Psychology

PSYA2 – Social By Nicky Burt

Social- Social influence

1. Define conformity:

Conformity:A result of social influence where

people adopt the behaviours, attitudes and values of the majority members of a group.

2. Define, describe and recognise examples of internalisation:

Internalisation:A true change of someone’s

private views to match other’s attitudes and behaviours.

3. Define, describe and recognise examples of compliance:

Compliance:Publicly conforming to the

behaviour or views of others in a group, whilst privately maintaining one’s own views.

4. Explain the difference between compliance and internalisation:

If someone complies to other’s behaviour, then they are publically conforming to the groups views, whilst privately maintaining their own views. However, if someone internalises, then they make a true change of their private views to match the attitudes and behaviour’s of others.

5. Describe two reasons for conformity (Informational Social Influence and Normative Social Influence) and the difference

between them

Normative Social Influence: Is based on our desire to be liked. We conform so other’s will accept us. So, publically, we go along with other peoples views, so we feel we have something in common. However privately, we retain our own views. (e.g. Calling a friend to see what to wear)

Informational Social Influence: Is based on our desire to be right. We look to other’s who we think will be correct. (Can lead to internalisation.)

6. Outline and evaluate Asch’s study into reasons for conformity (1951) – MAJORITY INFLUENCE

Outline:• 50 male college students tested.• All but one were

confederates/accomplices per test. Genuine participant called out his answer last.

• 74% conformed at least once.• 26% never conformed, they

experienced doubt, but resisted pressure to conform.

• Asch concluded that people conformed due to Normative Social Influence (the desire to be liked).

• Other’s experienced internalisation where they genuinely felt the others were right.

Watch here!

Asch (1951)’s evaluation:• All male participants = androcentric. Therefore may not be

generalisable.• 1950’s, USA, everyone was very conservative. People tried to fit

in. This was called McCarthyism.• Small sample size - only 50 students tested. May not be

representative.• Was all in the USA, therefore ethnocentric. Not generalisable.• Lab study - lowered ecologically valid.• Desire to conform.• All participants were debriefed.• Lab study – easily replicable, and therefore may be reliable if

repeated to produce similar results.

7. Outline and evaluate Moscovici’s (1969) study into reasons for conformity – MINORITY INFLUENCE.

OUTLINE:• 6 Participants. 2 were accomplices.• Had 36 slides, all were varying shades

of BLUE.• 2 conditions

- inconsistent- consistent.

• Inconsistent – Two accomplices called the slides GREEN every time.

Participants called the slides green in 8.4% of the trials.

32% of the participants called a slide green at least once.

• Consistent – Two accomplices called the slides GREEN 24 times, and BLUE 12 times.

Participants called the slides GREEN in 1.3% of the trials.

EVALUATE:• Lowered ecological validity –

done as a lab study.• All female participants –

gynocentric. Can’t generalise.• Culturally bias – endocentric.

All in USA.• Lab study, demand

characteristics.• Lab study, therefore increased

reliability if tested again to produce similar results.

• Extraneous variables are more controlled in a lab study.

8: Define the term ‘obedience’

An outcome of social influence where an individual acts according to others, usually from an authority figure. It is assumed that without such an order, the person would not have acted in this way.

9. Explain the difference between obedience and conformity

Obedience is obeying an order, often given by an authoritarian figure, whereas with conformity, no one tells you to do anything, you adopt behaviours, attitudes and belief’s of those around you.

10. Outline and evaluate Milgram’s (1963) study into obedience

Outline:• 40 paid male volunteers.• Given a ‘teacher’ role. Were separated from the

learner. Learner was quizzed. Every time an answer was wrong, the ‘teacher’ had to ‘shock’ the learner.

• No shocks were actually administered.• ‘Prods’ were given prompting the teacher to continue.• Experiment continued until teacher refused or 450V

were given four times. • Participants were debriefed.• All participants went to at least 300V

Milgram (1963) evaluation:

• No protection from psychological harm – could be long term!

• Little resemblance to a real life situation, therefore lacked ecological validity.

• The teacher may have shown signs of demand characteristics, acting in a certain way to please the experimenter.

• All male, therefore androcentric.• Lack of informed consent.• 84% said they were glad they were involved, and learnt

something about themselves.• Everyone was debriefed.

11. Milgram 1963 Variations:Variation What happened Obedience going to 450V

Original experiment 65%

Venue moved to ‘seedy’ offices

Obedience fell 47.5%

Teacher had to force learner’s hand on plate to receive shock

Obedience fell further, when teachers physical force was applied

30%

Experimenter left the room, and instructed teacher via phone

Obedience fell when teacher felt they were being less closely observed

20.5%

Teacher given support by two confederates

Obedience fell when participants conformed to modelled disobedience

10%

12. Explain at least two reasons people obey supported by studies (ie Hofling and

Rank and Jacobson, 1977):Hofling et al (1966) – Obedient nurses:In this experiment. Nurses received a phone call from a doctor, telling them to

administer 20mg of a drug (which would be double the max. dosage) to a patient.

21/22 participants began to give the medication – which was actually a placebo - before another nurse stopped them.

10/22 nurses noticed that it was over the maximum dose, but didn’t want to disobey doctors.

Field experiment – ecologically validClear procedure – therefore repeatable.If repeated to produce similar results, it would also be reliable.Rank and Jacobson (1977) repeated, and got dissimilar results. Question

reliability.No informed consent, no right to withdraw.Nurses could have been psychologically harmed due to it being something that

could have harmed patients.

Rank and Jacobson (1977)

They then repeated the experiment with a more common drug (valium) and at 3 times the max dosage, but let the nurses ask other nurses what they would do. In this test, only 2/18 nurses prepared the medicine. They concluded that the nurses only prepared in Hofling’s experiment because they weren’t allowed to seek advice, and they didn’t know about the drug.

13. Be able to give at least four explanations of why people obey (e.g. Gradual commitment, Agentic shift, Buffers, legitimate

authority, authoritarian personality)

Gradual commitment:People have difficulty refusing

commands. They comply with a trivial request, but as the request gets more significant, the participants finds it harder to deny. They have a desire to seem consistent.

This theory links to Milgram (1963) as participants gradually increased the ‘electric shocks’

Agentic Shift:A participant sees themselves as

‘agents’ of others, therefore no longer feeling responsible for their actions.

This theory links to Milgram (1963) as the learners didn’t feel as guilty, as they were just obeying the experimenters orders.

It also links to Hofling et al (1966) as the nurses acted as agents for the doctors.

Contractual obligation:When the participant

makes a commitment, and they feel obliged to continue the experiment.

Links to Milgram (1963) as prompts made them feel as though they had to continue.

Buffers:Protect people from

having to confront the consequences of their actions.Links to Milgram (1963) research into obedience as the participants couldn’t see the learners, as they were in different rooms.

SocialExplanations of independent behaviour:

14. Outline and evaluate locus of control as an individual difference affecting individual behaviour

(Rotter)Locus of Control – Rotter 1966• Attributional Style• Agentic shift (shift from agentic to autonomous state)• EXTERNAL LOC is when you believe your behaviour is

predetermined by an external being, such as God, or fate.• INTERNAL LOC is when you believe your behaviour is determined

by your own thoughts and feelings.• People are more likely to obey if they have an external LOC.• The locus of control is on a continuum, therefore it is a fluid model,

and has no fixed points. • THE LOC IS ‘HOW MUCH A PERSON BELIEVES THAT THEY HAVE

CONTROL OVER THEIR OWN BEHAVIOUR.’

Evaluation of LOC

High internal – Neurotic/anxious/depressedHigh external – Chilled/easy-going

+ Reliable methodology+ Give quantitative results- Simplistic explanation of a complex subject = reductionist- Gender stereotype:They say MEN are more INTERNAL.And WOMEN are more EXTERNAL.- This is socially sensitive, stating that women can’t work

independently.

Attributional style:

• Some people blame themselves, therefore not fitting a category and not a positive attributional style.

• Situation may be most important.• More complex than LOC, accounts for

personality type.• Heaven et al (2005) looked at consciences and

rebellious students, and found negative attributional styles with rebellious students.

15. Explain at least two ways people can resist pressures to conform (role of allies, Asch; Presence of a dissenter, Asch; Prior

commitment; personality including internal locus of control)

Resisting pressure to conform:• Desire for individuation –

Snyder and Fromkin (1980) led a group of American students to believe that their most important attitudes were different from 10,000 other students. They then told the second group that their most important attitudes were the same as the 10,000 other students. After being stripped of their usual identities, they took part in a conformity study and THEY RESISTED PRESSURES TO CONFORM. Snyder argued he was trying to make them assert their individuality.

• Desire to maintain control:We like to think that we can control events in our lives, this opposes

the idea of yielding to social influence. However, BURGER (1992) demonstrated that people with a high need for personal control are more likely to resist conformity pressures than those with a lower need.

DAUBMAN (1993) researched this further, by using jigsaw puzzles. the participants took a Desirability test, and results were accumulated on a Desirability of a Control Scale. Those who scored lowly on the Desirability test welcomed hints on the puzzles, however, those who scored highly felt worse after it was offered.

This supports Burger’s contention that other people’s offers of advice or attempts at influence are seen as threats.

Prior commitment:Once publicly committed to an idea, people are

less likely to change their position than if their initial opinion was kept private.

Deutsch and Gerard (1955) did a study, where a naïve participant gave an idea, which was then followed by confederates giving different answers. When asked to reconsider, the participant declined due to his desire to seem consistent.

16. Explain at least two ways people can resist pressures to obey (eg the situation - Milgram in office block, attributional style,

locus of control, agentic shift, allies)

People can resist pressures to obey due to the situation. For example, in Milgram’s (1963) study into obedience, when the study was repeated in a shady office block – an area much less prestigious than the initial lab, the obedience rates decreased from 65% to 47.5%.

Another way that people can resist pressures to obey could be their locus of control. If someone has an internal locus of control, they very much believe that what they do is up to them, and they are less likely to obey

A third reason that people can resist obeying could be the agentic shift. If a person believes that they will not be held responsible for doing something deemed ‘bad’ in a situation, they are more likely to do it. This links to HOFLING et al (1966) with his ‘obedient nurses’ study. The nurses obeyed as they are ‘agents’ for the doctor.

17. Evaluate resistance to obedience and conformity. Consider the research evidence and alternative

explanations

• People obey due to gradual commitment, agentic shift, contractual obligation, buffers, and legitimate authority. (All can link to Milgram 1963.)

• People conform due to Normative Social Influence (the desire to be liked) and Informational Social Influence (the desire to be right.) (Can link to Asch 1951.)

SocialImplications for social

change:

18. Discuss how findings from social influence research might have implications for change in society (eg snowball effect; consistency;

foot in the door; development of ethical guidelines). .

• Snowball effect (Van Avermaet 1996)- What happens with minority influence.- A few members of the majority move towards the

minority influence.- Then the influence of the minority gathers

momentum as more people join the minority view.

• Gradual commitment - Once people comply with a seemingly trival task,

they find it more difficult to refuse to carry out more serious tasks.

19. Consider the role of minority influence in Social Change (consistency, flexible, not dogmatic, gradual commitment, role of a

dissenter and snowball effect). Moscovici can be used to support this.

• Snowball effect (Van Avermaet 1996)- What happens with minority influence.- A few members of the majority move towards the minority

influence.- Then the influence of the minority gathers momentum as more

people join the minority view.• Gradual commitment - Once people comply with a seemingly trival task, they find it more

difficult to refuse to carry out more serious tasks.

• Supported by Moscovici - The BLUE slides. 2/6 were accomplices of the experimenter.

20. Outline and evaluate two of these implications for society (using study support and opposing

explanations)

• Snowball effect (Van Avermaet 1996)- What happens with minority influence.- A few members of the majority move towards the

minority influence.- Then the influence of the minority gathers

momentum as more people join the minority view.• Gradual commitment - Once people comply with a seemingly trivial task,

they find it more difficult to refuse to carry out more serious tasks.