Social Influence

Dr. Fenja Ziegler

Foundations in Psychology

Social Influence

• Behaviour/ attitudes influenced by presence of others?– When? Why? How?

Conformity Obedience

Implied

Explicit

Norm DevelopmentSherif, 1935

• 100 judgements in private: how far in inches?

• Autokinetic effect (appears to oscillate)

• Judgements with 2/ 3 others present

• Converge away from individual to common standard= Social Norm

• Pps deny being influenced by others

Norm DevelopmentSherif, 1935

• 100 judgements in private: how far in inches?

• Autokinetic effect (appears to oscillate)

• Judgements with 2/ 3 others present

• Converge away from individual to common standard= Social Norm

• Pps deny being influenced by others

1 2 3 4

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

PP 1 PP 2 PP 3

Judgement Number

Mov

emen

t in

Inc

hes

Uncertainty and Social Norms

• Uncertainty and little information in tasks– Use a heuristic– Look for new source

of information in difficult task → other people

– Majority rule (democracy!)

• Applies to attitudes or judgements in social context (real/ imaginary)– Influenced by those around us

• Sherif: how group attitudes are formed

Control Critical0

20

40

60

80

100

0.7

37

No Uncertainty – Group Norm?

Asch, 1951

Informational and NormativeDeutsch & Gerard, 1955

• Informational:– Converge to group

norm to gain information

– Useful heuristic• Conversion

public & private

• Normative:– Gain acceptance and

praise– Avoid punishment

and exclusion• Compliance

public• Explicit aim for group to be accurate (increase group

pressure)• & ½ trials: lines disappear before judgement

(increase uncertainty)– Increase in conformity

Compliance and Conversion

Critcal Control0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40 Lone 1 Support

Moderators of Normative Social Influence

1. Group cohesiveness– More cohesive,

more conformity2. Group size– 2 is not a group,

from 3, no change3. Social Support– Correct or incorrect

breaking of social consensus

– Not if incompetent (e.g. thick glasses)

Moderators of Informational Influence

1. Perceived self-confidence2. Task difficulty3. Cultural norms (individualistic and

collectivist)Pendry & Carrick, 2001

Henry who is an Accountant

Henry who is a punk rocker

Accountant Punk No Prime100

102

104

106

108

110

112

114

Moderators of Informational Influence

1. Perceived self-confidence2. Task difficulty3. Cultural norms (individualistic and

collectivist)Pendry & Carrick, 2001Decreased conformity

for Punk prime, thenno prime, then Accountant

Henry who is an Accountant

Henry who is a punk rocker

Group Polarization

• Pressure to conform at group level– Can change social norm– Initial attitude becomes exaggerated

• Normative influence:– Fit in with group → move towards group norm

• Informational Influence:– Group as source of information– Encounter many arguments in favour of position

→ become more convinced

Extreme GP: Group Think

• Excessive desire to achieve consensus:– Deterioration in mental

efficiency, reality testing, moral judgement

• Symptoms:– Increased conformity,

overestimation of group competence, close-mindedness

28 Jan 1986Launch of Challenger

cohesiveness (important/ high-profile project ) & Stress

conform to group norm:Launch

overconfident

close-minded

Minority Influence on Majority?

Minority Influence on Majority?Moscovici (1980)

• Yes, if1. Minority is consistent in behaviour2. Not rigid and dogmatic3. Committed ( can lead to conversion, i.e. private

change)4. Relevance to social trends

• Do they know something we don’t know?• Majorities: – Social comparison → Compliance

• Minorities: – Private conformity– Leads to better judgements– Avoid groupthink

Just following orders?

• Why follow orders you know are wrong?

• Theory: – Germans are different. – They are obedient.

Obedience to Authority

•Starts banging on the wall

•Complains of heart condition

•No further response

Incorrect answer = shock; increase by 15volts Please continue,

The experiment requires you to continue, please go on. It is essential that you continue. You have no choice, you must continue.

Obedience to Authority

75 "Mod-erate"

150 "Strong"

225 "Very strong"

300 "In-

tense"

375 "Danger severe"

450 "xxx"0

102030405060708090

100 actual predicted

Increasing intensity of shocks

% o

f par

ticip

ants

obe

dien

t

Learner complains of pain

Pleads to be let out

Screams and refuses to answer

Explaining It all

1. Cultural norm: obey authority2. Gradual: from small shocks to lethal shocks

over long period of time3. Agency: no longer feel personally

responsible

♂ Gen Pop: 65%

♀ Gen Pop: 65%

Students: 85%

Students: 62%

Students: 85%

♂ Gen Pop: 85%

♂ Students: 40%♀ Students: 16%

♂ Students: 50%

Students: over 90% Gen Pop: 80% Gen Pop: 92%

Influences on Obedience

Initial Stu

dy

Low presti

ge se

tting

Teacher, l

earner t

ogeth

er

Teacher t

ouches le

arner

Teacher, E

xp ap

art

Non-professo

r in ch

arge

Two confederat

es rebel

0102030405060708090

100

65 48 40 30 22 20 10% S

how

ing

Obe

dien

ce

Milgram’s (1963) findings

• Unethical (study or findings?)• All capable of following orders which we know are

not the right thing to do• But, all participants were distraught whilst doing it– Educate on blind obedience– Take responsibility for own actions– Role models who refuse to obey– Question motives of authority issuing unreasonable orders

Obedience vs. Conformity• Occurs within a hierarchy

– Feeling that the person above has the right to prescribe behaviour– Links one status to another– Emphasis is on power

• Behaviour adopted differs from behaviour of authority figure• Prescription for action is explicit• Participants embrace obedience as explanation for behaviour

• Regulates the behaviour among those of equal status– Emphasis is on acceptance

• Behaviour adopted is similar to that of peers

• Requirement of going along with group implicit• Participants deny conformity as an explanation for behaviour

references

reading• AS level, Chapter 2

watching