Social

Conformity (majority influence) and explanations of why people conform, including informational social influence

Informational social influence : People conform as they need to be right This refers to instances where people conform because they are uncertain about what to do in a particular situation, so they look to others for guidance. This explanation tends to lead to internalisation. An example of this is if someone was to go to a posh restaurant for the first time, they may be confronted with several forks and not know which one to use, so they might look to a near by person to see what fork to use first. Sherif’s research is an example of this

why people conform : informational social influence DEEP LEVEL INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL NEED TO BE RIGHT SHERIF AIMS- To investigate if pps will conform to the majority view on an ambiguous task METHOD- lab experiment He used the autokinetic effect. PPS were individually tested. then tested in groups of three. Sherif manipulated the composition of the group by putting together two people whose estimate was very similar, and one person whose estimate was very different. Each person in the group had to say aloud how far they thought the light had moved. FINDINGS Sherif found that over numerous estimates (trials) of the movement of light, the group converged to a common estimate. Conclusion The results show that when in an ambiguous situation a person will look to others (who know more / better) for guidance and conform. LAB EXPERIMENT- HIGH REPLICATBILITY  The 'group' used consisted of three people. They may not have considered themselves to be a group. LOW ECOLOGICAL VALIDITY  There was no right or wrong answer, it was an ambiguous task, and Sherif told them that he was going to move the light, so they were more likely to change their minds anyway. LOW INTERNAL VALDITY (EXTRANEOUS VARIABLE)

Conformity (majority influence) and explanations of why people conform, including normative social influence

Normative influence : People conform as they need to be liked This refers to instances where someone conforms in order to fit in and gain approval or avoid disapproval from other group members Normative influence tends to lead to compliance because the person smokes just for show but deep down they wish not to smoke. Asch’s research is an example of this

why people conform : NORMATIVE social influence SHALLOW LEVEL EXTERNAL ONLY NEED TO BE LIKED ASCH investigate the extent to which social pressure from a majority group could affect a person to conform. METHOD- a lab experiment. Using the line judgement task, Asch put a naive participant in a room with seven confederates.. Each person in the room had to state aloud which comparison line (A, B or C) was most like the target line. The answer was always obvious. The real participant sat at the end of the row and gave his or her answer last. FINDINGS On average, about one third (32%) of the participants in each trial went along and conformed to the clearly incorrect majority. Conclusion When they were interviewed after the experiment, most of them said that they did not really believe their conforming answers, but had gone along with the group for fear of being ridiculed or thought "peculiar". Lab experiment – very controlled and showed relationships.  All participants were male students who all belonged to the same age group (biased sample). The task (judging line lengths) was artificial (low in ecological validity) as it is unlikely to happen in everyday life.  Perrin and Spencer (1980) carried out an exact replication of the original Asch experiment using British engineering, mathematics and chemistry students as participants. The results were clear cut: on only one out of 396 trials did a participant conform with the incorrect majority. This shows the Asch experiment has poor reliability

Types of conformity, including internalisation

Types of conformity : internalisation DEEP LEVEL INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL NEED TO BE RIGHT

Types of conformity, including compliance

Types of conformity :compliance SHALLOW LEVEL EXTERNAL ONLY NEED TO BE LIKED

Obedience to authority, including Milgram’s work and explanations of why people obey

Obedience to authority :Milgram’s work METHOD- the participant was paired with another person and they drew lots to find out who would be the ‘learner’ and who would be the ‘teacher’. The draw was fixed so that the participant was always the teacher, and the learner was one of Milgram’s confederates The learner was taken into a room and had electrodes attached to his arms, The participant did not know that all of this was false; The participant was told to read out pairs of words that the learner had to remember. If they got one wrong or said nothing at all, then the participant had to give them an electric shock, and had to increase the voltage each time. At 180 volts the learner shouted that he could not stand the pain, at 300 volts he begged to be released, and after 315 volts there was silence. If the participant asked advice from the experimenter, he would be given encouragement to continue with a sequence of standardised ‘prods’: E.G. Prod 3: ‘It is absolutely essential that you continue’; The prods were always made in sequence. Only if Prod 1 was unsuccessful could Prod 2 be used, etc. If the participant continued to disobey after Prod 4, the experiment was terminated. The experimenter’s tone of voice was always firm, but not impolite. AIMS- Milgram (1963) was interested in researching how far people would go in obeying an instruction if it involved harming another person SAMPLE- selected participants by advertising for male participants to take part in a study of learning at Yale University (VOLUNTEER SAMPLE) FINDINGS Milgram had predicted before the study that 2% of people would shock to the highest level, but most people would quit very early on. However, it was found that all participants shocked up to 300 volts and 65% of participants shocked all the way up to 450 volts. CONCLUSION Ordinary people are likely to follow orders given by an authority figure, even to the extent of killing an innocent human being

Obedience to authority :Milgram’s work AO2 Later studies have supported Milgram’s research. Hofling et al (66) found that 21 out 22 nurses (in a real life hospital) were willing to administer a potentially lethal dose of a drug to a patient when ordered to by a doctor The method is robust (it has internal validity) and reliable (done again ;external relaibility)  Orme and Holland argue that the experiment lacks (experimental) validity because participants could not have believed that they were administering real electric shocks.  The study was carried out in a laboratory, meaning that the results lack ecological validity.  There are also gender and cross-cultural variations in obedience levels. For example Milgram’s results cannot be generalised as his studies were only based on Men; and there is evidence that gender differences in obedience levels exist – females at 12% and men at 40%. Ethics Distress - Milgram did not take adequate precautions to protect his participants from harm. However, Milgram argued that he could not possibly know how distressed P’s would become. In answer to a follow up questionnaire a year later - 84% of P’s said they were glad they had taken part and 74% felt they had learned something. Deception was necessary to make the study as internally and ecologically valid as possible. All participants were fully debriefed when the study ended. Right to withdraw- Participants were given a right to withdraw but it was made very difficult with the prods.

Obedience to authority, including explanations of why people obey

When there are Buffers so that they cannot see what they are doing People are more likely to obey if they have a buffers- Several variations of Milgram’s obedience studies have demonstrated that ‘buffers’, factors that create a physical or emotional distance between the participant and the person being harmed, increase the rate of obedience. For example, when the participant had to force the learners hand onto a shock plate only 30% obeyed, whereas 40% obeyed when they were in the same room and 65% obeyed when the learner was in another room. When there is a legitimate authority figure to tell them what to do People are more likely to obey if they have legitimate authority figure telling them what to do Participants were willing to give electric shocks to the learner participant merely because they were asked to do so by an experimenter wearing a Lab coat. Also Milgram found that obedience rates fell when the study was moved to a run down office, rather than the prestigious Yale University. Bickman (1974) Three male researchers gave orders to 153 randomly selected pedestrians in New York. The researchers were dressed in one of three ways: in a suit and tie, a milkman’s uniform, or a guard’s uniform. Bickman found that participants were most likely to obey the researcher dressed as a guard (80%) than the milk man or civilian (40%). When they can blame someone else- This is called agentic shift This theory suggests that when we obey we experience something called an agentic shift. This agentic state is where we see ourselves as the instrument, or ‘agents’ of the authority figure’s wishes. In Milgram's study P’s at various points made it clear they wanted to withdraw but were asked to continue. Some P’s asked specifically who is going to take responsibility for this experiment to which the experimenter would say that he would. It was at that point that P’s were willing to continue. Also Hofling’s study - nurses were merely following orders; they were agents of the doctors. If they have an external locus of control Someone with an external locus of control are more likely to obey. As they are not internally be externally driven. (see later)

Explanations of independent behaviour, including locus of control

High internal locus of control: A person believes they’re behaviour is caused primarily by their own personal decisions and efforts. High external locus of control: the person believes that their behaviour is caused primarily by fate, luck or by other external circumstances. Rotter (1966) distinguished between two types of people; those who attribute the cause of events in their life to their own control, (internals), and those who locate control outside themselves and so tend to feel they have less control over what happens to them. It is measured along a dimension of high internal to high external. Oliner and Oliner (1988) interviewed two groups of non-Jewish people who had lived through the Holocaust and Nazi Germany. They compared 406 people who had protected and rescued Jews from the Nazis and 126 people who had not done this. Oliner and Oliner found that the group that rescued the Jews had scores demonstrating an internal locus of control. Certain characteristics are relevant to independent behaviour. High internals are active seekers of information that is useful to them, and so are less likely to rely on the opinions of others. High internals tend to be more achievement orientated and consequently are more likely to become leaders and entrepreneurs. High internals are better able to resist coercion from others. Blass (1991) carried out a meta-analysis of a number of variations of Milgram’s study and found that participants with an internal locus of control were more likely to act independently.  Rotter’s questionnaire could limit answers and provide a misleading results as it asks people to agree with statements and forces them to agree with one of them but in fact they might not agree with any of them – or actually agree with all of them.  The questionnaire lacks ecological validity as it is asking about situations and approaches but it might not reflect what someone would actually do in real life. Therefore it lacks ecological validity

Explanations of independent behaviour, including how people resist pressures to conform

People can resist pressures to conform if they have someone else who does not conform When one other person in the group gave a different answer from the others, conformity dropped Asch (1951) found that even the presence of just one confederate that goes against the majority choice can reduce conformity as much as 80%. People can resist pressures to conform when the task is easier When the (comparison) lines (e.g. A, B, C) were made more similar in length it was harder to judge the correct answer and conformity increased, reflecting Asch’s results. When we are uncertain, it seems we look to others for confirmation. The more difficult the task the greater the conformity. People can resist pressures to conform if they give their answers in private When participants could write their answers down rather than announce them in public, conformity dropped. People can better resist pressures to conform if they are from individualist cultures Smith and Bond (98) found that culture can affect conformity rates. Their meta-analysis of Asch’s studies from a range of different countries found that the average conformity rate in collectivist countries was 37%, whereas individualist countries had the much lower rate of 25%.

Explanations of independent behaviour, including resist pressures to obey authority

people resist pressures to obey if the buffers are reduced and they can see more clearly what effect their actins are having Several variations of Milgram’s obedience studies have demonstrated that ‘buffers’, factors that create a physical or emotional distance between the participant and the person being harmed, increase the rate of obedience. For example, when the participant had to force the learners hand onto a shock plate only 30% obeyed, whereas 40% obeyed when they were in the same room and 65% obeyed when the learner was in another room. Buffers allow people to distance themselves emotionally from the consequences of their actions. David Grossman (1995) has contended that Military personnel are more resistant to killing the enemy at close quarters and prefer more distant methods, such as surgical strikes and autonomous weapons. There are many instances of soldiers refusing to kill in hand to hand combat, but never at large distances, e.g., dropping bombs (Grossman, 2000). people resist pressures to obey if there is someone else being disobedient In 1955 Rosa Parks refused to obey the orders of a bus driver when he told her to allow a white person to sit down, and in so doing became a disobedient role model for other black people to resist white control. In Milgram’s experiment, participants found it easier to refuse to obey the order to give electric shocks when they could see another participant also disobey. people resist pressures to obey if they have time for discussion with others Rank & Jacobson (1977) repeated Hofling et al’s (1966) obedient nurses experiment, but this time they increased the realism of the situation by using valium (a drug the nurses were familiar with) at three times the recommended dose. When the research pretending to be a doctor telephoned, he introduced himself as a doctor the nurses would have heard of, and the nurses were in a position of being able to discuss the order with other nurses before carrying it out. Only 2 out of 18 nurses followed the order. people resist pressures to obey if they have social support In one of Milgram’s variations of the study, the participant took part as part of a team of 3. The other two members of the team, of course, were confederates. At 150 volts one of the other team members refused to continue and the other confederate refused to continue after 210 volts. In this experiment only 10% continued to the maximum shock level.

How social influence research helps us to understand social change; the role of minority influence in social change

CONSTENCY OVER TIME (MOSCOVICI) HIGHLIGHT THE ISSUE/ CONFLICT AUGMENTATION PRINCIPLE SNOWBALL EFFECT SOCIAL CRYTPOAMNESIA

How social influence research helps us to understand social change; the role of minority influence in social change Aim: To see whether a consistent minority of participants could influence a majority to give an incorrect answer in a colour perception test Sample: 172 participants. Procedures: Six participants at a time were asked to estimate the colour of 36 slides. All the slides were blue, but of differing brightness. Two of the six PP’s were confederates of the experimenter Two conditions: Consistent: the two accomplices called the slides green on all trials Inconsistent: the two accomplices called the slides green 24 times and blue 12 times Findings: 32% in the consistent condition reported a green slide at least once PP’s in the inconsistent condition yielded and called the slides green in only 1.3% of the trials. Conclusion: Minorities can influence a majority in certain circumstances Consistency was found to be the most important factor A strength of these explanations is that the research on which they are based is high in reliability. This is because the research was carried out in a scientific laboratory environment and involved artificial tasks that could be manipulated by the experimenter’s use of confederates.  The participants in laboratory experiments are rarely 'real groups'.  They are also involved in an artificial task. As such they are very different from minority groups in the wider society who seek to change majority opinion. For example, members of women's rights, gay rights and animal rights organizations, members of pressure groups such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth are very different from participants in laboratory experiments.  Also Moscovici (1969) used female students as participants (i.e. 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 said to be more conformist than males, therefore there might be a gender difference in the way that males and females respond to minority influence.