1. Psychology AS Revision SOCIAL INFLUENCE

2. Types of conformity  Compliance: The most superficial type. Publicly going along with others when you privately disagree. Your personal views do not change. It’s temporary. E.g. racism.  Identification: Deeper type. Changing your public and private views to identify with a group you admire. Can be temporary e.g. fashion, music.  Internalisation: Deepest level, associated with majority influence. If views are internalised they are permanent and become part of the individual’s world view and cognitive systems e.g. religion, politics.

3. Compliance (Asch)  Aim: To see if people conform to the majority in an unambiguous situation.  Procedure: 123 male students took part in a test of ‘visual perception’. They were in groups of 7-9 around a large table. The experimenter showed them 2 cards: 1 standard line and 3 comparison lines. The P’s called out A, B or C to which line matched the standard line. The answer was obvious. There were 18 trials, confederates called out the wrong answer in the critical trials (12/18, 6 larger, 6 shorter).  Findings: The overall conformity was 37% - naïve P’s gave some wrong answers. 5% conformed on all of them. 25% remained independent.  Conclusion: Naïve P’s mainly conformed to avoid standing out from the crowd, whilst a few doubted their own eyes. People conform in order to not stand out. They changed their external but not internal views.

4. Compliance (Asch, AO2)  Weakness – lacks ecological validity – it’s a lab experiment, it does not reflect real life. It’s unlikely that P’s would take part in something like this in real life. Therefore, it’s not representative of real life.  Weakness – results may have been unique to one culture and one era. This research was conducted in the 1950’s. This is an issue because back then people were less tolerant. Nowadays people are more independent.  Weakness – ethically questionable. Asch deceived them into thinking it tests your vision. This would have made the P’s anxious and self-conscious about what they think. This breaks the trust between participant and researcher and therefore limits trust and progression in psychology.

5. Variations of Asch  15 confederates, 1 participant: Higher conformity – more confederates = P more likely to think the answer is correct.  1 dissenter who agreed with the P: Lower – they have someone who agrees with them, support.  Lines closer in length: Higher – less obvious, P’s could internalise information.  Give answers privately: Lower – don’t know what the group are doing.  Maths & science students instead of sociology – Lower – intelligence, demand characteristics.  P’s were young offenders, confederates = probation officers: Higher – authorative figure.

6. Internalisation (Sherif)  Aim: To demonstrate that people conform to social norms in an ambiguous situation.  Procedure: Sherif used the auto kinetic effect where a light appears to move. Participants were tested individually on how far they thought the light had moved (their guesses varied from 2cm to 8cm). They were then tested in groups of 3.  Findings: They found that P’s reached a group norm. The group converged to a common estimate – Sherif put 1 person whose estimate differed a lot to 2 whose estimate was similar – the 1 person conformed to the other 2.  Conclusion: In an ambiguous situation a person will look to others for guidance (adopt the group norm) and information. Rohrer et al (1954) found the same.

7. Internalisation (Sherif, AO2)  High control over variables – lab experiment, can extract any extraneous variables.  Lack of informed consent.  Lack of ecological validity – lab experiment – not representation of real life.  Deception – unethical.

8. Why people conform Normative social influenceInformational social influenceSocial impact theory Explanation: The influence of other people that leads us to conform in order to be liked and accepted by them. Fear of rejection. Explanation: Assuming the actions of others in order to reflect correct behaviour for a given situation. We need to be right, unsure of knowledge. Explanation: Social impact is the result of social parses. Dependant on the amount of impact. Number, strength, immediacy. Example: Boy secretly despises FIFA 15 but joins in when his friends talk about it. Example: Laughing at a joke you don’t understand. Ambiguous situation. Example: Meetings in a workplace, few will speak out if their opinion differs. Evaluation: Asch – conformed to fit in and be liked. Schultz et al (2008) – reusing towels. Evaluation: Sherif – ambiguous situation. Evaluation: Variation of Asch – young offender and officer.

9. Obedience (Milgram) Aim: To see how far people go in obeying an instruction if it involves harming another person. Procedure:  Volunteers were recruited for a lab experiment investigating “learning”.  P’s were 40 males aged 20-50, jobs ranged from unskilled to professional.  At the beginning they were introduced to another P who was a confederate. They drew straws to be either the learner or teacher. The confederate was always the learner.  Also in the room was an experimenter played by an actor.  The learner was strapped to a chair in another room with electrodes. He had to learn a list of word pairs, the teacher tested him – he had a choice of 4 words.  The teacher was told to administer a shock when the learner made a mistake. The level increased each time – 30 switches from 15V to 450V.  The learner purposely mainly gave wrong answers. When the teacher refused, the experimenter said: 1) Please continue, 2) the experiment requires you to continue, 3) it is essential that you continue, 4) you have no other choice but to continue. Findings: 65% of P’s continued to the highest level of 450V. All P’s continued to 300V, 12.5% stopped at 300V. 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 is ingrained in us all from the way we’re bought up. We’re learnt to obey our parents etc.

10. Obedience (Milgram, AO2)  Weakness – realism – doubt about internal validity. Claim that P’s in psychological studies have learned to distrust experimenters. They know that the true purpose could be disguised. Therefore the P might not have thought the ‘victim’ was being harmed.  Weakness – obedience – Eichmann (an infamous Nazi), said he was ‘doing his duty’. Milgram’s research could also offer an alibi for the obedience shown by Holocaust perpetrators.  Weakness – deception – the P’s thought it was a test of learning or memory. They thought they were harming somebody. P’s won’t participate if the trust is broken between themselves and the psychologist. This leads to a lack of breakthroughs as they can’t research.

11. Variations of Milgram  Different location (seedy office block): 48%  Teacher and learner in same room: 40% (more pressure)  Force hand on shock plate: 30%  Orders over the phone: 20%  2 peers, 2 confederates, 1 P – shared roles, refused to carry on: 10%

12. Other Studies of Obedience Hofling – Hospital NursesBickman - Uniform Procedure: Experimenter phoned 22 nurses in different hospitals – he said he was Dr. Smith and told the nurse to administer a drug to a patient. Procedure: NYC, asked passers by to lend money to a stranger for the parking metre. IV: uniformed or not. DV: obedience. Findings: 21/22 obeyed before being stopped. Findings: 92% uniform, 49% non- uniform. Conclusion: People will obey if its from an authority figure. Conclusion: People obey legitimate authority. Evaluation: High in ecological validity (field experiment). Less demand characteristics. Evaluation: High in ecological validity (field experiment). Less demand characteristics.

13. Why people obey Legitimacy of authorityResponsibility delegationAgency theoryGraduated commitment It depends on the amount of social power a person has. Most human societies are ordered in a hierarchy, some members of the group have legitimate social power. From early childhood we learn to obey authority. We trust them or they have the power to punish us. e.g. Milgram – authorative figure. e.g. Bickman/Bushman – 92% vs. 49%. Authority are prepared to take responsibility. We are more likely to obey if they have responsibility e.g. Hofling nurses. Suggests people operate in 2 ways in social situations: 1)Autonomously – aware of the consequences of their actions, choose voluntarily to behave in particular ways. 2)In an ‘agentic state’ – see themselves as an agent of others – do not have responsibility. Change from an autonomous to an agentic state = an agentic shift. ‘Foot in the door technique’. Gradually go up (15V up). If they started with a high voltage they wouldn’t have done it. Start small and go up. e.g. Milgram.

14. Independent behaviour (Locus of Control – Rotter)  Internal locus: believe you can influence events in your life.  External locus: believe that ‘fate’ or some other superstition controls your life.  Created a questionnaire – the lower the score you got, the higher your internal locus. InternalExternal e.g. Martin Luther King Jnr. e.g. Horoscope reader

15. Independent behaviour (Locus of Control, AO2) Oliner + Oliner (1988)Autgis (1998)Williams + Worchal (1981) Studied 2 groups of non-Jewish people who lived through the Holocaust in Nazi Germany. Compared 406 who helped the Jews to 126 who had not. Found the helpers had an ‘internal’ locus. Good explanation – didn’t conform and had an internal locus – correlation. Meta-analysis of conformity + locus of control studies. Higher external scores = more likely to conform and be persuaded. Average correlation = 0.37. Supports it, relationship between the two. Weak relationship, locus of control may not be the only factor. 30 university students were given conformity tasks based on Asch. Assessed using Rotter’s scale. Those who conformed the most were less assertive but had the same locus of control. Suggests it’s not a good explanation as those who are less assertive should have an internal locus of control.

16. Variations of Independent Behaviour  Milgram proximity – removal of buffers – teacher and learner in the same room, participant could see the consequences.  Milgram different location (seedy office) – less official = obedience decreased.  Milgram (touch proximity) – required to force hand on shock plate – could see the learner’s pain, felt more responsible.  Asch (dissenter) – had a participant who agreed with him.  Asch (answers privately) – P’s didn’t know what the group answer was.

17. Minority Influence (Moscovici et al)  Investigated whether or not a consistent minority could influence a majority to give an incorrect answer in a visual perception task.  Groups of 6 P’s were asked to estimate the colour of 36 slides – all slides were blue but of varying shades.  2 of the P’s were confederates – stated slides were green not blue.  Inconsistent condition – stated they were green on 24/36 trials, blue on the others.  Consistent condition – 36/36 trials.  P’s in the consistent condition conformed to the minority on 8.4% of the trials (1.3% in inconsistent).  32% of participants conformed at least once.  Shows that a consistent minority can influence members of a majority to make an incorrect judgement.  Social change = The process that occurs when a society adopts a new belief or a way of behaving which then becomes widely accepted as the norm.

18. Behavioural Styles of Influential Minorities According to Moscovici, an influential minority must possess several behavioural characteristics if they are to succeed in creating social change:  Consistency – Moscovici’s research into minority influence – consistent minority was almost 8 times more successful than the inconsistent one.  Commitment – committed minority shows majority just how much it believes in its cause. E.g. the Suffragettes committed many public acts such as protests.  Persuasiveness – ability to put across a persuasive argument that makes sense. Must believe and internalise the argument so it becomes their own. E.g. public speeches.

19. Minority Influence Why do people yield to minority influence?  The snowball effect: Van Avermaet (1996) – members of the majority slowly move towards the minority, picks up momentum so more and more majority members convert to the minority opinion. Eventually the minority grows into a “large snowball”.  Social crypto amnesia: When social change occurs in a society, the attitude or opinion becomes an integral part of the society’s culture, and the source of the minority influence that led to it is generally forgotten. Very few women who vote in the UK consciously thank the Suffragettes for the fact that they can vote. It’s seen as part of society. Forgetting of the source of social change = social crypto amnesia. Examples of minority influence  Anti-apartheid in South Africa: Many years of discrimination against black South Africans by white government, ended by Nelson Mandela. Showed consistency, persuasion and commitment by being imprisoned for 27 years.  The Suffragettes: Late 19 th century and early 20 th century Britain – campaigned for women’s rights to vote. Mostly middle class and educated, able to put forward a persuasive message. Showed commitment through their protests.