1. Social Influence
In an hour

2. Types of Conformity Internalisation Compliance
Going along with others to gain their approval and avoid disapproval. You go along with a majority, but do not change your private attitude.
Internalisation
Going along with others because you have accepted their point of view as your own. You examine others beliefs and think that the group are right. This causes a change in private attitude.

3. Asch (1956)
Student volunteers were asked to take part in a vision experiment.
Unknown to the volunteers all of the other participants were confederates of the experimenter.
Students were asked to sit in a room and look at three line lengths and say which was the same length as a standard line.
123 male undergraduates from America
Always answered in the same order with the real participant being second to last or last
Confederates gave the incorrect answer 12 out of 18 trials
On the 12 trials the real participant also gave an incorrect answer 36.8% of the time (i.e. they conformed)
¼ of the participants never conformed

4. Why did people conform in the Asch study?
A small number of participants had distorted perception and saw the lines in the same way as the majority
The participants began to question their own judgement
The participants conformed in public but trusted their own private judgement

5. Variations of Asch Task difficulty Size of majority Unanimity
When the difference between line sizes was smaller the task became more difficult and more people conformed.
However, Lucas et al. (2006) found that when participants were more confident in their ability they remained more independent.
Size of majority
Little conformity occurred with 1-2 confederates.
However, when the majority was 3 confederates conformity jumped to over 30%.
Unanimity
When one real participant or confederate gave the correct answer conformity reduced.
When a confederate gave a different wrong answer to the majority conformity also reduced down to 9%.

6. Evaluating Conformity Research
 The task was insignificant. No one really cares about line lengths and they will probably conform to save face.
Williams and Sogon (1984) found conformity was higher around people you know and belonged to the same sports club.
A real-world application of conformity is jury decisions. It was found that in over 95% of cases the first jury vote determined the overall decision.
Asch used deception as the participants were not aware of the real purpose of the experiment. Without deception though the experiment wouldn’t be possible.
All of the participants were American and men (gender and culturally biased).
The experiment was conducted in the 1950s during a time known as McCarthyism (strong anti-communism when people were scared to be different). When the study was repeated by Perrin and Spencer (1980) in England conformity occurred in 1/396 trials with Engineering and Science students.
 Asch was pleased to show that his results actually showed 2/3 of individuals were independent , rather than conformist.

7. Normative Social Influence
Why do people conform?
Evaluation
Normative Social Influence
Going along with the majority as you want to fit in and be liked (you don’t really accept their view). This is otherwise known as compliance. This is due to the human need to be accepted and fear of rejection.
Garandeau and Cillessen (2006) have shown how groups which have low quality interpersonal friendships are easily manipulated by a bully to victimise another child, thus creating a common goal and pressure to comply.
Schultz et al (2008) gathered data from 132 hotels and 794 rooms. Some rooms were given a door hanger telling them the benefits of reusing towels. One group were informed 75% of guests reuse their towel every day. Those guests with the NSI message reduced towel usage by 25%!

8. Informational Social Influence
Why do people conform?
Evaluation
Informational Social Influence
Going along with the others because they believe the majority to be right. We don’t just comply publicly, but change our view privately too. This is otherwise known as internalisation.
Wittenbrink and Henly (1996) found that when individuals were given negative comparison information about African Americans (which they were told was the view of the majority) they later reported more negative views about a black target individual.
Fein et al (2007) showed that judgements about US presidential candidate performance during debates could be influenced by viewing others’ reactions.
ISI can be used to explain some strange behaviours. Jones et al (2000) studied a case of mass psychogenic illness in a Tennessee school in A teacher noticed a petrol-like smell in her classroom, she then complained of headache, nausea and dizziness. The school was evacuated. 80 students and 19 staff were treated at the local hospital. An exhaustive investigation was conducted for this ‘illness’ but no cause was ever found. This would be a case of inappropriate informational influence.

9. Obedience

10. Obedience
Milgram (1963)
Aim: To investigate why people may obey a destructive or inhumane act.
Findings: 65% of the participants continued to 450 volts, even though this was labelled ‘Danger: Severe Shock’. All participants went to 300 volts and only 5 stopped at this point.
Conclusion: Ordinary people are astonishingly obedient when asked to behave inhumanely. So maybe it is not evil people who carry out atrocities, but ordinary people obeying orders.
The learner, in another room, gave mainly incorrect answers and received fake shocks until they reached 300 volts. At this point he pounded on the wall and then gave no response to the next question.
At 315 volts this was repeated and then gave no response. If the teacher asked to stop the experimenter encouraged him to continue.
Paid $4.50 (even if they quit).
40 male participants took part at Yale University.
One real participant and two confederates (learner and experimenter). Fake lots were drawn and the participant was the ‘teacher’. He was told to administer increasing electric shocks every time an incorrect answer was given on a learning task.

11. Variations of Milgram

12. Evaluating Obedience Research
Ethical issues
Deception
Lack of informed consent
Right to withdraw?
Protection from psychological harm
Cross cultural replications

13. Evaluating Obedience Research
How valid is Milgram’s research?
Orne and Holland (1968) suggest the research isn’t realistic as the experimenter didn’t react when the learner cried out in pain. Therefore the participant doesn’t think the suffering is happening and administers the shocks.
Hofling et al (1966) tested obedience in a real life setting. 22 nurses were called on the phone by a Dr Smith and asked to administer a drug at twice the normal level. This was against hospital regulations. 21 out of 22 nurses did as requested.

14. Why do people obey? Evaluation Gradual commitment Agentic shift
Buffers
Justifying obedience
Evaluation
Critics have suggested that using Milgram’s research to explain the Nazi’s atrocious acts is misleading.
Using obedience as the soul reason for the persecution of Jews ignores other factors (such as anti-Semitism – hostility and prejudice to Jews). There were countless acts of violence and cruelty voluntary carried out by ordinary Germans.
Milgram’s participants took part for just half an hour. The persecution of the Jews took place for years.
Saying that the Nazi’s carried out these acts as they were ‘just carrying out orders’ does not help those affected by the holocaust.
People had an excuse, i.e. they were following orders for the future of science. Therefore they are more likely to continue. During the Holocaust the Nazis carried out atrocities based on the propaganda of ‘dangerous Jews’.
This is a term used to describe when a person feels that they are carrying out actions on behalf of someone else. Milgram felt that the participant flicks between this state and the autonomous state when they act on their own accord.
As low shocks are given at first it becomes hard to resist the experimenter. The shocks never increase by more than 15 volts, so having done the previous shock it is hard to resist the next.
The teacher and the learner are in different rooms. The teacher does not see the victim and the effects of the shocks so the obedience level is higher than when the teacher is in the same room.

15. Resisting Social Influence
Resisting pressures to conform
Resisting pressures to obey
Allies
Moral considerations
Nonconformist personality
Insights from Milgram
Moral considerations
Social heroism
6. Social heroism
Zimbardo argues that those who resist authority in a negative situation are actually heroes.
They think about the good of society before themselves.
Social heroes put themselves at risk, could have lowered social status, a loss of credibility and even torture or death.
Examples of social heroes include Nelson Mandela, who went to prison for 36 years when he resisted apartheid in South Africa.
AO2: Advice to help people resist the pressure to obey:
Ask yourself whether you would carry out the act if you were not ordered to do it.
Beware of the ‘foot-in-the-door’.
Find an ally.
5. Moral considerations
Kohlberg was a colleague of Milgram’s. He presented Milgram’s participants with moral dilemmas. These were not about what you would not in the situation, but why you would behave in that way.
Those that based their decisions on morals (what is considered to be ‘right’) were more defiant in the Milgram study.
Those with low morals obeyed the experimenter entirely.
AO2: Gender Differences in Conformity
Griskevicius et al (2006) found that males are less likely to conform that females when looking for a partner.
Evolutionary psychology explains why…men need to stand out to attract a mate!
2. Moral Considerations
Most research in the area of conformity is about judging line lengths...it is so unrealistic to real life.
Research by Asch showed that people conform to a majority in order to be liked by the group (normative social influence). In the Asch task participants were not affected morally by their conformity.
Real life is different, if a situation is moral, the costs to your integrity are higher. Hornsey et al (2003) found little movement towards a majority on morally significant events (e.g. cheating).
1. Allies
Asch showed that having one dissenter reduced conformity. Having social support makes you feel more confident about rejecting a majority.
 Allen and Levine (1971) supported this with their Asch-type task. Three conditions: (1. Poor vision –thick glasses = invalid social support. 2. Normal vision = valid social support. 3. Lone participant). Found that conditions 1 and 2 reduced conformity compared to lone participant, but valid social support had more of an impact, an ally is more helpful when offering valid support.
3. Nonconformist personality
Personality effects conformity.
Some people are unconcerned by social norms or may not even know what a social norm is.
Some individuals are predisposed to actively oppose majority influence, the have an anti-conformity orientation in their personality.
4. Insights from Milgram’s study
Milgram was interested in why people did not obey the experimenter and did not go to the full 450v.
By carrying out variations of his study in a rundown office building instead of the prestigious Yale University Milgram found more people could resist authority.
This showed Milgram that status was important; the higher the status, the higher the obedience.
In other variations Milgram found that seeing the victim or having an ally increased resistance to the experimenter.

16. Individual Differences in Independent Behaviour
Locus of Control
Evaluation
Linz and Semykina (2005) carried out a Russian study of 2600 employees; they found men were more likely to have an internal locus of control, and women external. High internals were also likely to earn more money.
Twenge et al. (2004) carried out two meta-analyses of 97 studies from They found young Americans (aged 9-14) are becoming more external, believing their behaviour is controlled by outside forces (fate or luck) and not in their own control. The outcome of this is negative (poor school achievement, decreased self-control and depression). The positives of this are that people are becoming more tolerant of others, regardless of background.
This refers to how much control people believe they have over their own lives.
It is measured on a dimension, from high internal to high external.
In terms of independent behaviour:
High internals are less likely to rely on the opinions of others
High internals are more achievement orientated and are more likely to be leaders
High internals are better able to resist the coercion from others
Internal Locus of Control External
A person believes that their behaviour is caused primarily by fate, luck or by other external circumstances
A person believes that their behaviour is caused primarily by their own personal decisions and efforts

17. What is ‘Social Change’?
Definition: When a whole society adopts a new belief or way of behaving which then becomes widely accepted as the ‘norm’.
This is through a process of minority influence.
When an outspoken minority advocate a new way of doing things, a persuasive argument can be formed allowing the majority to think about their views and change to match the minority.

18. Conditions necessary for Social Change
The majority will often stop and take notice of a minority if the minority risk their lives in some way. This is known as the ‘augmentation principle’. The minority are willing to suffer for their point of view and this will influence social change. An example of this is the Polish trade union ‘Solidarity’ who grew to a movement of nearly 10 million members who helped overthrow communism across Europe.
Minorities have to be consistent over time in order to be influential. They also have to be consistent with each other.
We don’t always dismiss a minority behaviour as ‘odd’, and this creates a conflict so we have to think about the issue more closely. E.g. We may receive a leaflet about animal testing and cosmetics, we think deeply about it, creating a conflict about whether we continue to buy the products. Overtime more and more people may buy cruelty-free products and the behaviour spreads changing the majority opinion.
When a minority draws attention to an issue that is different to the majority it creates a conflict people are motivated to reduce. A civil rights group (Fathers4Justice) have taken part in high profile stunts in costume to bring fathers rights to a wide audience.

19. Evaluation of Social Change
Kruglanski (2003) argues that terrorism is a form of social change:
Consistency and persistence – in Palestine the persistent bombing are designed to show a commitment to overthrowing the Israeli government.
Augmentation – people are willing to put their lives at risk for what they believe in.
Suffragettes – the persistence of this group of women lead to social change:
They drew attention to the issue (education and politics)
Conflict – the majority were drawn into a personal conflict over existing views
Consistency – their fight took 15 years to win the right to vote
Augmentation – Emily Davison threw herself in front of the King’s horse for what she believed in
Minorities do not always bring about social change, they are sometimes still seen as deviant in the majority’s eyes.