Foundations in Psychology Social Influence Dr. Fenja Ziegler Social Influence • Behaviour/ attitudes influenced by presence of others? – When? Why? How? Conformity Obedience Explicit Implied Norm Development Sherif, 1935 • 100 judgements in private: how far in inches? • Autokinetic effect (appears to oscillate) • Judgements with 2/ 3 others present • Converge away from individual to common standard= Social Norm • Pps deny being influenced by others • 100 judgements in private: how far in inches? • Autokinetic effect (appears to oscillate) • Judgements with 2/ 3 others present • Converge away from individual to common standard= • Pps deny being influenced by others Movement in Inches Norm Development Sherif, 1935 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 Judgement Number PP 1 PP 2 PP 3 Uncertainty and Social Norms • Uncertainty and little information in tasks – Use a heuristic – Look for new source of information in difficult task → other people – Majority rule (democracy!) • Applies to attitudes or judgements in social context (real/ imaginary) – Influenced by those around us • Sherif: how group attitudes are formed Asch, 1951 100 80 60 37 40 20 0 0.7 Control No Uncertainty – Group Norm? Critical Informational and Normative Deutsch & Gerard, 1955 • Informational: – Converge to group norm to gain information – Useful heuristic • Conversion public & private • Normative: – Gain acceptance and praise – Avoid punishment and exclusion • Compliance public • Explicit aim for group to be accurate (increase group pressure) • & ½ trials: lines disappear before judgement (increase uncertainty) – Increase in conformity Compliance and Conversion Uncertain own opinion Difficult task Informational Influence Little Info Certain own opinion Easy task Detailed info Normative Influence Conversion: Private & Public Attitudes Compliance: Change in public attitude only Moderators of Normative Social Influence 1. Group cohesiveness – More cohesive, more conformity 2. Group size – 2 is not a group, from 3, no change 3. Social Support – Correct or incorrect breaking of social consensus – Not if incompetent (e.g. thick glasses) 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Lone Critcal 1 Support Control Moderators of Informational Influence 1. Perceived self-confidence 2. Task difficulty 3. Cultural norms (individualistic and collectivist) Pendry & Carrick, 2001 Henry who is an Accountant Henry who is a punk rocker 114 112 110 108 106 104 102 100 Accountant Punk No Prime Moderators of Informational Influence 1. Perceived self-confidence 2. Task difficulty 3. Cultural norms (individualistic and collectivist) Pendry & Carrick, 2001 Decreased conformity for Punk prime, then no prime, then Accountant Henry who is an Accountant Henry who is a punk rocker Group Polarization • Pressure to conform at group level – Can change social norm – Initial attitude becomes exaggerated • Normative influence: – Fit in with group → move towards group norm • Informational Influence: – Group as source of information – Encounter many arguments in favour of position → become more convinced Extreme GP: Group Think • Excessive desire to achieve consensus: – Deterioration in mental efficiency, reality testing, moral judgement • Symptoms: – Increased conformity, overestimation of group competence, closemindedness 28 Jan 1986 Launch of Challenger cohesiveness (important/ high-profile project ) & Stress conform to group norm: Launch overconfident close-minded Minority Influence on Majority? Minority Influence on Majority? Moscovici (1980) • Yes, if 1. Minority is consistent in behaviour 2. Not rigid and dogmatic 3. Committed ( can lead to conversion, i.e. private change) 4. Relevance to social trends • Do they know something we don’t know? • Majorities: – Social comparison → Compliance • Minorities: – Private conformity – Leads to better judgements – Avoid groupthink Just following orders? • Why follow orders you know are wrong? • Theory: – Germans are different. – They are obedient. Obedience to Authority Incorrect answer = shock; increase by 15volts Please continue, The experiment requires you to continue, please go on. It is essential that you continue. You have no choice, you must continue. •Starts banging on the wall •Complains of heart condition •No further response Obedience to Authority % of participants obedient 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 actual predicted Learner complains of pain Pleads to be let out Screams and refuses to answer 75 150 "Strong" 225 "Very "Moderate" strong" 300 375 "Danger 450 "xxx" "Intense" severe" Increasing intensity of shocks Explaining It all 1. Cultural norm: obey authority 2. Gradual: from small shocks to lethal shocks over long period of time 3. Agency: no longer feel personally responsible ♂ Gen Pop: 85% ♂ Students: 50% Students: 62% Students: 85% ♂ Gen Pop: 65% ♀ Gen Pop: 65% Students: 85% Students: over 90% Gen Pop: 80% Gen Pop: 92% ♂ Students: 40% ♀ Students: 16% 10 20 22 30 40 48 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 65 % Showing Obedience Influences on Obedience Milgram’s (1963) findings • Unethical (study or findings?) • All capable of following orders which we know are not the right thing to do • But, all participants were distraught whilst doing it – – – – Educate on blind obedience Take responsibility for own actions Role models who refuse to obey Question motives of authority issuing unreasonable orders Obedience vs. Conformity • Occurs within a hierarchy – Feeling that the person above has the right to prescribe behaviour – Links one status to another – Emphasis is on power • Behaviour adopted differs from behaviour of authority figure • Prescription for action is explicit • Participants embrace obedience as explanation for behaviour • Regulates the behaviour among those of equal status – Emphasis is on acceptance • Behaviour adopted is similar to that of peers • Requirement of going along with group implicit • Participants deny conformity as an explanation for behaviour references reading • AS level, Chapter 2 watching