Lets begin by looking at some key definitions:

1
Social Influence

• Lets begin by looking at some key definitions-
• Social psychology is an attempt to understand
  explain how the thoughts, feelings behaviours
  of individuals are influenced by the actual,
  imagined or implied presence of others
• (Allport, 1985)

2

• Social influence refers to the way a persons
  thoughts or behaviours are changed as a result of
  either active or passive influence from other
  people.
• According to Baron Byrne (2000), Social
  Influence is
• efforts by one or more individuals to change
  the attitudes, beliefs, perceptions or behaviours
  of one or more others

3

• A norm is an unwritten rule about how to behave
  in a social group/situation that members of the
  group accept as correct
• Add this definition to your summary diagram

4

• A Social norm (Group norm / Cultural norm) is a
  way of thinking or behaving that is considered
  appropriate and proper within a particular
  society (group/culture), and that most members of
  that society (group/culture) adhere to.
• Social norms, therefore differ from one society
  to another.
• Group norms, therefore differ from one group to
  another.
• Cultural norms, therefore differ from one culture
  to another.

5

• Some examples are-

6

• Empirical Studies that demonstrated the
  development of norms.
• Jenness (1932) Beans in a jar study
• Aim to show that group norms are formed and
  that they influence individual behaviour.
• Method Jar of beans, individual estimates,
  group estimate and then individual estimate
  again.
• Results Individuals made shift towards the
  group estimate on their second estimate.

7

• Conclusion Individuals are influenced by the
  group norm.
• Evaluation
• First empirical study of conformity.
• Very simple study

8

• Muzafer Sherif (1935)
• He used a visual illusion called the AUTOKINETIC
  EFFECT.
• A visual illusion in which a stationary spot
  of light appears to move when shown in a
  completely dark room.
• Aim To demonstrate the development of a group
  norm and its influence on individual behaviour.

9

• Method
• He told participants that he was going to move
  the spot of light and asked them to estimate how
  far he had moved it. Participants were tested
  individually, Participants were then tested in
  small groups and tested again individually
• Findings
• a) Participants tested individually - estimates
  varied between participants to a large degree.

10

• b) Participants tested in small groups (usually
  three) - the estimates of each group member
  gradually got closer and closer until a group
  norm was established.(note there was no
  discussion among group members about the
  estimate).
• c) When tested again individually the
  participants estimates remained close to the
  group norm rather than their original estimates.
  (But would claim not to have been influenced by
  the group).

11

• Rohrer et al (1954) used Sherifs method and
  found that when tested 1 year later participants
  still gave the group norm estimates rather than
  reverting to their own individual answers.
• This shows that the influential power of the
  group can still exist long after the group ceases
  to exist.

12

• What does these studies tell us?
• According to Brown (19 85) , in western cultures
  at least, to be in agreement with others
  satisfies an important psychological need,
  especially in situations where people are
  uncertain or the situation is ambiguous.
• Through a social comparison process a common
  social reality is established and validated. (But
  people are relatively unaware of being influenced
  by others).

13

• Add a one sentence summary of each of these two
  studies to your diagram making a link with the
  definition of norm
• Jeness beans in the jar
• Sherif- Autokinetic effect.

14

• CONFORMITY
• CONFORMITY IS .......
•      yielding to group pressures, Crutchfield
  (1962)
•      a change in a persons behaviour or
  opinion as a result of real or imagined pressure
  from a person or group of people, Aronson (1976)

15

• Conformity - The tendency to change what we do
  (behaviour) or think and say (attitudes) in
  response to the influence of others or social
  pressure. This pressure can be real or
  imagined.
• (AS level textbook pg 186)
• Write this definition on your summary diagram

16
Add red writing to your summary diagram allow
enough room to also add on the research study
that demonstrates each type of conformity.

• Types of CONFORMITY (Kelman,1958)
• COMPLIANCE
• Supporting the group by appearing to agree
  (going along with other people), but not in fact
  changing your views or opinions.
• 2. INTERNALISATION
• The individual agrees with the group both
  publicly and privately, making the groups
  beliefs, values, attitude and behaviour their
  own.

17
Add red writing to your summary diagram allow
enough room to also add on the research study
that demonstrates each type of conformity.

• 3. IDENTIFICATION
• Establishing a link between an individual and
  another person (or group of people) who is
  important to the individual. The individual
  absorbs characteristics of the person (or group)
• into their own
• behaviour, although
• this may be short lived.

18

• Research Example of COMPLIANCE
• Solomon Asch (1951)
• (known as The Asch Paradigm)
• Aim
• He wanted to look at the effect of MAJORITY
  INFLUENCE on an individual in situations that did
  not involve any ambiguity or uncertainty.
• (see textbook (pg 188) for definition of
  majority influence add it onto your diagram make
  a link with Compliance)

19

• Method
• In a series of experiments, Asch gave 123 male
  participants the simple visual task of matching
  one line (drawn on card and called the standard
  line or test line) with another line ( one of
  three comparison lines drawn on another card A,
  B or C).
• Participants had to say which line matched the
  standard line - A, B or C.
• Participants were tested in groups of 7 to 9, one
  participant was placed in one group the rest of
  the group members were confederates.

20

• The participant was in the last or next to the
  last position to give his answer.
• Six of the trials were neutral trials
  (confederates gave correct answer) and twelve
  were critical trials (confederates all gave the
  same incorrect answer)
• NOTE. In a pilot study Asch checked the task for
  ambiguity-
• There were 36 control participants (tested
  alone) who made only 3 mistakes out of a total of
  720 trials, this showed that the task was simple
  and the answer was obvious.

21

• A confederate is someone who appears to be a
  genuine participant but who is actually part of
  the experiment.
• In this study the confederate were instructed to
  give the same incorrect answer on a certain
  number of the trials (know as the critical
  trials) and the correct answer on the other
  trials (Neutral trials)
• The participants were told that the study was an
  experiment on visual perception and that the
  confederates were other participants like
  themselves.

22

• Findings
• The average rate of conformity was approx. 32
• approx. 25 of subjects showed no conformity at
  all.
• approx. 75 conformed on at least one trial
• approx. 5 conformed on all of the critical
  trials.
• Conclusion
• People will conform to a majority view even when
  it is obvious that the majority is incorrect.

23

• When debriefed interviewed, the participants
  were aware of being influenced by the group
  opinion (knowing that the answer they had given
  was not what they privately believed to be the
  right answer ) and gave more specific reasons for
  conforming, eg. not wanting to upset the
  experimenter, not wanting to be different, or
  inferior.
• What type of conformity is this?
• COMPLIANCE

24

• However some participants actually believed the
  majority decision was correct, and that perhaps
  they were suffering from eye strain or that they
  were sitting in a compromising position.
• What type of conformity is this?
• INTERNALISATION
• Many participants experienced a good deal of
  stress as a result of the conflicts during the
  trials.

25

• Using the textbook (pg 188 189) write a brief
  description of the study (method findings) by
  Asch onto your summary diagram and draw a linking
  line to COMPLIANCE

26
Methodological Issues? (add these headings onto
your diagram linked to Aschs study)

• Artificiality lacks ecological validity in
  everyday situation could just keep quiet if do
  not agree with the group groups created were
  strangers, conformity usually takes place in
  groups where people have ties with one another in
  some way.
• Individual differences the 37 conformity rate
  covers up the wide range of individual
  differences, 75 conformed at least once, 25 not
  at all.
• Unrepresentative sample. Male, from same small
  town in America, paid to take part, 1950s so may
  not reflect todays society. Therefore can not
  easily generalise findings to the general
  population.
• Demand characteristics. - Some Ps said that they
  did not want to spoil the experiment,
  suggesting that they may have worked out the aim
  of the research and altered their behaviour
  accordingly.
• Time consuming and uneconomical One participant
  tested at a time
• Cause and effect can be established because a
  laboratory experiment is used This last one is
  a strength !

27
Ethical Issues? (add these headings onto your
diagram linked to Aschs study)

• Deception
• Lack of Informed Consent
• Distress
• Would the Ps have felt able to withdraw at any
  time?
• Was there any way round these issues?
• Is the study acceptable given the ethical
  problems?

28

• Two Research examples of
• INTERNALISATION
• These studies look at the internalisation of a
  minority viewpoint (the effect of minority
  influence) look in the textbook (pg 190) for a
  definition of Minority influence and add it to
  your diagram make a link with Internalisation

29

• 1) Moscovici (1969) the green/blue slide study
• Aim to see if a consistent minority can
  influence the majority
• Method and Findings-
• 4 Ps and 2 confederates in a group
• Shown 36 slides of different shades of blue
• Asked to say out loud the colour of the slide
• Independent groups design
• Condition 1 confederates called all slides
  GREEN 8 of the real Ps moved to the minority
  view that the slides were green
• Condition 2 confederates called 24/36 slides
  green and the rest blue only 1.25 of real Ps
  moved to the minority view.

30

• Criticism of the study
• Lacks ecological validity because
• The participants are aware they are being
  studied
• The task was unlike a real everyday task
• So, the second piece of research looks at a more
  recent way of trying to study minority influence
  by looking at the role of minority influence on
  people taking part in jury service. Due to the
  ethical issues, real life jurys cant be
  studied, therefore research has made use of mock
  juries (role play). Clark made use of the plot in
  the film 12 Angry Men in his study . . . .

31

• Clark (1998/99)- The 12 Angry Men study
• Clark had two aims and carried out two main
  studies-
• Aim 1 to see if a minority could exert its
  influence through the information it presented
  and the persuasive nature of its arguments
• Aim 2 to see if the minority could influence
  the majority through changes in behaviour or
  defections (people who change their view and
  side with the minority) does seeing people
  change their view affect others own beliefs?

32

• Study 1
• Participants were - 220 psychology students
  (129f/ 91m)
• They were asked to play the role of jurors, one
  person (a minority) trying to influence the
  majority
• Materials 4 page booklet with the summary of
  the plot of 12 Angry Men and evidence for the
  defendants guilt
• used rare knife available form local store and he
  had bought one there,
• been seen by 2 eye witnesses an old man who
  heard defendant say I am going to kill you, an
  old woman who lived opposite and who identified
  the defendant as the murderer.
• The counter arguments used by Henry Fonda in the
  film (defence) were given to some of the
  participants and not to others.

33

• Findings-
• The minority juror only led the majority to
  change their minds (Guilty to Not guilty) in the
  situations where they had been given the counter
  evidence.
• This shows that the information given by the
  minority is important in the minority influence
  process.

34

• Study 2
• Participants were again psychology students
• Materials a 3 page summary of the Jurys
  discussion in the film 12 Angry Men, it contained
  the 3 main counter arguments provided by the
  minority juror
• The juror had been able to buy an identical knife
  at a local junk shop
• The old man would have taken too long to get to
  the window of his apartment from where he was
  sitting to be able to see and hear the defendant
• The old woman wasnt wearing glasses and had poor
  eyesight so may not have seen defendant clearly
• Participants were told different scenarios about
  the number of defectors (who changed their mind
  from guilty to not guilty) in the jury, from 1 to
  6

35

• Findings-
• When asked to give their opinion on a 9 point
  scale of whether or not they thought the man was
  guilty they were influenced by the number of
  defectors they were led to believe were in the
  jury-
• Fewer than 4 defectors not much influence
• Between 4 7 defectors ps more likely to take
  not guilty view ie, they were influenced,
• BUT, 7 defectors didnt have more influence than
  4 a ceiling of influence is reached at 4
  defectors.
• This shows that a minority can influence the
  majority opinion through changing behaviour
  defecting to the minority position.
• Think how could a minority group put this finding
  to good use if they want to change a majority
  view?

36

• Evaluation of Clarks studies
• A good example of more recent research that
  attempts to move away from low ecologically valid
  lab. experiments. Therefore higher ecological
  validity than earlier social influence research
  BUT . .
• Only role play implications of decisions not
  like real life juries can we generalise to real
  life situations?
• More ethically acceptable way of studying social
  influence no deception little
  discomfort/distress.

37

• Now you need to add a brief summary of these two
  studies by Clark onto your summary diagram make
  a link with Internalisation.

38

• 2 Research examples of IDENTIFICATION
• 1) Philip Zimbardos famous 1971 prison
  simulation study.
• Role Play
• Simulated prison in basement of Stanford Uni.
  Psychology building
• 24 male volunteers carefully selected
• Random allocation to role of prisoner or guard
• Prisoners arrested at their homes, taken to
  prison, deloused, searched, dressed in smock
  uniforms, referred to by a number
• Guards shift work, uniforms, dark glasses,
  trunchon (night stick), told to keep prisoners
  under control but dont use violence.

39

• Observations (findings)
• Prisoners
• First day - ripped off numbers, rebelled,
  protested
• After a few days of humiliation by the guards
  became passive depressed, stress related
  symptoms
• Guards
• Responded to protests with harsh punishments
  humiliation, locking in cells, removing blankets,
  depriving them of sleep.
• Punishments escalated
• Study had to be stopped after 6 days becoming
  too realistic!! Should have run for 14 days.

40

• The study shows the way people conform to the
  role they are given, Identification.
• It also shows the power of situational factors to
  influence behaviour even to the extent that
  ordinary, stable individuals can abuse power and
  behave in antisocial ways if the situation
  facilitates this.
• Evaluation of the study-
• Volunteers but they were selected carefully
• How realistic was the prison setup?
• Distress Deception
• Did Ps feel able to withdraw since they were
  being paid?
• Zimbardo should have called off the study even
  earlier.

41

• 2) Reicher and Haslam (2002)
• Working with the BBC they did a repeat of
  Zimbardos study
• 15 male volunteers selected from 500 applicants
• 9 prisoners 6 guards
• Filmed for TV in purpose built prison in TV
  studio
• Findings
• Guards reluctant to exert authority
• Prisoners took charge
• Both guards prisoners tried to establish a fair
  and equal social system but this failed
• a small group of prisoners took power and it was
  called off earlier than expected

42

• Reicher and Haslam suggested that tyranny becomes
  acceptable when the law and order established by
  the group breaks down and groups experience
  feeling of powerlessness.
• This study didnt show a clear conformity to
  social roles (identifcation) as was demonstrated
  by Zimbardo
• Why not? What are the differences between the two
  studies?
• R Hs Ps were tougher more streetwise than
  Zimbardos
• RHs Ps wore microphones and were aware they
  were being filmed for TV, Zimbardos were
  secretly filmed
• 30 years difference between the two studies
  (different social cultural contexts)

43

• Add to your summary diagram the final section
  the two studies of Identification.
• Turn over your summary diagram for the next
  section

44

• 6 Factors Affecting Conformity title in middle
  of summary diagram add on the following 6
  legs to the diagram
• 1.The effect of the size of the majority
• This was demonstrated by Asch in one of his
  variations on his line matching study.
• The IV he changed was the number of confederates
  in the group(1,2,3,4,8,10,15)
• The DV he measured was the of real participants
  who changed their answers to that of the
  confederates.
• He found the following-

45

• 1 confederate 1 real participant
• 3 changed their view to that of the confederates
• 2 confederates 1 real participant
• 14 changed their view to that of the
  confederates
• 3 or more confederates 1 real participant
• 32 changed their view to that of the
  confederates
• Note -No significant increase in conformity
  rates with increase in group size after this, in
  fact when 15 confederates conformity rates
  slightly lower.
• These findings have been replicated by other
  researchers, e.g. Stang(1976) suggested that
  conformity is at its highest with a majority of
  3 5 persons.

46

• This study shows that
• people are less likely to conform in a very small
  group in the presence of 1 or 2 other people
• people are more likely to conform in a slightly
  bigger group in the presence of 3 or more other
  people, BUT . . . .
• As the group gets bigger than 3 or more others
  the rate of conformity does not get significantly
  bigger.

47

• 2. The effect of the presence of a supporter
• Demonstrated by Asch in a variation of his line
  matching study
• The IV he changed was whether or not one of the
  confederates gave the correct answer on some of
  the trials (supported the real participant) when
  the rest of the confederates were giving the
  incorrect answer
• The DV he measured was the of real participants
  who changed their answers to that of the majority
  of confederates.
• He found the following-

48

• When one confederate agreed with the real
  participant rather than the rest of the
  confederates
• Conformity rates dropped to 5.5
• (remember it was 32 when all confederates were
  in agreement)
• This suggests that if the individual gets even a
  small amount of support from another person, if
  the unanimity of the majority is broken, then the
  individual is less likely to conform to the
  majority view.

49

• 3. The effect of time and place (the historical
  and social setting)
• When and where the individual is when faced with
  the choice between conforming and independent
  behaviour affects the level of conformity.
• Asch 1950s America high conformity rates
  reflect America at the time.
• Perrin Spencer (1981) a replication of Aschs
  study using different types of participants to
  Asch, they used 3 different samples, the first
  one illustrates the effect of time on conformity
  rates.

50

• They used Male students in 1981
• Conformity was almost non-existence, suggesting
  that conformity in 1981 is much lower than 1951
• Thus the extent of conformity is affected by the
  time in history it is being measured in.

51

• 4. The effect of the characteristics of the
  people who make up the majority
• Perrin Spencer (1981) in their replication of
  Aschs study this time using a sample of male
  students on probation as the real participants
  and their probation officers as the confederates
  found
• Similar high rates of conformity to those found
  by Asch
• This suggests that the level of conformity is
  affected by the status or power the majority has
  over the individual.

52

• Again, Perrin Spencer (1981) in their
  replication of Aschs study this time using
  unemployed young West Indian males and white
  confederates
• High conformity rates
• suggesting that when the majority is a different
  race to the individual conformity increases BUT
  note the date once again 1981 racial equality
  much less established then compared to now.

53

• 5. The effect of place and culture
• Smith Bond(1993) looked at all the studies
  that had used the Asch paradigm to investigate
  conformity in different countries.
• They found significant variations in conformity
  rates. e.g.
• Fiji 58 - the highest
• Belgium 14 - the lowest
• This suggests that different cultures may
  encourage conformity more than others

54

• Collectivist and Individualistic cultures have
  different values regarding the individual which
  may account for the differences in conformity
  rates.
• (see page 196)
• Smith Bond compared the average conformity
  rates of individualistic and collectivist
  cultures
• 25.3 - Individualistic
• 37.1 - Collectivist
• These findings suggest that the values and
  characteristics of the culture that an individual
  is brought up in may influence the likelihood
  that they will conform.

55

• 6. The virtual presence of others (chat rooms and
  social networking on the internet)
• In a comparison of face to face conformity rates
  and computer mediated conformity rates in
  collectivist and individualistic cultures,
  Cinirella and Green(2005) found
• Face to face conformity rates were higher in
  collectivist cultures
• Computer mediated conformity rates were low in
  both cultures.
• This suggests that when people are unable to see
  each other (when the presence of others is not
  physical) conformity is less likely.

56

• Why do people conform?
• We are going to look at 4 explanations (theories)
  of conformity, 2 that consider conformity to
  majority influence and 2 that consider conformity
  to minority influence.
• Dual processing dependency model
• Social Identity explanations
• Social Impact Theory
• Social Influence Model

57

• The Dual Process Dependency Model (normative and
  informational social influence)
• Deutsch Gerard(1955)
• NORMATIVE SOCIAL INFLUENCE.
• When an individual needs to accepted by/approval
  from the other members of the group. For example
  if you are in a potentially embarrassing
  situation of disagreeing with the majority, you
  are faced with the conflict between you own views
  and those of the group compliance is often the
  result of normative influence.

58

• INFORMATIONAL SOCIAL INFLUENCE.
• When we are in uncertain situations we look to
  others for information about how to react. This
  often leads to internalisation (change in private
  opinion in line with the rest of the group)
  demonstrated in the Sherif moving spot of light
  study.

59
The difference between Informational Social
Influence and Normative Social Influence

• NORMATIVE
• Need for acceptance of others
• Others have power to reward or punish
• Conflict between own and others opinions
• COMPLIANCE
• Private disagreement but Public agreement

• INFORMATIONAL
• Need for certainty
• Subjective uncertainty
• Need for information to reduce uncertainty
• Comparison with others
• INTERNALISATION
• Private Public acceptance

60

• This is known as the dual-processing dependency
  theory because it suggests two reasons for
  conformity based on our dependency on other
  people (we dont want to be rejected by the
  group)-
• Social approval
• Information
• The choice to conform is a rational process
  where the individual weighs up the information
  given to them and their need for approval.

61

• Critics suggest
• this theory doesnt acknowledge the importance of
  a sense of belonging to a group
• Studies show that conformity to group norms can
  persist long after the group no longer exists,
  suggesting that there are reasons other than fear
  of rejection that
• The next theory addresses these criticisms

62
(No Transcript)
63

• Social Identity Explanations
• Hogg 2003, Hogg Abrahams, 1988
• Social Identity explanations are based on Tajfel
  Turners social identity theory -
• people define themselves by the social groups
  they belong to e.g. male, Afro-Caribbean, rugby
  player, dancer
• Tajfel Turners 1971 studies (pg 199) showed
  that people tend to favour ones own group
  (in-group) and discriminate against other groups
  (out-group)

64

• Social Identity theory suggests that when people
  classify themselves as belonging to a group, they
  see
• strong similarities between themselves and other
  group members as well as
• strong differences between themselves and people
  in other groups
• (the Meta-Contrast Principle).

65

• Conformity to the group norms in order to feel
  that we belong to a particular group (because we
  have identified ourselves with that group) is
  known as referent informational influence.
• By identifying with the group and conforming to
  the group norms in this way we internalise the
  norms and often continue to abide by them when
  the group is no longer there.
• Once a United supporter always a United
  supporter.

66

• Support for the social identity explanations of
  conformity-
• Hogg Turner, 1987
• Ps did task similar to Aschs line matching task
• Ps heard the responses of others but gave their
  own response in private (no fear of rejection /
  disapproval)
• IV - Confederates were sometimes peers from the
  group the P belonged to and sometimes members of
  a group the P did not belong to .
• DV conformity of P to the confederates
  responses.
• Findings- conformed only when confederates were
  members of the Ps in-group.

67

• Social Impact Theory
• Latane Wolf, 1981
• social influence is a series of forces operating
  in a social field
• The amount of influence on the target is
  dependent on
• Strength of the source
• Immediacy of the source
• Number of the source
• The source the person/people providing the
  influence
• The target the person/people who will be
  influenced.

68

• Strength of the source-
• Importance, power, status of the person/people
  providing the influence.
• Immediacy of the source -
• The distance (psychological, physical, or social)
  of the source from the target.
• Number of sources-
• The number of people providing the influence an
  increase in number of people providing the
  influence increases the impact of the influence.
  However it is a negatively accelerating positive
  function. light bulb example.

69

• Support for the Social Impact Theory come from -
• Hart, Stasson and Karau, 1999.
• Tested two of the factors - the effect of
  immediacy and strength.
• Ps in groups of 3 2 naïve ps and 1 confederate
• Confederate argued for minority position.
• Task rate 40 applicants for university places.
• Immediacy was manipulated by -
• Confederate was 4 or 10 feet away from ps
• Strength was manipulated by
• Confederate acted as a student (low strength) or
  as an expert (high strength)

70

• Findings-
• Expert confederate had more influence than
  student confederate when they were 10 ft away
  (low immediacy)
• No difference in amount of impact between the
  expert and student confederates when the
  confederate was 4 ft away (high immediacy)
• This suggests that immediacy (how close the
  source is to the target) may be the most
  important factor in influencing the target.

71

• Social Influence Model
• Tanford penrod (1986)
• The number of defectors to the minority view
  influences the amount of conformity to the
  minority view, more defectors increases the
  influence UP TO A POINT there is a ceiling
  effect which is reached when there are 3 to 4
  defectors.

72

• Now its your turn to do some work !
• Turn to page 201 in the textbook and answer
  questions 6 - 10

73

• OBEDIENCE TO AUTHORITY
• When a person or group of people follow the
  direct commands, orders or missives of authority
  (another person or institution)
• Much of the time obedience is benign
  constructive. For example society demands a
  degree of obedience for it to function.
• Blind Obedience occurs when a person obeys an
  order without thinking about it (the implications
  of it, the motives behind it etc.).

74

• Blind Obedience is often dangerous and
  destructive. There are several examples of blind
  obedience in history. Common to such events is
  that people low in hierarchy followed the orders
  of their superiors. Why?
• It is this question that stimulated much of the
  research into obedience.
• Three important studies on Obedience were carried
  out
• Milgram
• Hofling
• Bickman

75

• Milgram
• in the 1960s investigated obedience to
  authority in what is probably the most
  controversial experiment in psychology.
• See your handout textbook for details.

76

• Hofling et al

- examined obedience in a real life social
setting - a hospital.
See your handout textbook for details.
77

• Bickman (1974)
• to see whether the dress of the person giving the
  order influenced the level of obedience.

See your handout textbook for details.
78

• An Evaluation of Obedience Research
• We are going to look at an Evaluation of
  Obedience Research through group work.
• You will need to make your own revision notes on
  this section based on the textbook and additional
  handout you will be given.
• I will not be providing notes for this section.
• There are three main areas of evaluation
• The ethics of the research
• The validity of the research
• The implications of the findings the obedience
  alibi and consequences of a situational
  perspective

79

• Why do people Obey?
• Situational factors-
• Legitimate Authority (person giving the order has
  social power within a hierarchy)
• we may obey them because we trust them or because
  they have the power to punish us.
• Demonstrated in Milgrams study Yale Uni. vs
  Office block,
• Demonstrated in Hoflings study Dr Smith
• Demonstrated in Bickmans study Guard uniform

80

• Agency Theory
• Milgram suggested that the individual enters
  what he called an agentic state when faced with
  an order from a legitimate authority figure where
  the authority figure takes responsibility for
  their order.
• Rather than acting as an autonomous individual
  (taking responsibility for their own actions) the
  individual sees themselves as the agent of the
  authority figure.
• This move from an autonomous state to the
  agentic state is called the agentic shift

81

• Demonstrated in Milgrams study. The participants
  in may have entered this agentic state when
  told the experimenter took responsibility for the
  effect of the shocks on the learner.
• Demonstrated in Hoflings study as the nurses saw
  themselves as employees of the hospital carrying
  out the orders of a doctor , rather than as
  individuals.
• Agency is the result of socialisation from the
  moment we are born we are encouraged to submit to
  authority.

82

• Graduated Commitment
• Once an initial request/order has been carried
  out people find it difficult to then back out
  when further orders are given, especially if the
  next order is not much bigger than the last. This
  is known as the foot-in-the door phenomenon.
  There is a gradual change form the acceptable to
  the unthinkable.
• Demonstrated in Milgrams study each increase
  in voltage was small 15v. When do you stop?

83

• Personality factors-
• Psychologist Theodore Adorno suggested that
  extreme obedience has its roots in early
  childhood experiences where personality is
  formed.
• Adorno (working in America in the 40s 50s)
• Studied 2000 students (white middle class) using
• Interviews about childhood political views
• Projective tests - to see if they were racially
  prejudiced
• He found a particular personality trait that
  resulted from harsh parenting-
• the child grows up to be very obedient and
  hostile towards others especially those of a
  different race (unconscious displacement of
  hostility towards their harsh parents onto
  others)

84

• He called this type of personality -
• The Authoritarian Personality (the type of person
  who has extreme respect for people who have power
  over them and is very obedient to those who have
  power over them. They may be hostile to those of
  lower rank).
• Adorno developed several tests to measure
  different aspects of behaviour attitudes the
  F test is a measure of fascism it is an
  indication of the extent of The Authoritarian
  Personality a person may display (have a go
  online if you are interested www.anesi.com/fscale)
  .

85

• Milgram and the Authoritarian personality
• Milgram interviewed some of his participants
  after they had taken part and found that those
  who were obedient (went to 450v) scored higher on
  tests of authoritarian personality than those who
  defied the experimenter and refused to go to the
  end of the shock generator.
• However, Milgram placed more emphasis on the
  situational factors than personality factors in
  his explanations of obedience.

86

• In pairs consider the following example
• (make notes because you will be writing this up
  for homework)
• Tom does babysitting to earn money for his
  holiday. In one of the families the three
  children are very unruly, never doing what he
  tells them to do. For example, they run around
  instead of sitting down to eat their dinner and
  they wont go to bed when he tells them to.
• What advice could you give him, based on
  psychological research, that might get them to
  obey him better? Try to think of two different
  suggestions.

87

• Application of the 4 theories of obedience to
  real life examples of extreme obedience
• e.g.
• Nazi Germany (1930s early 40s)
• My Lai, Vietnam (1968)
• Tiananmen Square (1988)
• More recently the genocide in Bosnia, Kosovo and
  Rwanda
• Several psychologists argue that these theories
  alone can not explain such atrocities.

88

• Smith Mackie(2000) and Cardwell(2001) suggest
  that other important factors also need to be
  considered in our explanations.
• Social Identity theory the in-group, out-group
  and meta-contrast principle, leads to strong
  inter group hostility and conflict often at a
  high when these atrocities occurred.

89

• Blaming the victim (self-justification) it
  was what they deserved for being . . . . stupid,
  taking our jobs, etc
• This attitude allows the individual to continue
  to carry out their actions and still see
  themselves as a decent individual.
• Motivational factors (such as personal gain)
  individuals have often taken the opportunity to
  use their obedience to the authority figure for
  their own personal benefit (e.g. plundering
  businesses , houses and even the bodies of those
  they killed).

90

• In pairs (make notes because you will be writing
  this up for homework)
• Using what you have learned about the topic of
  obedience in psychology try to explain TWO
  examples of extreme behaviour
• choose one from those mentioned in the textbook
  or lesson notes and
• one reported in the media from more recent times

91

• Resisting Social Influence
• Independent behaviour
• when an individual chooses not to be influenced
  by group norms.
• Disobedience
• when a person refuses to carry out the order from
  an authority figure
• Anti-conformity (Counter-conformity)
• - when a person acts in opposition to the rules
  or group norms this may still be dependent on
  the groups behaviour the individual is still
  in a way influenced by what the group is doing.

92

• Resisting Authority (Disobedience)
• Milgram felt that obedience could be reduced by-
• Educating people about the dangers of blind
  obedience
• Encouraging them to question authority (the
  motives of the authority figure)
• Exposing people to the actions of disobedient
  (resisting) role models
• Remind people that they are responsible for their
  own actions warn of agentic state.

93

• The role of situational factors in disobedience
  and non-conformity.
• A well known study of disobedience was carried
  out by Gamson et al 1982. They set up a fictional
  public relations firm called Manufacturers Human
  Relations Consultants. Participants were
  employed to help with the company, collect
  opinions on moral standards.
• See the handout textbook for details of the
  method and results.

94

• Methodological ethical issues with Gamsons
  research -
• High mundane realism
• Low demand characteristics
• Cause and effect difficult to establish many
  factors may have contributed to the disobedience
  shown in the study.
• Stress
• Informed consent
• Deception

95

• Why did the ps demonstrate disobedience in this
  study and not in Milgrams, how does it differ
  from Milgrams study?
• Note the date 1982 much later than Milgrams.
  People may have become more aware of (or educated
  about) unquestioning obedience in fact one
  participant even quoted Milgrams study as a
  reason for not obeying.
• The participants were in groups rather than
  alone, this made it easier for them to support
  each other in their disobedience Provides role
  models of disobedience.

96

• So why did people disobey in Gamsons study?
  (Smith Mackie, 2000)
• A group (rather than an individual) who share the
  same alternative view to the authority figure can
  be used against the authority figure.
• Reactance people often react against unjust
  attempts to control their behaviour.
• Systematic thinking (rather than superficial
  thinking) rebellion is more likely when people
  have time to think carefully about what they are
  being asked to do.

97

• Individual Differences in Independent Behaviour.
• 1) Different Personality Characteristics
• (Are some people naturally more independent than
  others?)
• Arnsos Authoritarian personality.
• Crutchfield(1955) suggested that-
• Conformers Non-Conformers
• Low self-esteem High self-esteem
• Less intelligent More intelligent
• High need for social approval More self-confident
• Leadership abilities

98

• The way we think is known as Cognitive Style
• 2) Locus of Control (cognitive style way of
  thinking)
• Does a persons locus of control affect their
  level of independent behaviour?
• What is Locus of Control ?

99
Locus of Control

• Locus of control is
• The belief about what controls the events in our
  everyday lives, our successes and failures.
• Each person has a locus of control that is
  primarily EXTERNAL or INTERNAL.
• EXTERNAL the belief that life is controlled by
  events/forces outside of the individual.
• INTERNAL the belief that life is controlled by
  the individual (the self).

100

• Rotter (1966) developed a Locus of control
  scale based on a questionnaire. The I-E scale
  
• The aim of the scale was to measure the degree of
  external or internal locus of control a person
  showed.
• In the questionnaire you are asked to choose one
  of two alternatives from a list of items such
  as-

101
Examples of items on Rotters locus of control
questionnaire- (a) In the case of the well
prepared student there is rarely, if ever, such a
thing as an unfair test. (b) Examination
questions are often so unrelated to class-work
that studying is really useless.   (a) The
average citizen can have an influence on
government decisions (b) This world is run by a
few people in power, and there is not much the
little guy can do about it.  
102
(a) Most people do not realise the extent to
which their lives are controlled by accidental
happenings. (b) There is no such thing as
luck.   (a) What happens to me is my own
doing. (b) Sometimes I feel that I do not have
enough control over the direction my life is
taking.
103

• You can check out your locus of control score
  online

104

• Rotters Locus Of Control scale has been used in
  many studies to see if locus of control is
  related to different aspects of human behaviour
  (e.g the effect of stress on the individual). It
  has also been used to see if independent
  behaviour and conformity are related to locus of
  control.
• The findings from studies looking at locus of
  control and independent behaviour are
  contradictory . . . .

105

• Williams Warchal (1981) suggested locus of
  control is less important to conformity
  independent behaviour than assertiveness.
• Method -30 students Asch task IE scale
• Found -No difference in IE scores between high
  low conformers, but high conformers (low
  independent behaviour) were less assertive than
  low conformers (high independent behaviour).
• On the other hand . . .

106

• Atgis(1998) suggested that people with a high
  external locus of control score are more likely
  to conform ( and show less independent behaviour)
  than people with a low external locus of control
  score.
• Method meta-analysis of conformity locus of
  control studies
• Found high E scores correlated with high
  conformity levels average correlation was 0.37
  (a significant correlation)

107

• Further support for the importance of cognitive
  style (way of thinking) in independent behaviour
  comes from-
• Oliner Oliner (1988)
• Interviewed non-Jewish people, 406 who had helped
  to protect Jews from the Nazis (independent
  behaviour) and 126 who had not helped (conforming
  behaviour).
• They found that- Helpers showed an internal
  locus of control and scored high on measures of
  social responsibility

108

• Elms Milgram (1974)
• Followed up a sample of the participants who had
  taken part in Milgrams original obedience
  experiments, they interviewed them.
• They found- the participants who had disobeyed
  the orders to continue to the end of the shock
  generator showed an internal locus of control and
  scored high on measures of social responsibility
• These two studies suggest that locus of control
  and social responsibility are both important
  factors in an individuals ability to show
  independent behaviour.

109

• Gender Differences in Locus of Control
• Linz Semykenia (2005)- two Russian
  psychologists surveyed 2,600 Russian employees
  and found in general that
• Men internal locus of control need challenge
• - no difference in salaries of internals
  externals
• Women external locus of control need
  
• affiliation( relationships)
• - internals earned higher wages than
  externals
• (NB. Salary was seen as a measure of success
  therefore independent behaviour e.g. initative,
  dependent on own actions)

110

• We have considered the way people may naturally
  differ in independent behaviour. Now we ask-
• Can Independent behaviour be encouraged or
  developed?
• Nemeth Chiles (1988) suggest that by exposing
  an individual to a model of independent
  behaviour (someone who has acted independently
  and not conformed), the individual is influenced
  to stand firm and resist group pressure.
• How did they arrive at this conclusion? See page
  220 in the textbook.

111
How science works practical work in the social
psychology topic Dragons Den

• Group work - You are going to design one of two
  studies and present your design to the Dragons to
  see if they will give you the funding you need to
  carry out the research.
• The research studies-
• An experiment to test the presence of a dissenter
  on conformity levels
• A correlation study to see if locus of control is
  related to conformity levels.

112

• Using and Abusing Social Psychology
• Good use of social influence research findings-
• Social Change (changing the status of a group
  when a society adopts a new way of thinking or
  behaving which then becomes widely accepted as
  the norm)
• Positive social change improves the groups
  status, examples-
• Ghandis dissent against the British salt tax in
  India eventually led to dramatic positive social
  change in India.

113

• Suffragette demonstrations womens votes and
  position in society
• Wilberforce the abolition of slavery
• Nelson Mandela South Africa reform
• Gay Lesbian movements to reduce
  discrimination
• All of theses examples involve a minority who
  went against societys norms and brought about
  positive social change. They increased the status
  of the group to which they belonged.

114

• Tajfels Social Identity Theory (in-group, out-
  group and the meta-contrast principle) can be
  used to explain how social change can come about.
• If an individuals in-group status is
  unsatisfactory and seen by the out-group in a
  negative light then the individual has two
  choices if they wish to change their social
  identity-
• Move into the out-group-social mobility
• Try to change the status of their
  in-group-social action

115

• Social mobility the most common strategy in the
  west where group boundaries are more permeable
  e.g. immigrant workers gaining qualifications and
  eventually better jobs they can move up into a
  higher status group.

116

• 2. Social Action trying to improve the group
  one belongs to (the in-group). Often this is the
  only available strategy or it may be that the
  individual doesnt want to leave that group.
• This can be achieved in several different ways
  including -
• Social Creativity
• Social Competition

117

• Social Creativity a group redefines its
  attributes and characteristics in a positive way.
  E.g Black is beautiful. The group campaigns to
  present its attributes in a more favourable
  light than previously seen by the out-group.
• Research example - Lemaine (1974)
• Teams of French boys at summer camp.
• Given materials to build a hut. One team had
  inferior materials so were never going to be
  able to win they created a beautiful garden
  round their hut this allowed them to win in a
  different way. They created their own positive
  attributes.

118

• Social Competition direct competition between
  the inferior minority group and the superior
  majority group, with the minority group taking
  Social Action to challenge the social
  conditions than disadvantage them.
• Social action - campaign, equal rights, improve
  the power, status position of the group. This
  may lead to inter group conflict but will also
  lead to social change.
• Examples- Gay lesbian groups, feminist
  groups, disability groups
• Think how have these groups brought about
  social change and what are those changes?
• Think what did we learn about minority group
  influence how would it apply to Social
  Action?

119

• Abuse of social influence research findings-
• Social Control manipulation of people to do
  what a power wants them to do.
• E.G.
• Interrogation false confessions
• Thought reform, indoctrination (brainwashing)

120

• Interrogation false confessions
• Based on the finding from conformity studies
  (e.g. Asch), that uncertainty in a situation
  makes an individual more likely to be influenced
  by others
• Interviewers create a feeling of uncertainty
  regarding the events they are interviewing the
  suspect about making the suspect more likely to
  conform to the view of the interviewers.

121

• Research Example- Kassin Kiechel (1996)

a,n,g,t,h,e,r,y,s,d,m,u,j,p,l,q,z,c,v,k,x,b,
Type the letters as fast as you can on the
keyboard. DO NOT touch the ALT key or the
computer will crash and your important reaction
time data will be lost. Ready, steady, go !
122

• BUT . . . as usual in social psychology research

The computer was set to crash after a set time.
No one had actually pressed the ALT key
DECEPTION
OH NO. You must have pressed the ALT key !! All
the data is lost. Youll have to sign this
document to say it was your fault and not mine.
123
31 refused to sign
69 agreed to sign
28 of these were convinced that they had pressed
the ALT key
124
This is what you saw isnt it?
You were doing this werent you?
In a real life pressured police interview, people
may be put in a situation where they eventually
come to accept a version of events that may not
be correct. Mackie (2000)
It was a gun wasnt it ?
This is what you said isnt it?
125

• Thought reform, indoctrination (brainwashing)
• Thought Reform China (1920s onwards) change
  peoples political beliefs
• and accept the communist regime.

An amazing read about three generations of women
during the revolution.
The revolutionary colleges were set up in the
1940s to indoctrinate students towards the
communist regime.
126

• In 1957 a writer called Lifton wrote about the
  three stage process of indoctrination in the
  revolutionary colleges.
• Stage 1 - Intellectual
• Small discussion groups of own views exposure
  to views of those who hated the old regime.
  Lectures on new ideologies. (exposure to
  consistent minority opinion)
• Stage 2 Personal and emotional
• Pressure to adopt new correct views.
  Conformity (compliance) independent behaviour
  was punished (humiliation, threats etc)
  (majority influence conformity)
• Stage 3 Confession (internalisation or
  compliance??)
• Each student had to write a confession ( an
  essay of between 5 25 thousand words)
  renouncing the old regime and embracing the new
  communist ideologies.
• These were read out in the small discussion
  groups.

127

• Indoctrination and brainwashing
• E.G. during the Korean war in the 1950s. Captured
  UN soldiers were subjected to brainwashing by the
  Chinese.
• In the POW camps

UN soldiers Political students No contact
with outside world. Physical survival dependent
upon their embracing communist ideologies.
Guards Tutors
128

• After their release at the end of the war very
  few soldiers stayed on to live under that regime,
  most preferring to go back to a non-communist
  regime. The returning soldiers were interviewed
  to assess the extent of the brainwashing
  individual differences found the most resistant
  were those with strong political or religious
  views and the bloody-minded.(Brown, 1996)
• This suggests that attempts to indoctrinate are
  not always successful and people differ in the
  extent to which they succumb to it.

129

• Examples of questions that may be asked on this
  topic-
• Explain what is meant buy
• social action, (2 marks)
• social change, (2 marks)
• social mobility, (2 marks)
• social control (2 marks)
• Outline two strategies that can be used by
  minority groups to improve the groups status. (4
  marks)
• Discuss ways in which social influence research
  can be used and abused. (12 marks)

130

• Social Influence Unit Summary and Revision
• Tasks work in pairs on the following-
• Produce a detailed summary diagram of this unit
  on A3 paper. To do this use page 185 of the
  textbook. The headings in the section content
  should be the main headings on your diagram.
  Using the textbook pages relevant to each section
  decide what points to make under each section on
  the diagram.
• Go through pages 185 227 and
• write out concept cards or a glossary list of
  all of the Key Terms.
• List all of the research examples that are
  mentioned and make a brief note of why they were
  mentioned in the text
• e.g. Asch investigated conformity line
  comparison task factors affecting conformity
  ethical issues (deception , protection, informed
  consent)
• Gamson looked at disobedience
• Answer question 2 on page 227

131

• The following slide shows the beginning of a good
  summary diagram you can add much more onto it
  than I have been able to show you.
• You can stick several sheets of paper together to
  enlarge you diagram as it grows.
• Keep your writing small so that you can fit
  plenty of detail on it.
• Dont just copy huge sections from the book
• Try to include the key terms and main research
  examples on the diagram

132
Method, findings, conclusion Methodological
Ethical issues (variations of the study e.g.
Asch)
How we conform Everyday example
following fashion Research example Sherifs
Autokinetic effect group norms
Types of conformity Compliance Aschs line
matchingstudy Internalisation Clarks mock jury
study Identification Zimbardos prison study
Factors affecting conformity Size of majority
Asch 3 Importance of time-Asch 1950, Perrin
Spencer 1981 Importance of culture
individualistic vs collectivist Importance of
modern technologies facebook, my space
Research into Obedience Milgrams electric shock
study
Why do people conform? Explaining Majority
Influence- Dual Processing theory Normative
and Informational Social Influence Deutsch
Gerrard Social Identity theory Tajfel. Hogg
conformity
Obedience
Social Influence
Explaining Minority Influence- Social Impact
theory Latane Wolf Social Influence model
Tanford Penrod