COURSE COMPANION Social influenece J Types of conformity: internalisation, identification and compliance. J Explanations for conformity: informational social influence and normative social influence, and variables affecting conformity including group size, unanimity and task difficulty as investigated by Asch. J Conformity to social roles as investigated by Zimbardo. J Dispositional explanation for obedience: the Authoritarian Personality. J Explanations of resistance to social influence, including social support and locus of control. J Minority influence including reference to consistency, commitment and flexibility. J The role of social influence processes in social change.
AQA AS Psychology Course Companion Social Influence Types of conformity: internalisation, identification and compliance. What You Need to Know Describe the three types of conformity, including: J Compliance J Identification J Internalisation Types of conformity Conformity is type of social influence where a person changes their attitude or behaviour in response to group pressure. There are many different situations where people conform and psychologists have categorised three main types of conformity, including: compliance, identification and internalisation. Compliance is the lowest level of conformity. Here a person changes their public behaviour, the way they act, but not their private beliefs. This is usually a short-term change and is often the result of normative social influence. For example, you might say that you like dub-step music because many other people in your class like dub-step music and you wish to fit in, however privately you dislike this style of music. Identification is the middle level of conformity. Here a person changes their public behaviour and their private beliefs, but only while they are in the presence of the group. This is a usually a short-term change and normally the result of normative social influence. For example, a person may decide to become a vegetarian because all of his new flat mates are vegetarian. However, whenever he walks past a MacDonald s he can t resist a Big Mac and when he is away from his flat mates he still eats meat. Identification takes place we are surrounded by a particular group; we change our private beliefs while in the presence of the group and not permanently. Internalisation is the deepest level of conformity. Here a person changes their public behaviour and their private beliefs. This is usually a long-term change and often the result of informational social influence (ISI). For example, if an individual is influenced by a group of Buddhists and converts to this faith, then their new religious way of life will continue without the presence of the group and they have internalised this belief. Change in public behaviour Change in private Belief? Short-term/ Long-term Compliance Y N Short-term Identification Y Y* Short-term Internalisation Y Y Long-term * (Only in the presence of the majority) J NOTES Page 2 AQA AS Psychology Course Companion
Social Influence AQA AS Psychology Course Companion Explanations for conformity: informational social influence and normative social influence, and variables affecting conformity including group size, unanimity and task difficulty as investigated by Asch. What You Need to Know Outline two explanations for conformity, including: J Informational social influence J Normative social influence Outline and evaluate Asch s (1951) original research examining conformity. Outline and evaluate variations of Asch s research which examined how different variables affect conformity, including: J Group size J Unanimity J Task difficulty Explanations for conformity In addition to the three types of conformity (compliance, identification and internalisation) there are also two explanations of why people conform, including: normative social influence and information social influence. Exam Hint: It is important to ensure you understand the distinction between types of conformity (compliance, identification and internalisation) and the explanations for conformity (normative and information social influence). Normative social influence is when a person conforms to be accepted, or belong to a group. Here a person conforms because it is socially rewarding, or to avoid social punishment, for example, being ridiculed for not fitting in. Normative social influence is usually associated with compliance and identification. With compliance, people change their public behaviour but not their private beliefs; with identification people change their public behaviour and their private beliefs, but only in the presence of the group. Therefore, these types of social influence are short-term examples, usually the result of a desire to be fit in. Informational social influence is when a person conforms to gain knowledge, or because they believe that someone else is right. Informational social influence is usually associated with internalisation, where a person changes both their public behaviour and their private beliefs, on a long-term basis. This semi-permanent change in behaviour and belief is the result of a person adopting a new belief system, because they genuinely believe that their new beliefs are right. For example, if a person changes their political ideology from Conservative to Liberal, then they have internalised these new beliefs on a semi-permanent basis and believe that voting Liberal is right. Jenness (1932) & Asch (1951) Everyday examples of conformity are fairly common. For example, have you ever filled out a sponsorship form and seen that everyone has donated 10 and you feel compelled to also donate 10, despite the fact you originally wanted to donate 5. Or, have you ever been to a summer fayre and tried to guess how many sweets are in the jar? This surprising difficult task is ambiguous, as no one is ever certain. You may inspect the jar and think that it contains around 100 sweets and then you see that everyone else has written 500 or more; as a result you change your answer to reflect those that were written before you. These everyday examples of conformity have formed the basis of psychological research in this area. Males Females Average estimate before 790 925 Average estimate after 695 878 Average change 256 382 Jenness (1932) conducted one of the earliest experiments examining conformity. He used an ambiguous situation that involved AQA AS Psychology Course Companion Page 3
AQA AS Psychology Course Companion Social Influence a glass bottle filled with 811 white beans. His sample consisted of 101 psychology students, who individually estimated how many beans the glass bottle contained. Participants were then divide into groups of three and asked to provide a group estimate through discussion. Following the discussion, the participants were provided with another opportunity individually estimate the number of beans, to see if they changed their original answer. Jenness found that nearly all participants changed their original answer, when they were provided with another opportunity to estimate the number of beans in the glass bottle. On average male participants changed their answer by 256 beans and female participants changed their answers by 382 beans. These results demonstrate the power of conformity in an ambiguous situation and are likely to be the result of informational social influence. The participants in this experiment changed their answers because they believed the group estimate was more likely to be right, than their own individual estimate. Asch (1951) conducted one of the most famous laboratory experiments examining conformity. He wanted to examine the extent to which social pressure from a majority, could affect a person to conform. Asch s sample consisted of 50 male students from Swarthmore College in America, who believed they were taking part in a vision test. Asch used a line judgement task, where he placed on real naïve participants in a room with seven confederates (actors), who had agreed their answers in advance. The real participant was deceived and was led to believe that the other seven people were also real participants. The real participant always sat second to last. Target line A B C their answers were incorrect, but they went along with the group in order to fit in, or because they thought they would be ridiculed. This confirms that participants conformed due to normative social influence and the desire to fit in. Evaluation: J Asch used a biased sample of 50 male students from Swarthmore College in America. Therefore, we cannot generalise the results to other populations, for example female students, and we are unable to conclude if female students would have conformed in a similar way to male students. As a result Asch s sample lacks population validity and further research is required to determine whether males and females conform differently. In turn, each person had to say out loud which line (A, B or C) was most like the target line in length. Unlike Jenness experiment, the correct answer was always obvious. Each participant completed 18 trials and the confederates gave the same incorrect answer on 12 trials, called critical trials. Asch wanted to see if the real participant would conform to the majority view, even when the answer was clearly incorrect. Asch measured the number of times each participant conformed to the majority view. On average, the real participants conformed to the incorrect answers on 32% of the critical trials. 74% of the participants conformed on at least one critical trial and 26% of the participants never conformed. Asch also used a control group, in which one real participant completed the same experiment without any confederates. He found that less than 1% of the participants gave an incorrect answer. Asch interviewed his participants after the experiment to find out why they conformed. Most of the participants said that they knew J Furthermore, it could be argued that Asch s experiment has low levels of ecological validity. Asch s test of conformity, a line judgement task, is an artificial task, which does not reflect conformity in everyday life. Consequently, we are unable to generalise the results of Asch to other real life situations, such as why people may start smoking or drinking around friends, and therefore these results are limited in their application to everyday life. J Finally, Asch s research is ethically questionable. He broke several ethical guidelines, including: deception and protection from harm. Asch deliberately deceived his participants, saying that they were taking part in a vision test and not an experiment on conformity. Although it is seen as unethical to deceive participants, Asch s experiment required deception in order to achieve valid results. If the participants were aware of the true aim they would have displayed demand characteristics and acted differently. In addition, Asch s participants were not protected from psychological harm and many of the participants reporting Page 4 AQA AS Psychology Course Companion
Social Influence AQA AS Psychology Course Companion feeling stressed when they disagreed with the majority. However, Asch interviewed all of his participants following the experiment to overcome this issue. that the rate of conformity dropped because the real participants became suspicious of the experiment and not because the pressure to conform is less, in larger groups. Variations of Asch (1951) Following Asch s original research, numerous variations of his line judgement task were carried out. These variations include: group size, unanimity and task difficulty. Group Size: Asch carried out many variations to determine how the size of the majority, affects the rate of conformity. These variations ranged from 1 confederate to 15 confederates, and the level of conformity varied dramatically. When there was one confederate, the real participants conformed on just 3% of the critical trials. When the group size increased to two confederates, the real participants conformed on 12.8% of the critical trials. Interestingly, when there were three confederates, the real participants conformed on 32% of the critical trials, the same percentage as Asch s original experiment, in which there were seven confederates. This demonstrates that conformity reaches it s highest level with just three confederates. Asch continued investigating group size and in one condition he used 15 confederates. In this experiment the rate of conformity slightly dropped, although Asch didn t report the percentage. It is possible Unanimity: In Asch s original experiment, the confederates all gave the same incorrect answer. In one variation of Asch s experiment, one of the confederates was instructed to give the correct answer throughout. In this variation the rate of conformity dropped to 5%. This demonstrates that if the real participant has support for their belief, then they are likely more likely to resist the pressure to conform. Furthemore, in another variation, one of the confederates gave a different incorrect answer to the majority. In this variation conformity still dropped significantly, by this time to 9%. This shows that if you break the group s unanimous position, then conformity is reduced, even if the answer provided by the supporter, is still incorrect. Task Difficulty: In Asch s original experiment, the correct answer was always obvious. In one his variations he made the task more difficult, by making the difference between the line lengths significantly smaller. In this variation Asch found the rate of conformity increased, although he didn t report the percentage. This is likely to be the result of informational social influence, as individuals look to another for guidance when completing the task, similar to the results found in Jenness experiment. Variation Conformity % (Critical Trials) Group Size: 1 Confederate Lower (3%) Group Size: 2 Confederates Lower (12.8%) Group Size: 3 Confederates Remained the same (32%) Group Size: 15 Confederates Lower (?*%) Unanimity Where one of the confederates gave the correct answer throughout. Lower (5%) Unanimity Where one of the confederates gave a different incorrect answer to the Lower (9%) majority. Task Difficulty Where the task was made significantly more difficult, by making Higher (?*%) the different between the line lengths significantly smaller. * *The actual percentages were not published by Asch J NOTES AQA AS Psychology Course Companion Page 5
AQA AS Psychology Course Companion Social Influence Explanations for obedience: agentic state and legitimacy of authority, and situational variables affecting obedience including proximity, location and uniform, as investigated by Milgram. What You Need to Know J Outline and evaluate Milgram s (1963) original research examining obedience. J Outline variations of Milgram which examine different variables affecting obedience and explain how these variations support the following factors: a. Agentic state b. Legitimate authority c. Proximity d. Location e. Uniform Part 1 Milgram (1963) Milgram (1963) conducted one of the most famous and influential psychological investigations of obedience. He wanted to find out if ordinary American citizens would obey an unjust order from an authority figure and inflict pain on another person because they were instructed to. to the chair and gave predetermined answers to the test. As the electric shocks increased the learner s screams, which were recorded, became louder and more dramatic. At 180 volts the learner complained of a weak heart. At 300 volts he banged on the wall and demanded to leave and at 315 volts he became silent, to give the illusions that was unconscious, or even dead. Milgram s sample consisted of 40 male participants from a range of occupations and backgrounds. The participants were all volunteers who had responded to an advert in a local paper, which offered $4.50 to take part in an experiment on punishment and learning. The experiment continued until the teacher refused to continue, or 450 volts was reached. If the teacher tried to stop the experiment, the experimenter would respond with a series of prods, for example: The experiment requires that you continue. Following the experiment the participants were debriefed. The 40 participants were all invited to a laboratory at Yale University and upon arrival they met with the experimenter and another participant, Mr Wallace, who were both confederates. The experimenter explained that one person would be randomly assigned the role of teacher and the other, a learner. However, the real participant was always assigned the role of teacher. The experimenter explained that the teacher, the real participant, would read the learner a series of word pairs and then test their recall. The learner, who was positioned in an adjacent room, would indicate his choice using a system of lights. The teacher was instructed to administer an electric shock ever time the learner made a mistake and to increase the voltage after each mistake. The teacher watched the learner being strapped to the electric chair and was given a sample electric shock to convince them that the procedure was real. The learner wasn t actually strapped Milgram found that all of the real participants went to at least 300 volts and 65% continued until the full 450 volts. He concluded that under the right circumstances ordinary people will obey unjust orders. Evaluation J Milgram s study has been heavily criticised for breaking numerous ethical guidelines, including: deception, right to withdraw and protection from harm. Milgram deceived his participants as he said the experiment was on punishment and learning, when in fact he was measuring obedience, and he pretended the learner was receiving electric shocks. In addition, it was very difficult for participants with withdraw from the experiment, as the experimenter prompted the participants to continue. Finally, many of the participants reported feeling exceptionally stressed and anxious while Page 6 AQA AS Psychology Course Companion
Social Influence AQA AS Psychology Course Companion taking part in the experiment and therefore they were not protect from psychological harm. This is an issue, as Milgram didn t respect his participants, some of whom felt very guilt following the experiment, knowing that they could have harmed another person. However, it must be noted that it was essential for Milgram to deceive his participants and remove their right to withdraw to test obedience and produce valid results. Furthermore, he did debrief his participants following the experiment and 83.7% of participants said that they were happy to have taken part in the experiment and contribute to scientific research. However, in one variation of Milgram s experiment and additional confederate administered the electric shocks on behalf of the teacher. In this variation the percentage of participants who administered the full 450 volts rose dramatically, from 65% to 92.5%. This variation highlights the power of shifting responsibility (agentic shift), as these participants were able to shift their responsibility onto the person administering the electric shocks and continue obeying orders because they felt less responsible. Therefore, the ability to enter an agentic state increases the level of obedience, as the level of personal responsibility decreases. J Milgram s study has been criticised for lacking ecological validity. Milgram tested obedience in a laboratory, which is very different to real-life situations of obedience, where people are often asked to follow more subtle instructions, rather than administering electric shocks. As a result we are unable to generalise his findings to real life situations of obedience and cannot conclude that people would obey less severe instructions in the same way. J Finally, Milgram s research lacked population validity. Milgram used a bias sample of 40 male volunteers, which means we are unable to generalise the results to other populations, in particular females, and cannot conclude if female participants would respond in a similar way. Part 2 Variations of Milgram (1963) Following Milgram s original research, numerous variations were carried out to examine how different variables affect obedience. Proximity: In Milgram s original research the teacher and the learner were in separate rooms. In order to test the power of proximity, Milgram conducted a variation where the teacher and learner where seated in the same room. In this variation the percentage of participants who administered the full 450 volts dropped from 65% to 40%. Here obedience levels fell, as the teacher was able to experience the learner s pain more directly. In another variation, the teacher had to force the learner s hand directly onto the shock plate. In this more extreme variation, the percentage dropped even further, to 30%. In these two variations, the closer the proximity of the teacher and learner, the lower the level of obedience. The proximity of the authority figure also affects the level of obedience. In one variation, after the experimenter had given the initial instructions they left the room. All subsequent instructions were provided over the phone. In this variation participants were more likely to defy the experimenter and only 21% of the participants administers the full 450 volts. Agentic State: An agentic state is when an individual carries out the orders of an authority figure and acts as their agent, with little personal responsibility. In Milgram s original experiment, the participants were told that the experimenter had full responsibility and therefore they could act as an agent, carrying out the experimenter s orders. If the participants were told that they were responsible, it is possible that Milgram would have obtained very different results. Milgram argued that people operate in one of two ways when faced with social situations. Individuals can act autonomously and choose their behaviour, or they can enter an agentic state, where they carry out orders of an authority figure and do not feel responsible for their actions. When a person changes from autonomous state to an agentic state, they have undergone an agentic shift. In Milgram s original experiment 65% of participants administered the full 450 volts and were arguably in an agentic state. Location: Milgram s conducted his original research in a laboratory of Yale University. In order to test the power of the location, Milgram conducted a variation in a run down building in Bridgeport, Connecticut. The experiment was no longer associated with Yale University and was carried out by the Research Association of Bridgeport. In this variation the percentage of participants who administered the full 450 volts dropped from 65% to 47.5%. This highlights the impact of location on obedience, with less credible locations resulting in a reduction in the level of obedience. Uniform: In most of Milgram s variations the experimenter wore a lab coat, indicating his status as a University Professor. Milgram examined the power of uniform in a variation where the experimenter was called away and replaced by another participant in ordinary clothes, who was in fact another confederate. In this variation, the man in ordinary clothes came up with the idea of increasing the voltage every time the leaner made a mistake. The percentage of participants who AQA AS Psychology Course Companion Page 7
AQA AS Psychology Course Companion Social Influence administered the full 450 volts when being instructed by an ordinary man, dropped from 65% to 20%, demonstrating the dramatic power of uniform. Bickman (1974) also investigated the power of uniform in a field experiment conducted in New York. Bickman used three male actors: one dressed as a milkman; one dressed as a security guard; and one dressed in ordinary clothes. The actors asked members of the public to following one of three instructions: pick up a bag; give someone money for a parking metre; and stand on the other side of a bus stop sign which said no standing. Situation Uniform Paper bag Dime Bus stop N % N % N % Civilian 14 36 24 33 15 20 Milkman 14 36 24 33 15 20 Guard 14 36 24 33 15 20 On average the guard was obeyed on 76% of occasions, the milkman on 47% and the pedestrian on 30%. These results all suggest that people are more likely to obey, when instructed by someone wearing a uniform. This is because the uniform infers a sense of legitimate authority and power. Legitimate Authority: Milgram s variations investigating location and uniform highlight an important factor in obedience research legitimate authority. For a person to obey an instruction they need to believe that the authority is legitimate and this can be affected by multiple variables. In Milgram s original research, which took place at Yale University, the percentage of participants administering the full 450 volts was high (65%). However, when the experiment took place in a run down building in Bridgeport, Connecticut, obedience levels dropped significantly (48%). This change in location reduced the legitimacy of the authority, as participants were less likely to trust the experiment. In addition, when the experimenter in Milgram s research was replaced by another participant, in ordinary clothes, the obedience levels dropped even further (20%). The lack of a uniform and questionable position of authority reduced the credibility of the authority, which meant the participants were far less likely to obey. Miligrams variations Variable % Someone else administered the shock Agentic state 92.5 Miligrams original 65 The experiment took place in a run down building Location and legitimate authority 48 The teacher and learner were in the same room Proximity (leaner) 40 The teacher had to force the learners hand onto a Proximity (leaner) 30 shock plate The experimenter gave instructions to the teacher Proximity (authority figure) 21 over the phone The experimenter was replaced by another participant in ordinary clothes Uniform and legitimate authority 20 J NOTES Page 8 AQA AS Psychology Course Companion
Social Influence AQA AS Psychology Course Companion Conformity to social roles as investigated by Zimbardo. What You Need to Know J Outline and evaluate Zimbardo s (1973) research investigating conformity to social roles (identification?). Introduction Conformity to social roles is when an individual adopts a particular behaviour and belief, while in a particular social situation. For example, whilst at school your teacher adopts the behaviour and beliefs of a teacher, which may be very different to the behaviour and beliefs they adopt with their friends at the weekend. This type of conformity represents identification, where a person changes their public behaviour and private beliefs, but only while they are in a particular social role. People learn how to behave is certain situations by observing the social roles of others and conforming to this behaviour. Therefore, a new teacher will quickly adopt the behaviours and beliefs of other teachers in their school, as they conform to this social role. Zimbardo (1973) Zimbardo (1973) conducted an extremely controversial study on conformity to social roles, called the Stanford Prison Experiment. His aim was to examine whether people would conform to the social roles of a prison guard or prisoner, when placed in a mock prison environment. Furthermore, he also wanted to examine whether the behaviour displayed in prisons was due to internal dispositional factors, the people themselves, or external situational factors, the environment and conditions of the prison. Zimbardo s sample consisted of 21 male university students who volunteered in response to a newspaper advert. The participants were selected on the basis of their physical and mental stability and were each paid $15 a day to take part. The participants were randomly assigned to one of two social roles, prisoners or guards. Zimbardo wanted to make the experience as realistic as possible, turning the basement of Stanford University into a mock prison. Furthermore, the prisoners were arrested by real local police and fingerprinted, stripped and given a numbered smocked to wear, with chains placed around their ankles. The guards were given uniforms, dark reflective sunglasses, handcuffs and a truncheon. The guards were instructed to run the prison without using physical violence. The experiment was set to run for two weeks. Zimbardo found that both the prisoners and guards quickly identified with their social roles. Within days the prisoners rebelled, but this was quickly crushed by the guards, who then grew increasingly abusive towards the prisoners. The guards dehumanised the prisoners, waking them during the night and forcing them to clean toilets with their bare hands; the prisoners became increasingly submissive, identifying further with their subordinate role. Five of the prisoners were released from the experiment early, because of their adverse reactions to the physical and mental torment, for example, crying and extreme anxiety. Although the experiment was set to run for two weeks, it was terminated after just six days, when fellow postgraduate student Christina Maslach convinced Zimbardo that conditions in his experiment were inhumane. [Maslach later became Zimbardo s wife]. Zimbardo concluded that people quickly conform to social roles, even when the role goes against their moral principles. Furthermore, he concluded that situational factors were largely responsible for the behaviour found, as none of the participants had ever demonstrated these behaviours previously. Evaluation: J A recent replication of the Stanford Prison Experiment, carried out by Reicher and Haslam (2006), contradicts the findings of Zimbardo. Reicher and Haslam replicated Zimbardo s AQA AS Psychology Course Companion Page 9
AQA AS Psychology Course Companion Social Influence research by randomly assigning 15 men to the role of prisoner or guard. In this replication, the participants did not conform to their social roles automatically. For example, the guards did not identify with their status and refused to impose their authority; the prisoners identified as a group to challenge the guard s authority, which resulted in a shift of power and a collapse of the prison system. These results clearly contradict the findings of Zimbardo and suggest that conformity to social roles may not automatic, as Zimbardo originally implied. J Furthermore, individual differences and personality also determine the extent to which a person conforms to social roles. In Zimbardo s original experiment the behaviour of the guards varied dramatically, from extremely sadistic behaviour to a few good guards who helped the prisoners. This suggests that situational factors are not the only cause of conformity to social roles and dispositional factors also play a role. J Zimbardo s experiment has been heavily criticised for breaking many ethical guidelines, in particular, protection from harm. Five of the prisoners left the experiment early because of their adverse reactions to the physical and mental torment. Furthermore, some of the guards reported feelings of anxiety and guilt, as a result of their actions during the Stanford Prison Experiment. Although Zimbardo followed the ethical guidelines of Stanford University and debriefed his participants afterwards, he acknowledged that the study should have been stopped earlier. J NOTES Page 10 AQA AS Psychology Course Companion
Social Influence AQA AS Psychology Course Companion Dispositional explanation for obedience: the Authoritarian Personality. What You Need to Know Outline and evaluate one dispositional explanation for obedience: the authoritarian personality. Authoritarian personality In the previous section/chapter different variables affecting obedience were examined, including: agentic state, legitimate authority, proximity, location and uniform. These variables are situational (external) factors that are result of the environment or situation. However, psychologists have also examined dispositional (internal) factors that also contribute to obedience. One particular characteristic is the authoritarian personality, which has been associated with higher levels of obedience. Adorno et al. (1950) developed a questionnaire called the California F scale, to measure levels of authoritarian personality. In Milgram s original research, psychologists questioned whether the obedience occurred due to situational factors, for example, uniform and location, or dispositional factors, such as a particular personality characteristic. In order to answer this question, Milgram conducted a follow-up study, using participants from his original research. Elms and Milgram (1966) wanted to see if the obedient participants in Milgram s research were more likely to display authoritarian personality traits, in comparison to disobedient participants. Their sample consisted of 20 obedient participants, who administered the full 450 volts and 20 disobedient participants, who refused to continue. Each participant completed several personality questionnaires, including Adorno s F scale, to measure their level of authoritarian personality. In addition, participants were also asked open-ended questions about their relationship with their parents and their relationship with the experimenter and learner, during Milgram s experiment. Elms and Milgram found that the obedient participants scored higher on the F scale, in comparison to disobedient participants. In addition, the results also revealed that obedient participants were less close to their fathers during childhood [all of the participants in Milgram s original experiment were male] and admired the experimenter in Milgram s experiment, which was the opposite for disobedient participants. Elms and Milgram concluded that the obedient participants in his original research displayed higher levels of the authoritarian personality, in comparison to disobedient participants. Evaluation: J Although the results of Elms and Milgram suggest a link between authoritarian personality and obedience, these results are correctional and it is therefore difficult to draw meaningful conclusions about the exact cause of the obedience. In addition, there are many other situational factors that contribute to obedience, including proximity, uniform and location. Therefore, although it is likely that authoritarian personality contributes to obedience, a range of situational variables can affect the level of this contribution. J Furthermore, research by Middendorp and Meleon (1990) has found that less-educated people are more likely to display authoritarian personality characteristics, than well-educated people. If these claims are correct then it is possible to conclude that it is not authoritarian personality characteristics that lead to obedience, but levels of education. J Finally, Elms and Milgram used Adorno s F scale to determine levels of authoritarian personality. It is possible that the F scale suffers from response bias or social desirability, where participants provide answers that are socially acceptable. For example, participants may appear more authoritarian because they believe that their answers are the socially correct and consequently they are incorrectly classified as authoritarian when they are not. AQA AS Psychology Course Companion Page 11
AQA AS Psychology Course Companion Social Influence Explanations of resistance to social influence, including social support and locus of control. What You Need to Know Outline and evaluate two explanations of resistance to social influence, including: J Social Support J Locus of Control Introduction to resistance to social influence Asch s (1951) research demonstrates the power of social influence through conformity and his variations provide an insight into how group size, unanimity and task difficult can increase or decrease the influence of the majority. Milgram (1963) on the other hand, highlights our susceptibility to obeying orders and his variations reveal the different variables that can increase or decrease our willingness to follow orders. Since Asch and Milgram s research, psychologists have examined explanations of resistance to social influence, our willingness to conform or obey, including social support and locus of control. Explanations of resistance to social influence One reason that people can resist the pressure to conform or obey is if they have an ally, someone supporting their point of view. Having an ally can build confidence and allow individuals to remain independent. Individuals who have support for their point of view no longer fear being ridiculed, allowing them to avoid normative social influence. Furthermore, individuals who have support for their point of view are more likely to disobey orders. J Furthermore, evidence for this explanation comes from Milgram (1974). In one of Milgram s variations, the real participant was paired with two additional confederates, who also played the role of teachers. In this variation, the two additional confederates refused to go on and withdrew from the experiment early. In this variation, percentage of real participants who proceeded to the full 450 volts, dropped from 65% (in the original) to 10%. This shows that if the real participant has support for their desire to disobey, then they are more likely to resist the pressure of an authority figure. Variations from Asch and Milgram suggest that if an individual has social support then they are likely to resist the pressure to conform or obey. Locus of control In some cases people can resist the pressure to conform or obey because of their personality. Rotter (1966) proposed the idea of locus of control, which is the extent to which people believe they have control over their own lives. People with an internal locus of control believe that what happens in their life is largely the result of their own behaviour and that Evaluation: J Evidence for this explanation comes from one of Asch s (1951) variations. In one of the variations, one of the confederates I control my destiny Others control my destiny was instructed to give the correct answer throughout. In this variation the rate of conformity dropped to 5%. This demonstrates that if the real participant has support for their belief (social support), then they are likely more likely to resist INTERNAL Locus of control EXTERNAL the pressure to conform. Page 12 AQA AS Psychology Course Companion
Social Influence AQA AS Psychology Course Companion they have control over their life. Whereas people with an external locus of control believe that what happens to them is controlled by external factors and that they do not have complete control over their life. Consequently, Rotter suggested that individuals with an internal locus of control are more likely to resist the pressures to conform or obey, in comparison to individuals with an external locus of control. Evaluation: J Research supports the idea that individuals with an internal locus of control are more likely to resist the pressure to obey. Oliner & Oliner (1998) interviewed non-jewish survivors of WWII and compared those who had resisted orders and protected Jewish people from the Nazi s, in comparison to those who had not. Oliner and Oliner found that the 406 rescuers, who had resisted orders, were more likely to have a high internal locus of control, in comparison to the 126 people who had simply followed orders. These results appear to support the idea that a high internal locus of control makes individuals less likely to follow orders, although there are many other factors that may have caused individuals to follow orders in WWII and it is difficult to conclude that locus of control is the only factor. J Furthermore, research also supports the idea that individuals with an internal locus of control are less likely to conform. Spector (1983) used Rotter s locus of control scale to determine whether locus of control is associated with conformity. From 157 students, Spector found that individuals with a high internal locus of control were less likely to conform than those with a high external locus of control, but only in situations of normative social influence, where individuals conform to be accepted. There was no difference between the two groups for informational social influence. This suggests that normative social influence, the desire to fit in, is more power than informational social influence, the desire to be right, when considering locus of control. J NOTES AQA AS Psychology Course Companion Page 13
AQA AS Psychology Course Companion Social Influence Minority influence including reference to consistency, commitment and flexibility. What You Need to Know Outline and evaluate research examining minority influence, with reference to: J Consistency J Commitment J Flexibility Introduction to minority influence So far this chapter has examined research that focuses on the persuasive power of the majority and our willingness to obey an authority figure. However, social influence can occur when a minority (small group) changes the attitudes, beliefs and behaviours of a majority; this is known as minority influence. Note: It is important to note that consistency and commitment are linked. If a minority is consistent in their view then they also are showing commitment to their cause. Another way a minority can show commitment is through sacrifices, which will be examined in the next section Psychologists have identified different factors that can enhance the effectiveness of a minority, including: consistency, commitment and flexibility. Research examining minority influence Consistency and Commitment One of the most influential experiments of minority influence was conducted by Moscovici (1969). He wanted to see if a consistent minority could influence a majority to give an incorrect answer, in a colour perception task. His sample consisted of 172 female participants who were told that they were taking part in a colour perception task. The participants were placed in groups of six and shown 36 slides, which were all varying shades of blue. The participants had state out loud the colour of each slide. Two of the six participants were confederates and in one condition (consistent) the two confederates said that all 36 slides were green; in the second condition (inconsistent) the confederates said that 24 of the slides were green and 12 were blue. Moscovici found that in the consistent condition, the real participants agreed on 8.2% of the trials, whereas in the inconsistent condition, the real participants only agreed on 1.25% of the trials. This shows that a consistent minority is 6.95% more effective than an inconsistent minority and that consistency is an important factor in minority influence. Evaluation: J Moscovici used a bias sample of 172 female participants from America. As a result, we are unable to generalise the results to other populations, for example male participants, and we cannot conclude that male participants would respond to minority influence in the same way. Furthermore, research often suggests that females are more likely to conform and therefore further research is required to determine the effect of minority influence on male participants. J Moscovici has also been criticised for deceiving his participants, as participants were told that they were taking part in a colour perception test. This also means that Moscovici did not gain fully informed consent. Although it is seen as unethical to deceive participants, Moscovici s experiment required deception in order to achieve valid results. If the participants were aware of the true aim, they might have displayed demand characteristics and acted differently. Flexibility Moscovici demonstrates that consistency is an important factor for minority influence, however research also suggests that minorities require a degree of flexibility to remain persuasive and that rigid and dogmatic minorities are less effective. Nemeth (1986) investigated the idea of flexibility in which participants, in groups of four, had to agree on the amount of Page 14 AQA AS Psychology Course Companion
Social Influence AQA AS Psychology Course Companion compensation they would give to a victim of a ski-lift accident. One of the participants in each group was a confederate and there were two conditions: 1) when the minority argued for a low rate of compensation and refused to change his position (inflexible); 2) when the minority argued for a low rate of compensation but compromised by offering a slightly higher rate of compensation (flexible). Nemeth found that in the inflexible condition, the minority had little or no effect on the majority, however in the flexible condition, the majority was much more likely to compromise and change their view. Nemeth s research highlights the importance of flexibility but questions the idea of consistency. On the one hand, Moscovici shows that minorities need to be consistent, whereas Nemeth shows that minorities need to be flexible. J NOTES AQA AS Psychology Course Companion Page 15
AQA AS Psychology Course Companion Social Influence The role of social influence processes in social change. What You Need to Know Outline how social influence research has contributed to our understanding of social change. Social change Section 1.7 examined minority influence and the work of Moscovici (1969) and Nemeth (1986) who concluded that a consistent, committed and flexible minority is most effective in influencing an individual. However, minority groups also play an important role in facilitating social change by influencing an entire society to change their attitude, behaviours and beliefs. Moscovici (1980) put forward a conversion theory to explain how social change occurs and there are three clear factors that determine the success of a minority to facilitate social change, including: consistency, sacrifices and group membership. Firstly, the minority must be consistent in their opposition to the majority. History has provided many real life examples, where consistent individuals have challenged and questioned the values and norms of society (and have been criminalised for their views). Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela led civil rights movements and were consistent in their views against apartheid for many years, which helped bring about social change. Furthermore, the results of Moscovici s (1969) research highlight the importance of consistency in minority influence. Moscovici found that a consistent minority were more likely (8.4%) to convince a majority that the colour of a slide was green when it was in fact blue, in comparison to an inconsistent minority (1.3%). Secondly, minorities that make sacrifices are more likely to be influential. If minorities show their dedication to the cause through sacrifice, for example imprisonment or even death, their influence becomes more powerful. For example, when Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat to a white male passenger in the 1950s, she was arrested for violating US law. This event helped trigger the civil rights movement to end the racial segregation laws in America. The case of Rosa Parks demonstrates that people who are willing to make a sacrifice (in her case being arrested) show their commitment to their cause and as a result are more influential. Finally, if the minority is similar to the majority, in terms of class, age, gender or even sexuality, then they are more likely to be influential. Maass et al. (1982) investigated the idea of group membership and found that a minority of heterosexual men were more likely to convince a heterosexual majority about gay rights, in comparison to a minority of homosexual people. Maass concluded that straight men have more persuasive power when discussing gay rights with other straight men, in comparison to gay men. This supports the idea that similarity in terms of group membership is an important factor for minority influence and social change. This process can be used to explain many examples of social change, which have occurred throughout history. For example, the suffragettes were consistent in their view and persistently used educational and political arguments to draw attention to female rights. Furthermore, they remained consistent for many years and despite opposition continued protesting and lobbying until they convinced society that women were entitled to vote. In addition, many of the suffragettes made significant sacrifices for their cause; many risked imprisonment and others risked death through extended hunger strikes, making their influence even more powerful. Finally, the suffragettes used group membership to convince other women to join their cause to expand their influence and membership. Overtime their influence spread with people considering the issue until it lead to social change and all adults gaining the right to vote. Page 16 AQA AS Psychology Course Companion
Social Influence AQA AS Psychology Course Companion Key Terms Agentic state Authoritarian personality Autonomous state Cognitive dissonance Compliance Confederates Conformity Dehumanisation Deindividuation Dispositional attribution Identification Individual variables Internalisation Ironic deviance Locus of control Majority influence Milgram paradigm Minority influence Morality Obedience Personality Reactance Situational variables Social change Social roles Social support Status Systematic processing Unanimity Individual carries out the orders of another person, acting as their agent with little personal responsibility A person who has extreme respect for authority and is obedient to those who have power over them Where individuals are seen as personally responsible for their actions Unpleasant feeling of anxiety created when simultaneously holding two contradictory ideas Superficial type of conformity where people conform publicly by privately disagree Alternative term for stooges or pseudo-participants Changing what we do think or say in response to others Degrading people by lessening their human qualities When a person moves into a group and as a result loses some individual identity Explanation of individual behavior as a result caused by internal characteristics that reside within the individual Where people change their beliefs (sometimes temporarily) to fit in with a group Personal characteristics that affect the degree to which individuals yield to group pressures Where people change their beliefs permanently Takes place when we believe that the behaviour of the majority is the result of unreasonable pressure from authority Extent to which individuals believe they can control events in their lives Alternative term for conformity Experimental procedure for measuring obedience rates Where a individual or small group influence attitudes and behaviour of a larger group Decisions and behaviour based upon the perception of proper conduct Complying with the demands of an authority figure Combination of characteristics that forms an individual s distinctive nature Occurs when a person feels that someone or something is taking away his or her choices or limiting the range of alternatives Features of an environment that affect the degree to which individuals yield to group pressures The process by which attitudes, beliefs and norms of acceptable behaviour vary over time The parts individuals play as part of a social group Perception of assistance and solidarity available from others The position of an individual within a hierarchical group Analysis based on critical thinking Complete agreement from a group of people about an issue or question AQA AS Psychology Course Companion Page 17