Social Influence

1
Social Influence

• The study of how thoughts, feelings and behaviour
  of individuals are influenced by the actual,
  imagined or implied presence of others

2
Conformity Minority Influence

• Conformity (majority influence) A social
  influence that results from exposure to the
  majority position. Tendency to adopt behaviour,
  attitudes and values of other members of the
  reference group.

3
CONFORMITY

• Which definition do you prefer?
• A change in behaviour or belief as a result of
  real or imagined group pressure
• A tendency for people to adopt the behaviour,
  attitudes or values of other members of a
  reference group
• Yielding to the norms of a group

4
How do we conform?

• What are our social norms?

5
JENNESS 1932

• Beans in a jar study. Students were asked to
  estimate the number of beans in a jar.
• They then discussed it in groups
• They were asked to give a second estimate
• Findings the 2nd estimate converged towards the
  group estimate
• This is called CONVERGENCE OF GROUP NORMS

6
SHERIF 1935

• Autokinetic effect study. Ps were asked to judge
  how much a pinprick of light moved.
• Tested alone and then in groups of 3
• Their estimates tended to converge when in the
  group
• The influence of the group remained, even if they
  were tested on their own again later

7
Please state which shape is the same size as the
standard

• Standard

A B
C
A B
C
A B
C
8
Conformity Asch (1956)
Standard Line
Comparison Lines
9
Aschs Findings

• 37 true participant responses were incorrect
• 25 participants never gave a wrong answer
• Conclusion A majority can influence a minority
  even in unambiguous situations.
• (Ambiguous means doubtful)

10
Why did people conform?

• Distortion of perception they really think they
  are wrong
• Distortion of judgement doubted accuracy of
  their judgement
• Distortion of action they didnt want to be
  ridiculed

11
EVALUATION OF ASCH

• Aschs study may be a child of its time. In
  1950s USA conformity was high
• Ps were placed in an embarrassing and
  humiliating situation (ethics)
• Conformity was tested amongst strangers, not
  friends

12
VARIATIONS OF THE ASCH STUDY

• Asch found that conformity increased if the
  majority was 2 rather than 3, but no increase
  occurred between 3-16
• If one confederate gave the correct answer, the
  genuine P also did

13
NORMATIVE SOCIAL INFLUENCE

• This type if influence here means responding to
  group pressure in order to be accepted by the
  group
• TASK with a partner, think of 4 examples of
  normative social influence amongst teenagers

14
ETHICAL ISSUES

• Participants were DECEIVED and informed consent
  was impossible.
• DEBRIEFING A solution to ethical issues, not
  an issue in itself
• Offered the RIGHT TO WITHHOLD DATA after
  experiment. Compensates for deception and offers
  informed consent afterwards.
• DISTRESS (Psychological harm) conforming or
  resisting experienced pressure. High blood
  pressure indicates arousal and stressed.

15
INFORMATIONAL SOCIAL INFLUENCE NORMATIVE SOCIAL
INFLUENCE

• DEUTSCH AND GERARD defined these
• Informational Social Influence people are
  influenced by the superior knowledge of others
• Normative Social Influence avoiding rejection
  from the group.

16
REASONS FOR CONFORMING

• KELMAN distinguished between
• COMPLIANCE public agreement, private
  disagreement
• IDENTIFICATION person identifies with a social
  role and conforms to what is expected in that
  role
• INTERNALISATION person privately agrees with the
  norm and acts accordingly

17
ZIMBARDOS PRISON EXPERIMENT

• PROCEDURE Male students volunteered for 15 per
  day
• 24 most stable mentally physically selected and
  randomly assigned guard or prisoner
• Prisoners were unexpectedly arrested at home
• On entry deloused, searched, given no. uniform,
  nylon stocking cap ankle chain
• Guards referred to prisoners by number allowed
  3 supervised loo trips two hrs letter writing
• Guards were given uniforms, clubs, whistles
  reflective sunglasses

18
FINDINGS

• Guards became increasingly tyrannical some
  volunteered for extra unpaid hours
• Played roles even when not watched
• Some prisoners were released early due to extreme
  depression
• The planned 2 week experiment was stopped after 6
  days

19
CONCLUSIONS

• It appears that guards prisoners conformed to
  social roles
• NORMATIVE SOCIAL INFLUENCE
• SITUATIONAL explanation of guards behaviour ie
  why did ordinary students become brutal guards?
• Participants COMPLIED to the roles assigned to
  them. Their personalities did not change

20
CONCLUSIONS

• Zimbardo suggested 2 key processes
• DE-INDIVIDUATION
• uniforms removed individual identities
• LEARNED HELPLESSNESS
• prisoners knew that their actions made no
  difference. Lack of rewards results in decreased
  effort. Reliance on guards increased sense of
  helplessness

21
CRITICISMS

• Demand characteristics artificiality
• Participants took on a role
• In real life prisons have complex rules (not just
  maintain reasonable degree of order)
• Guards admitted they were acting (Cool Hand Luke)
• Internal validity low as responding to demand
  characteristics rather than conformity
• Cant generalise to real life prison as low
  ecological validity

22
(No Transcript)
23
(No Transcript)
24
(No Transcript)
25
(No Transcript)
26
(No Transcript)
27
(No Transcript)
28
MINORITYINFLUENCE

• Minorities e.g. the suffragettes and other
  revolutionary groups can also change the opinion
  of the majority

29
Moscovici et al (1969)

• Study of the influence of a consistent minority
  on the responses of a majority in a colour
  perception task

30
AIMS AND PROCEDURE

• To demonstrate that a minority can influence a
  majority view.
• Groups of six participants were presented with 36
  blue slides that varied in intensity. Two
  confederates of the experimenter were in the
  group. They were instructed to say that all the
  slides were green or that 2/3 were.

31
FINDINGS

• When the confederates said green on every trial
  8 of participants responses said green.
• When the confederates said green on 2/3 of the
  trials only 1 of participants responses were
  green.

32
CONCLUSIONS

• When members of a minority are consistent in
  their opinions they can on occasions influence
  the majority.
• Be cautious as most people were not influenced by
  the minority
• This has implications for leaders. They need to
  be consistent in order to persuade others
• When people are influenced by a minority, they
  undergo conversion, i.e. they convert to the new
  opinion

33
EVALUATION OF MOSCOVICIS STUDY

• EXPERIMENTAL REALISM this means did the Ps
  believe the experimental set up? It may not have
  been, thus lacking internal validity
• MUNDANE REALISM this means was the set-up too
  artificial to be mundane and everyday?
  Identifying the colour of a slide is not
  equivalent to minority influence in everyday
  situations. So results have low external
  validity because they cannot be generalised to
  real-life settings

34
IMPORTANCE OF MOSCOVICIS STUDY

• One of the first studies to investigate minority
  influence
• Isolated consistency and therefore strong belief
  as a factor in influence
• Highlighted a main difference between majority
  and minority influence compliance and
  conversion
• Nemeth further investigated minority influence.
  Include in an 18 marker p.235

35
Conditions for Conversion
Consistency The minority must be consistent in
their opinion
Flexibility The minority must not appear to be
rigid dogmatic
Relevance The minority will be more successful if
their views are in line with social trends
Commitment A committed minority will lead people
to rethink their position.
36
Majority vs Minority Influence

• Majorities maintain the status quo, promoting
  uniformity and exerting pressure on those
  deviating
• Minority influence associated with change
  innovation as the ideas cause a social conflict
• For minority influence to work there must be a
  conversion in those from the majority

37
EXPLANATIONS OF MINORITY INFLUENCE

• Social impact theory
• Latane Wolf (1991) suggest all social influence
  dependent on 3 factors

Strength Describes no. present consistency of
message expressed
Status Knowledge Higher the status expertise
the greater the influence
Immediacy Closer the person is physically
emotionally, the greater the effect
38
EVALUATION OF SOCIAL IMPACT THEORY

• It can account for many different types of social
  behaviour
• It explains both majority and minority influence

39
EXPLANATIONS OF MINORITY INFLUENCE

• Dissociation Model
• Developed by Mugny (1991) Perez (1995)
• Minority ideas taken up but often dissociated
  from the people who originate them (disliked)
• Dissociation avoids identification with group

40
EXPLANATIONS OF MINORITY INFLUENCE

• Dual Process Theory
• Moscovici (1980) suggested majority minority
  influence work in different ways
• Majority influence arises from compliance with an
  emphasis on social factors eg belonging
• Minority influence through conversion
• i.e. an internalising of the new belief

41
CULTURAL FACTORS

• Aschs experiment may be a result of
  cultural/historical factors. Society is less
  conformist today
• There have been over 20 Asch type studies
  conducted in other countries.
• Highest conformity found in Fidgi 58
• Lowest conformity found in Belgium-14

42
HISTORICAL FACTORS

• Perrin Spencer (1980) repeated study in
  England. 1 student conformed in 396 trials. But
  they used engineering students
• Perrin Spencer (1980) used youths on
  probation and probation officers as confederates.
  Same results as Asch.
• Lalancette standing (1990) found no
  conformity and concluded Aschs findings were an
  unpredictable phenomenon.

43
INDIVIDUALISM AND COLLECTIVISM

• Individualistic societies, e.g. UK, USA emphasise
  personal responsibility and independence,
  therefore less conformist
• Collectivist societies, e.g. India, China
  emphasise the group/family over the individual,
  therefore more conformist

44
DE-INDIVIDUATION

• This means a loss of personal identity. It can
  occur when we are in a crowd or wearing a mask.
• Evidence that this occurs comes from the fact
  that Ps asked to give electric shocks to a
  person gave double the intensity if wearing a lab
  coat and hood
• But if asked to wear a nurses uniform, gave less
  intense shocks
• Either way, de-individuation leads to greater
  conformity to a social role

45
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES

• Asch (1956) those low in self-esteem likely to
  conform
• Burger Cooper (1979)
• Participants rated whether cartoons were funny or
  not in presence of a confederate.
• Those rated with a high desire for personal
  control less likely to agree with confederate.
• Eagley Carly (1981) found women more likely to
  conform
• Women are more concerned with social
  relationships
• Women therefore appear to be more conformist

46
PARTICIPANT REACTIVITY

• Demand Characteristics
• Orne (1962)observed people behave differently in
  psychology experiments
• People want to please the investigator
• People become over co-operative
• Demand characteristics can become a confounding
  variable
• Social Desirability Bias
• Participants answers in questionnaires do not
  reflect true opinions

47
INVESTIGATOR EFFECTS

• Anything investigator does that influences
  participant
• Investigator Bias
• Rosenthal Fode (1962) showed rats affected by
  experimenter
• 2 groups of rats, students told one were maze
  bright.
• No difference but findings showed maze bright
  rats did better
• Due to student expectations

48
INVESTIGATOR EFFECTS

• Interviewer Bias
• Interviewees behaviour affected by leading
  questions
• Greenspoon Effect (1955)
• Greenspoon found he could alter participants
  behaviour by saying mm-hmm (OPERANT
  CONDITIONING)

49
CONTROLLING FOR INVESTIGATOR EFFECTS

• Single double blind studies
• Single participants dont know true aims
• Double participants investigators dont know
• Standardised instructions
• Stops investigator communicating expectations
  inadvertently
• Using Placebo conditions
• Participants think they are receiving the
  experimental treatment but they are not

50
EXPERIMENTAL CONTROL

• Random allocation into independent groups avoids
  bias
• Counterbalancing
• In repeated measures studies you may get a
  practice effect
• Counter balancing splits a group to remove order
  practice effects
• Standardised procedures
• Make sure all tested at same time of day in
  same environment