how minority influence occurs in real life
99
weakness of minority influence - gender bias
- Moscovici (1969) used only female students as participants
(i.e., an unrepresentative sample), so it would be wrong to generalise his result to all people – they only tell us about the behaviour 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.
100
weakness of minority influence - do we process the minority?
- Mackie (1987) argues that the view of the minority do not necessarily lead to greater processing, but rather it is the majority who are more likely to creator greater message processing
- we tend to believe that the majority group members share similar beliefs to ours
- if the majority express a different one, from the one we hold, we consider it carefully to understand why this is the case
- in contrast, people tend to not waste time trying to process why a minority’s message is different therefore it tend to be less rather than more influential
101
what are social norms interventions ?
attempt to correct misperceptions of the normative behaviour of peers in an attempt to change the risk behaviour of a target population
102
what are the stages of social change through minority influence ?
1. draw attention through social proof
2. consistency
3. deeper processing
4. augmentation processing
5. the snowball effect
6. social cryptomnesia (people have a memory that changes has occurred but don’t remember how it happened)
103
social change through majority influence
- behavioural choices are often related to a group norms i.e subject to normative conformity
- Perkins and Berkowitz (1968) - if people perceive something to be the norms, they tend to alter their behaviour to fit that norm
E.g if university students think that heavy drinking is the norm, they’ll drink more
-Therefore, behaviour is based more on what people think others believe and so than on their real beliefs and actions
- The gap between perceived and actual norms is referred to as “perception” and correction this is the basis of social norm intervention
104
social norm intervention
- typically start by identifying a widespread misperception
e.g young adults generally misperceive the frequency and quantity of alcohol consumption by their peers, and as a result develop norms that justify their own heavy drinking behaviour
- perception correction strategies can be used in media campaigns, promotional material and other routes
- the aim is to communicate to the target population the actual norm concerning particular behaviour
-by advertising these actual norms, researches hope that recipients will moderate their own behaviour to bring it more in line with the behaviours of their peers
105
limitation of social change - gradual process
- the role played by minority influence may be limited since minorities such as the suffragettes rarely bring about social change quickly
- because there is a strong tendency for human beings to conform to the majority position, people are more likely to maintain the status quo rather than engage in social change
- this suggests, therefore that the influence of a minority is frequently more latent than direct (it created potential for change rather than actually causing change)
106
limitation of social change - perceptions of deviation
- the potential for minorities to influence social change is often limited because they are seen as “deviant” in the eyes of the majority
- members of the majority mat avoid aligning themselves with the minority position because they do not want to be seen as deviant themselves
- This means that the message of the minority would not have much impact because the focus of the majority’s attention would be the source of the message rather than the message itself
- In trying to bring out social change, therefore, minorities face the doubt challenge of avoiding being portrayed as deviants and also making people directly embracing their position
107
strength of social change - research support
- One strength is that research has shown that social influences processes based on psychological research do work
- Nolan et al (2008) aimed to see if they could change people’s energy use habits
- the researchers hung messages outside people’s houses in san diego, california, every week for a month
- the key message was that most residents were trying to reduce their energy usage
- as a control, some messages were slightly different - some did not mention other’s behaviour
- there was a significant decrease in energy usage in the first group than the second
- This shows that conformity (majority influence) can lead to social change through the operation of normative conformity
108
counter point for a strength of social change - research methods
- some studies show that behaviour does not always change when exposed to the norm
-Foxcroft et al (2015) reviewed social norm intervention as part of the “gold standard” Cochrane Collaboration
-This review included 70 studies where the social norm approach was used to reduce students alcohol intake
- The researchers only found a small reduction in drinking quantity and no effect of drinking frequency
-Therefore, it seems that using normative influence does not always produce long term change
109
limitation of social change - doesn't always work
- while social norms interventions have shown positive results in a number of different settings, they also have their limitations
- DeJong et al (2009) tested the effectiveness of social norms marketing campaigns to drive down alcohol use among students across 14 different college sites
- despite receiving normative information that corrected their misconceptions of subjective drinking norms, students in the social norms conditions did not report lower self respite alcohol consumption a result of the campaign
- it appears that not all social norms intervention can produce social change
110
limitation of social change - doesn't always work
- while social norms interventions have shown positive results in a number of different settings, they also have their limitations
- DeJong et al (2009) tested the effectiveness of social norms marketing campaigns to drive down alcohol use among students across 14 different college sites
- despite receiving normative information that corrected their misconceptions of subjective drinking norms, students in the social norms conditions did not report lower self respite alcohol consumption a result of the campaign
- it appears that not all social norms intervention can produce social change
