Copy this slide

Social Influence
(PYB2, Section A, Question2)

Let’s begin by looking at some key

definitions:-
• Social psychology is “an attempt to
understand & explain how the thoughts,
feelings & behaviours of individuals are
influenced by the actual, imagined or
implied presence of others” (Allport, 1985)

1
Copy this slide

• Social influence refers to the way a

person’s thoughts or behaviours are
changed as a result of either active or
passive influence from other people.
• According to Baron & Byrne (2000), Social
Influence is
“ efforts by one or more individuals to
change the attitudes, beliefs, perceptions
or behaviours of one or more others”

2
Copy this slide

• A Social norm is a way of thinking or

behaving that is considered appropriate
and proper within a particular society, and
that most members of that society adhere
to.
• Social norms, therefore differ from one
society to another.
• Group norms / cultural norms are norms
that vary from group to group / culture to
culture.

3
Copy this slide

• Some examples are:-

G.B BUT IN Spain
1 hour lunch break or even work 2 – 3 hour lunch break, eat &
through lunch. may even sleep

Yorkshire BUT IN Cumbria

 
Men call each other ‘love’ Men call each other ‘marra’

Asian British population BUT IN White British population

   
Females almost always see a Females will see either male or
female GP female GP
McDonalds BUT IN Brown’s restaurant
   
Use your fingers to eat your Use cutlery to eat your meal
meal

My home BUT IN ‘X’’s home

All meals are eaten together All meals are eaten individually
round the table in front of TV
4
See the handout

CONFORMITY

• CONFORMITY IS .......
      “ yielding to group pressures”,
Crutchfield (1962)

      “a change in a person’s behaviour or

opinion as a result of real or imagined
pressure from a person or group of people”,
Aronson (1976)

5
      Baron & Byrne(2000) “ . . .
• Use your textbooks to find this definition
in the chapter on Social Influence.

• The Group - three or more people of

roughly equal status, may be friends (or
other stable group) or complete strangers.

• Conformity - you CHOOSE to do something

, no-one in the group makes you do it.
6
Types of CONFORMITY (Kelman,1985)
1. COMPLIANCE
Supporting the group by appearing to
agree (going along with other people), but
not in fact changing your views or opinions.
2. IDENTIFICATION
Establishing a link between an individual
and another person (or group of people)
who is important to the individual. The
individual absorbs characteristics of the
person (or group) into their own behaviour,
although this may be short lived.
7
3. INTERNALISATION
The individual agrees with the group both
publicly and privately, making the group’s
beliefs, values, attitude and behaviour
their own.

8
Empirical Studies of Conformity

Jenness (1932) – Beans in a jar study

Aim : to show that group norms are formed
and that they influence individual
behaviour.
Method : Jar of beans, individual estimates,
group estimate and then individual estimate
again.
Results : Individuals made shift towards the
group estimate on their second estimate.
9
Conclusion : Individuals are influenced by the
group norm.

Evaluation :
 First empirical study of conformity.
Very simple study

10
Muzafer Sherif (1935)
He used a visual illusion called the
AUTOKINETIC EFFECT.
A visual illusion in which a stationary spot
of light appears to move when shown in a
completely dark room.

Aim : To demonstrate the development of a

group norm and it’s influence on individual
behaviour.

11
Method:
• He told participants that he was going to
move the spot of light and asked them to
estimate how far he had moved it.
Participants were tested individually,
Participants were then tested in small
groups and tested again individually
Findings:
a) Participants tested individually - estimates
varied between participants to a large
degree.

12
b) Participants tested in small groups (usually
three) - the estimates of each group
member gradually got closer and closer
until a group norm was established.(note
there was no discussion among group
members about the estimate).
c) When tested again individually the
participants estimates remained close to
the group norm rather than their original
estimates. (But would claim not to have
been influenced by the group).
INTERNALISATION
13
What does this study tell us?

According to Brown (19 85) , in western

cultures at least, to be in agreement with
others satisfies an important psychological
need, especially in situations where people
are uncertain or the situation is ambiguous.

Through a social comparison process a

common social reality is established and
validated. (But people are relatively
unaware of being influenced by others).

14
Solomon Asch (1951)

Aim:
He wanted to look at situations that did
not involve any ambiguity or uncertainty.
He wanted to see how likely people were to
go against the group norm (i.e. not to
conform) when there was no uncertainty.

15
Method:
In a series of experiments, Asch gave
participants the simple visual task of
matching one line (drawn on card and called
the standard line or test line) with another
line ( one of three comparison lines drawn on
another card; A, B or C).
Participants had to say which line matched
the standard line - A, B or C.
Participants were tested in groups of 7 to 9,
one participant was placed in one group the
rest of the participants being confederates.

16
 The participant was in the last or next to
the last position to give his answer.
Six of the trials were neutral trials and
twelve were critical trials

NOTE. Asch checked the task for ambiguity:-

There were 36 control participants (tested
alone) who made only 3 mistakes out of a
total of 720 trials, this showed that the
task was simple and the answer was obvious.

17
• A confederate is someone who appears to
be a genuine participant but who is actually
part of the experiment.
• In this study the confederate were
instructed to give the same incorrect
answer on a certain number of the trials
(know as the critical trials) and the correct
answer on the other trials (Neutral trials)
• The participants were told that the study
was an experiment on visual perception and
that the confederates were other
participants like themselves.

18
Findings:
• The average rate of conformity was
approx.32%
– approx. 25% of subjects showed no
conformity at all.
– approx. 75% conformed on at least one
trial
– approx. 5% conformed on all of the
critical trials.
Conclusion:
• People will conform to a majority view even
when it is obvious that the majority is
incorrect.
19
• When debriefed & interviewed, the
participants were aware of being
influenced by the group opinion (knowing
that the answer they had given was not
what they privately believed to be the
right answer ) and gave more specific
reasons for conforming, eg. not wanting to
upset the experimenter, not wanting to be
different, or inferior.
• What type of conformity is this?
• COMPLIANCE

20
• However some participants actually
believed the majority decision was actually
correct, and that perhaps they were
suffering from eye strain or that they
were sitting in a compromising position.
• What type of conformity is this?
• INTERNALISATION
• Many participants experienced a good deal
of stress as a result of the conflicts during
the trials.

21
 Evaluation of Asch’s studies
1. Artificiality – lacks ecological validity – in
everyday situation could just keep quiet if
do not agree with the group.
2. Individual differences – the 32%
conformity rate covers up the wide range
of individual differences, 75% conformed
at least once, 25% not at all.
3. Unrepresentative sample. – Male, from
same small town in America, paid to take
part, 1950’s so may not reflect today’s
society. Therefore can not easily
generalise findings to the general
population.
22
1. Demand characteristics. - Some ps said
that they did not want to ‘spoil’ the
experiment, suggesting that they may
have worked out the aim of the research
and altered their behaviour accordingly.
2. Time consuming and uneconomical ( see
Crutchfield below.) – One participant
tested at a time.

23
• Can you think of any ethical issues rising
from this study ?
• Was there any way round these issues or
were they necessary for the purpose of
the study?
• Assuming that there was no way round
these issues what do you think the
researcher would have done at the end of
the study?

24
 Factors that effect conformity levels as
investigated by Asch
Variations on Asch’s basic study and the
effect on conformity.
1. Group size can effect the likelihood of an
individual conforming to the opinions of
others.
Individual + 1 other person = 0% conformity
Individual + 2 others = 14 % conformity
Individual + 3 (or more than 3) = 32%

25
2. Uncertainty – where the situation is more
ambiguous or difficult and the individual feels
less certain this increases conformity levels.
Line lengths similar = higher % of conformity
Line lengths more dissimilar = lower %
3. Support of another – If one of the
confederates gave the correct answer when
the others all gave the wrong answer this
lowered conformity to 5%.
4. However, When the ‘supporter’ went back to
agreeing with the rest of the group this
increased conformity rates back to 32%

26
5. Status – having ‘high status’ group
members (e.g. introduced as Professor so
and so ) increased conformity rates in
individuals of a ‘lower status’ and vice
versa.
6. Privacy – when the individual was allowed to
write down their answer instead of saying
it out loud conformity rates dropped. See
also the findings from Crutchfield’s study
below.

27
Richard Crutchfield (1954)
Aim:
• to investigate conformity to the implied
presence of others.
Method:
• He tested several participants at a time in
open booths with an array of lights and
buttons in front of them, he used army
personnel and tested over 600 participants.
• He presented a variety of tasks for the
participants to give an answer to.

28
Method continued
• The lights were supposed to indicate the
answers of the other participants being
tested at the same time.
• Each participant had to give their answer
by pressing one of the buttons in front of
them.

29
Findings:
• In general he found that conformity was
low.
• He found that conformity to the wrong
answer varied with the type of task, but he
did find similar rates of conformity to
Asch to the Asch type tasks.
• He also found a wide difference in
conformity between individual participants,
some were very conforming and others very
independent (suggesting that some people
are more likely to conform than others).

30
Conclusion:
• Social pressure (the actual presence of
others) has an effect on behaviour,
increasing the likelihood of conformity.
Whereas when the pressure is implied, we
are less likely to conform.

31
Activity

• Have a go at listing the factors that

increase and decrease the rate of
conformity in the table on the
handout, based on the work of Asch
and Crutchfield.

32
Copy this slide onto the back of the handout.

Other factors that influence conformity:-

Cultural differences
• Cultural factors (Asch’s studies in America
– reflect the culture of conformist
America in 1950’s).
• Cross-cultural studies of the Asch study
have revealed cultural differences e.g.
• 58% conformity in Indian teachers in Fiji,
14% conformity in Belgian students.
• Collectivist vs. individualistic cultures
(China vs. UK) emphasise different levels
of responsibility towards the group.

33
Copy this slide onto the back of the handout.

• ·     Historical Differences – Attempts to

repeat Asch’s work have found that levels
of conformity have declined steadily since
Asch carried out his studies (Smith &
Bond,1993).

• ·     Deindividuation –loss of sense of

personal identity (as in Zimbardo study –
see later) uniforms can produce this effect.
Conformity to the role portrayed by
uniform. e.g. Ku Kluz Klan & nurses outfits
used in Milgram type study –conformity

34
Copy these slides.

Why do people conform?

(Theories of conformity)

• Crutchfield (1955) suggests that some

people have a CONFORMING
PERSONALITY.
If a person has a conforming personality,
then they should show conformity in a
variety of situations. McGuire (1968) has
found people to be inconsistent in
conformity across different situations.

35
• INFORMATIONAL SOCIAL INFLUENCE.
(Deutsch & Gerard, 1955)
When we are in uncertain situations we look
to others for information about how to
react. This often leads to internalisation
(change in private opinion in line with the
rest of the group) – demonstrated in the
Sherif study.

36
• NORMATIVE SOCIAL INFLUENCE.
(Deutsch & Gerard, 1955)
When an individual needs to accepted by
the other members of the group. For
example if you are in a potentially
embarrassing situation of disagreeing with
the majority, you are faced with the
conflict between you own views and those
of the group – compliance is often the
result of normative influence.

37
 The difference between Informational Social Influence
and Normative Social Influence
INFORMATIONAL NORMATIVE

Need for certainty Need for acceptance of

others
Subjective uncertainty
Others have power to
Need for information to reward or punish
reduce uncertainty
Conflict between own and
Comparison with others others’ opinions

INTERNALISATION COMPLIANCE
Private & Public acceptance Private disagreement but
Public agreement
38
• CONFORMING TO SOCIAL ROLES.
Philip Zimbardo’s study demonstrates
this very well.
Behaving in a way that is expected of
you given the role/part you are
playing at the time. Eg. Friend,
mother, doctor, teacher and so on.
See video clip & handout.

39
• REFERENT SOCIAL INFLUENCE.
(Turner, 1991)
People have a tendency to categorise
themselves as members of different
groups (social identity theory) and are
most likely to conform to the norm of
those groups that they belong to –
identification.

40
• INGRATIATIONAL CONFORMITY.
Ingratiation is the term for ‘trying to win
someone’s favour and getting them to like
you’ by trying to please or flatter them.
Many people conform to the behaviour of
others to try to please and flatter them,
this is done to be liked and accepted by the
group.

41
 Quick Test- part 1

• Put your name n the piece of paper you

have been given.
• You have 5 minutes to answer this 3 mark
exam question.
• Apart from yielding to group pressure
(normative conformity), explain one other
reason why people conform within a group.
Illustrate you answer with an example.

42
 Dissent.
• When someone does not conform but instead
holds and expresses opinions that are
different to the rest of the group. That is
they go against the norm.
• The factors that decrease the likelihood of
conformity, increase the likelihood of
dissent.
• E.g. Conformity Dissent

small group size, support of another, higher

status of individual than group members.

43
 Quick Test- part 2

• The second question is a 10 mark

exam essay question. You have 20
minutes to answer it.
• Discuss two factors that might
affect the level of conformity. Refer
to evidence in your answer.

44
The Importance of conformity
• Why is conformity important for the
group/society?
• For a group /society to function and run
smoothly, there has to be a degree of
conformity by the members of the group.
Imagine shopping at Christmas in a shop
where people did not conform to the social
norms of queuing!! There would be fights
over the latest kids toy (there has been in
the past – Tellytubbies).

45
The dangers of conformity
• A society where no one questions the
majority view point can be equally
dangerous.
• The owning of slaves and slave trade was
the accepted majority view of the 19th
century. This was only changed as a result
of minority group pressure.
• The suffragettes are another example of
a minority group whose influence brought
about social change.
• Had these people conformed to the
majority view, these changes would not
have happened.

46
 Minority Group Influence

• Majority influence (conformity) reduces

conflict between individuals. But . . .

• If all social influence is seen as serving the

need to adapt to the status quo for the
sake of stability within a society (or group),
where would change and new ideas come
from?

47
• Without active minorities, social change
and scientific innovations would not come
about. (e.g. abolition of slave trade,
women’s votes etc).

• So, although conformity is important for

the stability of the group/society, minority
influence, in the shape of resisting
conformity to the group/society is
important.

48
 How do minorities exert an influence?

• Moscovici argued than minority groups can

influence a group’s behaviour and views.
• He said that majority group influence often
results in compliance, whereas minority
group influence often results in conversion.
• He suggested that individuals may often
comply (compliance) with the majority (for
safety) but privately agree with the
minority. As the minority opinion becomes
more widespread individuals feel safer about
expressing their opinions and going against
the majority.
49
Processes that are supposed to account for
minority influence are status, power,
behavioural style and style of thinking.

Status and power

• Individuals occupying positions of high
status or who are able to exert some sort
of power over other people may use these
resources to make his/her (initially)
minority view a majority one.

50
• Status:- One way in which a person can
achieve status, is by initially conforming to
the group’s norms, thereby building up
idiosyncrasy credits (Hollander, 1958). As
these credits accumulate, the person will
be allowed a degree of non-conformity and
be allowed to suggest deviations from
group standards. Conforming at the outset
can lead to opportunities to innovate later.
i.e. the right to bring about change has to
be earned

51
Power:- A number of different kinds of power
have been distinguished. According to French &
Raven (1959) there are five main types:
1. Legitimate power – formal power invested in
particular roles e.g. senior staff in school
2. Reward power – control over valuable resources,
e.g. salary, food, respect, love – parents,
employers, close friends
3. Coercive power – control over feared
consequences e.g. withdrawal of resources, loss of
love, dismissal.
4. Expert power – possession of special knowledge &
skills e.g. plumber, doctor etc.
5. Referent power – personal qualities, such as charm
& magnetism – personality characteristics.
52
 Behavioural style
• Freud was the object of rejection by the
Victorian scientific community when he first put
forward his theory of childhood sexuality. He did
not yield however, to the majority view but
persisted in developing his theory – he was
consistent.
• According to Moscovici (1974, 1976, 1980),
minority influence is most likely when the
minority adopts a consistent behavioural style
and is firm and uncompromising, but not
necessarily rigid. A committed minority will exert
more influence than an uncommitted minority.

53
Evidence for Moscovici’s ideas about
behavioural style comes from a study he
carried out in 1969.

• Using your text book summarise the study

by Moscovici found on page 166 – 167
• Title : Studies of Minority Influence.
• Use the headings: Aim, Method, Findings,
Conclusion, Evaluation.

54
• Copy this down also.
• Further evidence for the behavioural
style needed for a minority to influence a
majority is given by

Nemeth et al. (1974)

Aim:-
• A variation of Moscovici’s study, to
demonstrate that for minority influence,
consistency is important but not always
sufficient to influence a majority.

55
Method:-
• The same set up as Moscovici’s study was
used, but ps allowed to respond with a
complex colour, also there were three
conditions;
1. confederates said ‘green’ on half of trials
and ‘green-blue’ on other half, in a random
order.(inconsistent, complex colour)
2. confederates said ‘green’ in response to
brighter slides, and ‘green-blue’ to the
dimmer slides, or vice versa.(consistent,
complex colour)
3. confederates said ‘green’ on every trial.
(consistent, simple colour).

56
Findings:-
• No influence in condition 1
• 21% of majority responses were influenced
in condition 2.
• No influence in condition 3
Conclusions:-
• The minority had no influence in condition 1
because it responded in an inconsistent way.
• The minority had no influence in condition 3
because although it did respond in a
consistent way, its refusal to use more
complex colour descriptions of the stimuli
made its behaviour seem rigid and
unrealistic.
57
• The influence in condition 2 was as a result
of a consistent and flexible behavioural
style.
Evaluation
• A laboratory experiment therefore we can
be fairly confident about a cause effect
relationship.
• It may lack ecological validity because it is
a laboratory experiment, so we may need to
be careful when generalising the findings
to everyday life.
58
Other research has shown that
• Minorities are more efficient if they:-
– Are seen to have made personal/material
sacrifices (investment).
– Are perceived as acting out of principle
rather than ulterior motives (autonomy).
– Display a balance between being
‘dogmatic’ (rigid) and ‘inconsistent’
(flexible)
• Are seen as being similar to the majority in
terms of age, gender and social category.

59
Style of thinking

• It is also important that there is enough

time for the minority’s position to be fully
debated and considered.

• The ‘View’ itself will also affect the level of

influence the minority will have on the
majority in the group; there is an advantage
if the minority takes a position that is in
the same direction as the general norms are
moving – Relevance of minority view.

60
• Research suggests that if the minority can
get the majority to think about the issue
(Smith et al , 1996) and even better to
discuss and debate the arguments
surrounding the issue (Nemeth, 1995) then
the minority has a good chance of
influencing the majority. This is known as
• Systematic thinking – where you think
more deeply about the views of others.
• When little thought is given it is known as
Superficial thought.

61
• Use your textbook to summarise the study
by Zdaniuk & Levine (1996)
• Title :- Evidence to support the importance
of Systematic Thinking in minority
influence.
• Use the headings: Aim, Method, Findings,
Conclusion, Evaluation

62
 You are a team of psychologists.
You have been approached by two social
workers for help, Mr Brown & Mrs Smith.

They want to introduce some significant changes

into the team of social workers they are a part of.

They strongly believe that these changes will have

long term benefits to the efficiency of the team.

The problem is that the rest of the team (6 others)

are very reluctant to have to face any more
changes, they feel that the governmental initiatives
over the past 5 years have generated more than
enough changes already. They have ‘change fatigue’
–if such a term exists! 63
They have asked you for some advice on how to go
about trying to win over the rest of the team to
their way of thinking about the changes.

It is your job to write a letter to the two social

workers, in which you give them some sound advice
on how they as a minority, can influence the
majority.
You will need to back up what you say in your
report with psychological evidence.

In your group discuss this situation and make your

own notes on what you should put in the letter.
Each team member will then write up a letter
based on those notes for homework.
64
 Compliance (to a request) – copy this down

• Agreeing to carry out a request

• Cialdini (1994) suggested 6 reasons why we

are likely to comply with a request.
– Consistency/commitment
– Reciprocity
– Authority
– Social Validation
– Friendship/liking
– Scarcity
65
• Look at page 153 in the text book and copy
the diagram that explains each reason.

Copy this down

• A number of researchers have studied
compliance and the different techniques
used to get people to comply.

• Bickman looked at ‘Authority’ in a classic

study.

66
 Bickman (1974) – copy this
Aim:-
To see if people would comply with a request in a
natural setting and to see whether the dress of the
person making the request influenced the level of
compliance.

Method:-
Participants – 153 people (passers by) on streets of
New York
Sampling method :- opportunity
Procedure:-
Male experimenter dressed as either milkman,‘police
officer’ (guard’s uniform) or a ‘normal’ person -
civilian
67
He gave one of three orders to the passers by:-

“pick up this bag for me” (pointing to a bag)

“this fellow is overparked but doesn’t have any

change, give him a dime” (pointing to a confederate)

“don’t you know that you have to stand on the other

side of this pole, this sign says no standing”
(participant at a bus stop)

68
Results:- 80% compliance when experimenter
dressed in guard’s uniform, compared to only 40%
when dressed as a civilian. The milkman’s uniform
also did not produce a high level of compliance.

Conclusion:- Participants were willing to comply to a

request in a natural setting and, the perceived level
of authority of the person making the request
(suggested by the experimenter’s dress) affects the
degree of compliance to the request.

Evaluation:-
+ve – high ecological validity – field experiment.
-ve – may have had researcher bias in selection of Ps
69
Copy this down
• Other research can be found on the
handout and in the textbook :-
• handout Freedman & Fraser(1966), Cialdini
(1975 & 1970)
• textbook Rind & Bordia (1966)

Look at the handout and do the exercises on

page 1 and fill in the table on page 2
70
 Obedience
(copy onto reverse of Obedience handout)
‘ When a person or group of follow the direct
commands, orders or missives of authority
(another person or institution)’

Much of the time obedience is benign &

constructive. For example society demands a
degree of obedience for it to function.

‘Blind Obedience’ occurs when a person obeys

an order without thinking about it (the
implications of it, the motives behind it etc.).
71
• Blind Obedience is often dangerous and
destructive. There are several examples of
blind obedience in history. Common to such
events is that people low in hierarchy
followed the orders of their superiors.
Why?
• It is this question that stimulated much of
the research into obedience.
• Two important studies on Obedience were
carried out by Milgram and Hofling.

72
• Milgram
• in the 1960’s investigated ‘obedience to
authority’ in what is probably the most
controversial experiment in psychology.
See your handout & textbook for details.

73
• Hofling et al
- examined obedience in a
real life social setting - a
hospital.
See your handout &
textbook for details.

74
• The study carried out by Bickman (see
notes on compliance) also illustrated
obedience to an authority figure in an
everyday real life setting.

75
 Factors That Affect Obedience
(copy down)

• The variations carried out by Milgram on

his basic study give some insight into the
factors affecting obedience.
• Have a go at listing some of these factors,
indicating whether obedience is more or
less likely to happen. Refer to Milgram’s
study.

76
 Exam Question
Copy down this question. Allow 20 minutes
to answer it.
When Ruth’s parents go to parents’ evening
they are surprised to hear how well behaved
their daughter is in class. They wonder how
it can be that Ruth is so obedient at school
with the teacher and yet so disobedient at
home.
Discuss TWO factors with reference to
Milgram’s work, that may be affecting
Ruth’s behaviour. (10 marks)
77
 Reasons for obedience.
(or, ‘So why do people obey orders?’)

• Trust in the authority figure giving the

order – assuming that they are seen as a
legitimate (legal, not fake) authority figure.
(Milgram – experimenter in lab coat, Hofling
– doctor)
• Trust in the legitimate system
(Milgram – Yale university,
Hofling – doctor/nurse relationship)
We live in a society where we are brought
up to trust and obey those in authority over
us e.g. parents, teachers, the law.
78
• Being bound / the foot-in-the door
phenomenon. Once an initial request/order
has been carried out people find it difficult
to then back out when further orders are
given, especially if the next order is not
much bigger than the last. (Milgram – each
request to increase the voltage of the
electric shock was a small step up from the
previous level)

79
• Milgram’s Agency theory. Milgram
suggested that the person enters what he
called an ‘agentic state’ when faced with an
order from a legitimate authority figure.

In an organised society, individuals must

give up responsibility to those of a higher
status in order to ensure the smooth
running of the society.
The participants in Milgram’s study may
have entered this ‘agentic state’. Rather
than acting as an individual the participants
may have become the ‘agent’ of the
experimenter. The lab. Coat may have acted
as a prompt for this behaviour.
80
• According to Milgram, ‘agency’ involves a
cognitive shift in view point that results in
a person switching from their normal
autonomous state (feeling responsible for
and in control of own actions), to the
agentic state (they regard themselves as
the ‘instrument for carrying out someone
else’s wishes’).
• Agency is the result of socialisation – from
the moment we are born we are encouraged
to submit to authority.

81
 Disobedience
(or ‘Resisting Authority Figures’)

• This final section of the topic of social

influence is addressed on the handout on
Resisting Authority.
• There are also some tasks for you to do on
the handout.

82