Social Influence Summary

Study Details

• Conducted at Yale University
• Participants: 40 male individuals with varied occupations
• Roles: Teacher, student, & experimenter
• Procedure: Administer shock for every incorrect answer
• Results:
  • 300v compliance = 100%
  • 450v compliance = 65%

Conformity

Types of Conformity

• Compliance:
  • Conform publicly, but not privately.
  • Temporary and superficial.
• Identification:
  • Conform while in a group (e.g., Zimbardo SPE)
• Internalisation:
  • Conform both publicly and privately.
  • Lasts longer.

Explanations of Conformity

• Zimbardo - Conformity to Social Roles

Obedience

Milgram's Research into Obedience

1. Situational Variables Affecting Obedience
2. Agentic State
3. Legitimacy of Authority
4. Dispositional Explanation: Authoritarian Personality

Resistance

• Locus of Control (LoC):

  • Internal vs. External
  • Internal LoC more likely to resist social pressures.

• Normative Social Influence (NSI):

  • Desire to be liked; linked with compliance.

• Informational Social Influence (ISI):

  • Desire to be right; linked with internalisation.

Research Studies

• Asch (1951): Line judgement task
  • 75% conformed at least once.
  • Approx. 33% conformed across all trials.
  • Issues: Lack of ecological, temporal, and population validity.

Variables Affecting Conformity

• Group Size: Key number is 3; above 3 made no difference.
• Task Difficulty: Increases conformity if task is harder.
• Unanimity: Decreases conformity if broken.

Key Experiments

• Stanford Prison Experiment:
  • Fake prison, male student volunteers.
  • Results: Guards imposed authority, prisoners rebelled.
  • Study ended after 6 days due to ethical concerns.

Explanations of Obedience

• Highly controlled studies

• Lacks ecological & population validity

• Location Impact:

  • Yale Uni vs. run-down office block (65% to 47.5%)

• Uniform Impact:

  • Decreased obedience from 65% to 20%

• Proximity Impact:

  • Teacher & learner in the same room decreased obedience from 65% to 40%

• Cultural Differences:

  • Variations in obedience observed in Australia & Germany.

• Agentic State:

  • Giving up autonomy and moral responsibility to authority.

Studies

• Hofling et al. (1966): Nurses study; 21/22 obeyed.
• Lifton (1986): Drs at Auschwitz; irreversible shift.
• Tarnow (2000): Cockpit obedience in airplanes.

Explanations of Resistance

• Oliner & Oliner (1988): Rescuers of Jews had internal LoC.
• Holland (1967): Internal LoC more resistant in Milgram's study.
• Social Support: Helps individuals resist pressure.

Minority Influence

• Commitment: Personal sacrifice increases influence.
• Flexibility: Acceptance of compromise vs. rigidity.
• Consistency: Holding beliefs over time.

Moscovici et al. (1969)

• All female sample; consistency increased influence from 1% to 8%.

Social Influence Processes Involved in Social Change

1. Drawing Attention: Highlighting issues.
2. Cognitive Conflict: Encouraging deeper thought.
3. Consistency: Maintaining beliefs.
4. Augmentation Principle: Committed minorities are taken more seriously.
5. Snowball Effect: Gradual increase to a tipping point.
6. Social Cryptoamnesia: Memory of change without recollection of the process.

"Bear it in MIND"