Social influence. Conformity: Yielding to majority social influence.

Transcription

1 1 Social influence Conformity: Yielding to majority social influence. Myers (1999): changes in behaviour/belief as a result of real/imagined group pressure Zimbardo: people adopt the behaviour, values and attitudes of a reference group Compliance: publicly conforming but privately maintaining own views. Internalisation: publicly conforming and privately adopting group views. Identification: the internalisation process, but only lasting temporarily. Reasons for conforming: Normative social influence: conforming to be liked. Feel that others will accept and approve them if they conform. Informational social influence: conforming to be right. People look those to those that they believe are correct as a way of obtaining information about how to behave, especially in unfamiliar situations. Conformity research Study Sherif (1935) Asch (1951) Crutchfield (1955) Findings In an ambiguous situation participants experienced informational influence where they followed the group norm and the effects continued even when they were alone afterwards. In an unambiguous situation (lines of different sizes) Asch found there was a strong group pressure to conform with the unanimous majority, involving both normative and informational influence. With a simulation of group conformity, the conformity rate was 30%, where the more difficult the task the higher the conformity. Evaluation of conformity research Advantages Neto (1995): Portuguese women were found to easily conform. Nicholson et al. (1985): Similar conformity levels found in Britain. Disadvantages Cultural differences: Smith and Bond (1998): Meta-analysis found that collectivist cultures had higher levels of conformity. Perrin and Spencer (1980): conformity wasn t found in British students. Individual differences: Furman and Duke (1988): Lack of confidence increases conformity. Factors affecting conformity include the number of people, the task type, what responses are given and whether partners were lost or gained.

2 2 Zimbardo et al. (1973) People conform due to situational factors, where normative social influence and the prison environment was found to cause sadistic behaviour. People conform to social roles (especially those roles that are strongly stereotyped). These roles are powerful and can shape attitudes and behaviour Evidence concerning Zimbardo study Advantages Orlando (1973): In a mock psychiatric ward, therapists easily conformed to their roles as mock patients and consequently suffered. Disadvantages Zimbardo only included male students as participants. BBC Prison Study by Haslam and Reicher (2005): Guards developed no conforming group identity. Prisoners developed a shared social identity and experienced positive outcomes. Ethics of Zimbardo et al. (1973) study Ethical Zimbardo: the harm to participants was necessary for the knowledge obtained concerning how individuals are susceptible to social influence. Zimbardo: the prison environment and realism of the study was necessary as people don t really know how they will behave unless forced into a specific environment. Unethical Harm to participants: Savin (1973) criticised Zimbardo concerning the extreme emotional and behavioural effects on the participants. Independent surveillance should have been used. Zimbardo acted as both prison superintendent and chief researcher Obedience to authority Cardwell: obedience is the result of social influence where someone acts in response to a direct order from an authority figure. Milgram (1963) study Findings: 100% of participants applied 300 volts, 65% applied 450 volts. Most participants found the procedure stressful, though they still continued. Conclusion: In certain circumstances people will obey orders that go against their conscience. When occupying a subordinate position in a dominance hierarchy people may lose feelings of empathy, compassion and morality. They will then be inclined to blind obedience. Crimes may be committed because of situational factors, where people act under the influence of a powerful authority rather than the influence of the disposition (personality) of the individual. Obedience is reduced if participants see consequences of their actions and if they have to apply physical force.

3 3 Evaluation of Milgram s study and other research into obedience. Advantages Ecological validity: Hofling et al. (1966): high levels of obedience in a real-life setting, where nurses were obeyed harmful orders given by a pretend doctor via a phone call. Meeus and Raaijmakers (1986): participants had to play the role of an interviewer for job applicants. They obeyed instructions to cause interviewees distress and continued even when seeing the harm they caused. Bickman (1974): instructions were followed when given by someone in uniform. As a visible symbol of authority the uniform increases levels of obedience. Disadvantages Lack of ecological validity: Orne and Holland (1968): lab doesn t resemble real-life obedience situation. Rank and Jacobson : Nurses wouldn t administer harmful dose of medication if they were aware of its toxic effects. Experimental validity: some refused to continue applying harmful shock. Only males were used in Milgram s study. Ethics of Milgram s study. Ethical Milgram didn t intend to cause harm and couldn t predict that the participants would behave in the negative way they did. The findings for how obedience functions in society may be worth the cost to the participants e.g. in helping us understand Nazi war crimes. A careful debriefing was offered afterwards to explain to participants what they were involved in and that they were not bad people for acting as they did. Follow up psychiatric testing found no long-term harmful effects. Some participants may have benefited from developing a healthy scepticism of authority in future. The study increased awareness concerning how ethical guidelines are developed for future studies. Unethical Harm to participants: Baumrind (1964): insufficient protection and potential for longterm harm. Darley (1992) stated that Milgram changed innocent participants into people that were of harm to society. Mandel (1998): the findings weren t all due to situational factors, where the personalities of participants were also important i.e. they may have already been bad people. There was a lack of informed consent.

4 4 Explanations of obedience Legitimate authority Gradual commitment Contractual obligation Semantic reframing Buffers Personality The associations of expertise and power as well a fear of punishment, make people more likely to obey requests by authority. Foot in the door effect: small and gradual increases in what is requested means that a person doesn t feel as if a lot is being requested of them. They also continue to obey because they desire to be seen as consistent. After initially agreeing to help they may feel as if they are doing something wrong if they refuse to continue. Altering the meaning and wording of the task and instructions can change the meaning from the perspective of the participant. Where consequences don t have to be seen, people are more likely to obey orders which cause harmful consequences. Authoritarian and Psychopathic personalities are more likely to administer stronger shocks. Independent behaviour This is behaviour that remains unchanged even under social pressure to conform or obey. Resisting pressures to conform Desire for individuation: Person doesn t want to be seen as being the same as everyone else Desire to maintain control: Person wants to feel as if they are making their own decisions Prior commitment: If their original view opposes that of the majority, they may continue to hold it in order to be consistent. Time to think and find social support: Aronson (1999): people should become aware of the influences upon them and then find others to join in their resistance of conforming influences. Resisting pressures to obey authority Feeling responsible and empathetic: Consideration of the morality and consequences of following an order may prevent a person following such order so blindly. Disobedient models: Viewing others disobeying authority encourages the observer to resist obeying. Questioning motives and status of authority: If the authority figure or the situation seems illegitimate individuals are less likely to obey Time for discussion: Individuals may share their suspicions about the authority figure and oppose together Reactance: If a person feels too much pressure to obey and that the authority figure is trying too hard to control them, they may oppose authority to maintain a sense of freedom. Locus of control: Internal locus of control: person believes that they control their life. External locus of control: person believes that their environment and other people control their life.

5 5 Research concerning resistance of pressures to obey authority Study Blass (1991) Schurz Findings Locus of control: Those with internal locus of control were more likely to resist obeying, especially if they felt they were being coerced and manipulated. There is no clear relationship between locus of control and obedience, though independent individuals were found to take more responsibility for their actions. How social influence research helps us to understand social change Resisting unwanted influences (conformity) Increasing empathy (conformity) Foot-in-the-door technique (obedience) Educating nurses (obedience) Enlightenment effect (conformity and obedience) Implications for psychology codes and ethical guidelines (conformity and obedience) Zimbardo: research helps us to understand how normal people can commit evil acts if they have power without constraint and are under the influence of an authority figure. People should be aware of circumstances leading acts to prevent conformity to negative social roles. Orlando: showed that hospitals can increase empathy among staff by placing them in the position of patients, allowing them to realise how their behaviour and the situation affects those who they are caring for. This is a technique better understood because of obedience research, where it is often now used by charity fundraisers. Hofling et al s obedience study raised awareness about the potential for senior staff to influence junior personnel to the point where they could break important hospital rules. This provided a greater understanding for how nurses should be educated concerning obedience in hospitals. Understanding the processes underlying social influence help people to resist harmful obedience and conformity. The studies by Asch, Milgram and Zimbardo raised awareness of ethical issues which led to the development of ethical guidelines which didn t exist at the time in which the original research was carried out. The role of minority influence in social change Minority influence is strengthened by: 1) Snow ball effect: Van Avermaet (1996): once a few members start to move towards the minority position, then the influence of the minority keeps building gradually e.g. recycling was once only done by a minority of individuals but gradually built up. 2) Group membership: we are most likely to be influenced by those who we think are similar to us. 3) Dissociation effect: if the minority ideas can be separated (dissociated) from their source then the majority may listen and accept those ideas because they do not believe them to be related to the out-group that they may oppose. This is called social cryptoamnesia, where minority ideas are taken on by the majority without the majority knowing where the ideas came from. 4) Consistency: this is the most important factor for influencing the majority. Individuals should remain consistent by having the same position over time and there should also be consistency between members of the minority with them strongly sharing the same views.

6 6 Moscovici et al. (1969) Aim: determine whether a consistent minority could influence a majority to give an incorrect answer in a perception test 6 participants (2 of which were accomplices of the experimenter) had to estimate the colour of a series of blue slides which had varying brightness. The accomplices either incorrectly announced the slides as green on all trials (consistent condition) or only on 2/3 of the trials (inconsistent condition). Participants in the consistent condition called the slides green in 8.4% of the trials compared to 1.3% in the inconsistent condition. This study is evidence for the importance of consistency for minority influence. There are issues concerning the artificial stimuli used and deception of the participants Nemeth et al. (1974) Consistency is important, but too much consistency (for providing the minority incorrect answer) can be bad. Stooges who provided the incorrect answer (green) on every trial were found to be less influential than those who provided an incorrect answer which was slightly similar to the correct answer e.g. green on the brighter slides and green-blue on the darker slides. This shows that extremes of consistency (dogmatism) from the minority resulted in them being less influential. This suggests that minority influence can be more effective for social change if the minority provide their view in a way that seems similar to the view of the majority and is made to appear as if it doesn t contrast too strongly to begin with. Atkinson et al. (1990) There are differences in the way that majority and minority influences have effects When students were asked to publicly declare their views on gay rights most were persuaded by the majority view, however, when asked to privately write down their views most were found to be persuaded by the minority view. This indicates the majority can influence social approval and public behaviour but compared to minority influence, majority influence does not change a person s actual opinion, therefore minority can influence can be more powerful as it is more likely to change privately held views. It is the minority who bring about social change whereas the majority tend to just maintain the beliefs that are popular Explanations of minority influence Moscovici If an individual encounters a view that is different from their own, then a conflict occurs which they are motivated to reduce. If a majority of people disagree with their view then they may alter their view so that it is the same as the majority. In contrast, if a minority hold a different view, the minority view is examined closely to try to find out why it different from the majority. Because the minority view has to be examined more closely, the individual is forced to focus more on the content on the view and therefore they are more likely to be influenced by it on a private level. Mackie Opposing Moscovici, Mackie stated that individuals like to believe that they share similar thoughts and viewpoints as others. Because of this, when the majority disagrees, an individual is more likely to spend a lot of time examining the majority view. When faced with a minority view an individual is not concerned with such view because they are already in the majority.