Social Influence

AO1

Types

Compliance: Change public, not private, shallowest level, temporary, caused by NSI

Identification (Y13 only): Change to be part of a group, temporary

Internalisation: Change public & private, deepest, permanent, caused by ISI

Explanations

NSI: Change - need to be liked

ISI: Change - need to be right

AO3

+ Evidence NSI: Asch

+ Evidence ISI Lucas (maths)

- Individual diff - McGhee & Teevan naffiliators

- Incomplete explanation - Turner Referent Informational Influence​​

AO1

40 USA males, false aim on learning, rigged random allocation to teacher, Mr Wallace = learner, shock machine (15-450v), 4 'prods' given if refused to obey.

Findings: 65% obedience rate

Qualitative: "full blown seizures"

AO3

+ Hofling (nurses) 21/22 nurses obeyed in real life

- Low internal validity (Orne & Holland)

- Individual diff: 100% females & 50% males shocked a puppy

- Ethics: right to withdraw, harm​

​

​

AO1

Dispositional explanation

Adorno (1950) 2000 white middle class USA, aim to measure unconscious attitudes,

F-Scale to measure AP

Those with AP are more obedient,

conscious of hierarchy, fixed cognitive styles, traditional views

Stems from strict and harsh parenting and anger is displaced

AO3

+ Milgram & Elms (1966) - obedient ppts had high F-scale score

- Cannot explain whole populations

- Greenstein (1969) "comedy of methodological errors" due to acquiescence bias: Jackson's reverse F-scale -ve correlation

- Right wing political bias

​

AO1

Minorities

Draw attention

Consistency

Deeper processing

Augmentation principle

Snowball effect

Social cryptoamnesia

[Don't Climb Down A Steep Slope]

Conformity - Pressure of NSI

Obedience - Obey new laws

AO3

+ Nolan (2008) energy reduction with messages on doors

- Mackie (1987) disagrees: majority leads to deeper processing

- Bashir (2008) avoid acting in stereotypical ways "tree hugger"

AO1

Line study, 6-8, one naive ppt, unambiguous task, standard line v comparison line, ppt sat one from last, 36.8% conformity rate of all critical trials

75% conformed at least once

Group size: 3% (1), 13% (2,) 32% (3), After 3 it plateaus. NSI.

Unanimity: Dissenter (gave the correct answer) 5%. Breaks NSI.

Task difficulty: Increases with task difficulty. ISI.

AO3

- Demand characteristics

- Perrin & Spencer "child of its time" - results lack temporal validity

- Individual differences: women & collectivist conform more

- Ignores that the most common behaviour was not to conform

​

AO1

Baseline obedience rate 65%

Proximity: T-L in same room 40%, T-L hand on plate 30%, E-T over phone 20%

Location: 48% in rundown office, not legitimate authority

Uniform: Bickman - 76% guard, 47% milkman, 30% civilian

AO3

- Bickman: confounding variables

- Is culture more important? 16% Australia, 85% Germany

- Milgram: lack of internal validity

- Real life application: uniforms

​

​

AO1

Social support (situational)

An ally can help people resist

Conformity: Asch dissenter 5%, breaks pressure of NSI

Obedience: Milgram 2 disobedient peers 10%, role model

Locus of control (dispositional)

The degree to which someone believes they have control over their lives. Internal / external 

Measured on a continuum

Internals more likely to resist as they

take personal responsibility

AO3

+ Gamson (1982) - social support

+ Allen & Levine (1971) - still increases even when poor eyesight

+ Holland (1967) 37% internal, 23% external in Milgram replication

- Twenge (2004) 1960-2002 people more resistant, more external

AO1

Stanford Prison Study (1973)

Controlled observation, 21 male volunteers, randomly allocated to guards / prisoners, created deindividuation = glasses, uniform, smocks, numbers 

Findings: Meant to last 2 weeks, lasted 6 days, prisoners subdued, guards brutal e.g. 'the hole'

Individuals readily conform to social roles due to situational factors

AO3

+ Controls: random & testing

- Demand characteristics

- Not all guards were brutal, a third helped prisoners

- Alternative explanation: SIT​

​

​

​

AO1

Agentic State

Autonomous state

Agentic shift (moral strain)

Binding Factors

Legitimacy of authority

Hierarchical structure - we hand over control to authority as long as 

legal (power to punish) or moral

Children socialised to accept Destructive authority

AO3

+ Blass & Schmitt - ppts said it was the experimenters fault

- 35% did not obey - dispositional?

- Demand characteristics of study

+ Real life application: Mai Lai massacre

AO1

Consistency: maintaining the same message over time (diachronic) and in the group  (synchronic)

Commitment: dedication by making a sacrifice

Flexibility: compromise

Snowball effect: converting

Moscovici: groups of 6, 36 blue slides, consistent condition 8.42% and inconsistent 1.25%

AO3

+ Moscovici: low mundane realism

+ Martin (2003) less willing to change views in minority group

+ Flexibility - Nemeth and Brilmayer (1987): ski accident

+ Xie et al (2011) discovered a tipping point of 10% for snowball effect