Conforming: Yielding to group pressure.

*5 Types*

Internalisation Social Influence: When a person conforms through genuine agreement to the person/group influencing them.

Identificational Social Influence: When a person conforms to a role in society- what is expected of them in a group. Conforms to the norm.

Informative Social Influence: When a person conforms because of superior knowledge or the judgment of others. It often leads to the changing of the individual s opinion. (Beans in a jar)

TYPES OF CONFOMITY

Compliance Social Influence: When a person conforms to the majority but does not necessarily agree. The compliance stops when you re not expected to conform(i.e. business wear at college).

Normative Social Influence: When people conforms because they want to fit in with, or be liked by, a group. This type of conformity tends not to change the individuals opinion.(Asch experiment)

Asch s 1951 study on majority influence.

Aims
To determine whether a majority can influence a minority even when the situation is unambiguous. To find the effects of majority influence even if it s apparently obvious that the majority have responded incorrectly.

Procedure
Seven people all sat looking at a display. In turn they had to say aloud which line was the same length as the stimulus. Six of the participants were confederates of the experimenter and all gave the same (incorrect) answer. The one genuine participant was the last, or last but one, to offer his/her opinion.

A B C

The performance of participants exposed to such group pressure was compared to the performance in a control condition in which there were no confederates.

Findings
Participant gave the wrong answer on 37% of critical trials. 5% conformed every time, and 75% conformed at least once. This is compared to an error rate of only 0.7% in the control condition. Individuals who gave only correct answers said that they were either confident in their own judgment or focused on the task at hand.

Conclusions
A majority can influence a minority even in an unambiguous situation in which the correct answer is obvious. Asch showed convincingly that pressure to conform in terms of majority influence is much stronger than had been thought previously. However, on about two-thirds of the crucial trials the genuine participant gave the correct answer, so many people did manage to resist majority influence.

Criticisms
Asch s results lack temporal validity. This is because it was conducted in the 1950 s when doing your own thing was seen as less socially acceptable. Therefore effecting the overall external validity Experiment also lacks external validity because an all American male sample was used. This means the findings are endocentric, and we may not be able to generalise them to women. Also means findings may lack populational validity, as we might not be able to apply results to other cultures. However Asch s basic findings have been repeated more recently in various cultures. Ethical issues. The participants didn t give fully informed consent, because they were deceived/misled as to the aims of the experiment. Also, they were placed in an embarrassing and difficult position where they could have potentially been put at risk of experiencing psychological harm. It s limited as it only explores conformity amongst strangers. In fact, majority influence has found to be stronger amongst friends than amongst strangers. William & Sogon conducted an experiment into majority influence among members of the same health club and found conformity to be much higher among friends.

Majority influence:
Majority influence is when an individual adopts the beliefs of the most common/dominant group as a result of group pressure. This can be because the individual wants to be right (conversion), or because they want to fit in (compliance).

Why people conform:

*People may conform because they want to be right. If a person is in an ambiguous situation they may look to the judgment of the majority to help them come to their own answer. This involves conversion, as the person takes on that opinion. This is known as informational social influence *People often go along with the majority just because they want to fit in. This is known as normative social influence. The person complies, but does not necessarily agree with the majority (i.e. Asch).

Minority Influence
An individual being influenced to accept the beliefs/behaviour of a minority. This usually involves a shift in private opinion (Internalisation) as they need to accept the minority as right , if they are to reject the majority. This private change involves a process known as conversion, which is more likely to occur when the minority is consistent and flexible, as this is more persuasive.

*Explaining the Minority Effect*

Consistency- The minority must be consistent in their opinion. Flexibility- The minority must not appear to be rigid and dogmatic. Commitment- A committed minority will lead people to rethink their position- CONVERSION
Relevance- The minority will be more successful if their views are in line with social trends.

Social Impact Theory

(This theory gives an account for both majority and minority influence) *An individual s behaviour can be predicted in terms of three factors: Strength: Numbers of people present or consistency of message from one person. Status + Knowledge: People are equally influenced by many amateurs or one expert. Immediacy: How close you are to someone psychologically or physically. A combination of those 3 factors, and the extent of them, results in either majority or minority influence.

What is meant by the terms majority influence, minority influence and obedience?
Majority influence is when a person goes along with the most common/dominant group because they want to fit in, and so they comply- even if they don t necessarily personally agree. Minority influence is when a person yields to the less common/dominant group, which is usually because they internalise what the minority believes and change their personal opinion. Obedience is when a person does as they are told, usually by an authority or somebody who is of higher status. It is different to conforming because the person feels that they have to obey as opposed to something they should do, and when a person obeys they don t necessarily personally agree.

Describe the procedures and findings of one study of conformity/majority influence.

Asch s study was a situation in which seven participants sat and looked at a display of 3 lines and had to determine which line was the same as the given stimulus. However, six of the participants were confederates who d all been told to give the same wrong answer. The one genuine participant was last or last but one to give their answer. The same experiment was repeated without confederates so the performance of participants subjected to group pressure could be compared. They found that when confederates were present, 37% of participants gave the wrong answer also. This was because they didn t want to stand out for being wrong- and is compared of an error rate of just 0.7% in the control condition. The people who didn t yield to the group pressure said they were confident in their own judgment or focused on the task at hand.

Moscovici s 1969 study of Minority Influence

Aims
To determine whether a minority can influence a majority of naive participants, and thus reverse the usual direction of social influence. Moscovici aimed to determine the conditions necessary for minority influence to occur. In particular the necessity for them to be consistent in their opinions.

Procedure
Participants were all female and pre-tested for colour blindness. Lab experiment in a controlled condition. Six participants were shown 36 slides (diff. Shades of blue) and were asked to determine the colour of them. Two of the six participants were confederates, and were the minority, whereas the other four participants were genuine and were the majority. 3 conditions- consistent, inconsistent or controlled. In the consistent condition the confederates answered green every time. In the inconsistent condition the confederates answered green to 24/36 slides. In the control condition there were no confederates. Minority influence was measured by the percentage of naive participants who yielded to the confederates by answering green.

Findings
Consistent: 8.42% of the participants answered green and 32% conformed at least once. Inconsistent: 1.25% of the participants answered green . Control: 0.25% of the participants answered green . This shows that the consistent condition showed the greatest yielding to minority influence.

Conclusions
A minority can have an influence over the majority, and this minority influence is more effective when the minority is consistent. The fact that minorities are more persuasive when they re consistent has implications for people in leadership positions who are hoping to influence the majority.

Criticisms
The research lacked experimental realism, because the set up was not believable. The slide test was artificial and may have yielded demand characteristics .Therefore the experiment may have lacked internal validity, as the conversion may not have been a genuine effect. The research lacked mundane realism, as the set up had no relevance to real life. It took place in a controlled environment with an artificial task that is not representative of minority influence in real life. Consequently the findings have low external validity. Moscovici focused on the distinction between the majority and minority. However we must question the distinction. This is because the minority were not a genuine minority, merely strangers taking part in a task. A real-life minority are likely to be committed to an emotive cause, not simply a trivial task, and typically have less power/status than majorities in the outside world, meaning the results may have little importance in real life.

Obedience to authority:
When a person behaves as they are instructed, usually by an individual of authority/higher status. This usually occurs within a hierarchy; with the person giving the order is of a higher status than the person receiving it. Obedience occurs because the individual feels they must obey. Unlikely a change in opinion will occur.

Factors as to why people obey:

Legitimacy of authority: The perception that the person giving the order has the right to tell us what to do. Buffers: Aspects of the situation preventing the person from seeing the consequences of their actions. Gradual Commitment: Orders gradually move from the reasonable to the unreasonable, so it s harder to see when you re beginning to act in an unreasonable way. Agentic State: Person allows somebody else to direct their behaviour, and assume responsibility passes to that person.

Factors why we resist:

Shift to Autonomous State: If a person is in the autonomous state they will take responsibility for their own actions and so are more likely to resist. Presence of allies: A person may resist if others will support them, or in support of others. Personality (Confidence/Self Esteem): If the person doesn t feel the need to be socially accepted they are much more likely to resist.

Milgram s 1963 study on obedience to authority

Aims
Milgram aimed to investigate how willing participants were to obey authority when asked to inflict pain on another person. He aimed to see whether he could set up a situation in which participants were more obedient to authority than was generally believed to be the case. Milgram wanted to test the hypothesis Germans were different, following the atrocities they cause in WWII.

Procedure
40 male volunteers took part in a controlled observational study, which they were deceived into thinking was a test of learning. The study involved one participant who was the teacher, and a confederate who acted as the student . The participants were told he was a man named Mr Wallace, who had a heart condition. The teacher had to perform a word association task with the student , and when they gave incorrect answers they were told to administer a shock. The voltage of the shock went from 15- 450 and was increased by 15 volts every time. They were kept in separate roomsno voice contact. The participants understood that the highest level of shock may be fatal, especially to a man with a heart condition. They weren t told until the end of the experiment that no shocks were actually administered.

Findings
All participants gave shocks up to the 300 Volt level, and 65% of participants continued up to 450 Volts. This completely contradicts the predicted 3% or less who would go to 450 Volts, as found in a Pilot study. There were marked effects on the participants behaviour, with most showing signs of extreme tension. They trembled, sweated, and three had uncontrollable seizures.

Conclusions
Obedience to authority is due more to situational factors than to a deviant personality. The setting, status of the person giving orders and the pressure exerted on the participant to continue all effect obedience. Implications include the relevance of this research to the real-life atrocities of WWII, and the need to identify ways of preventing people from showing misplaced obedience to authority.

Criticisms
Orne and Holland claimed the research lacked experimental realism, because the set up was not believable. They believed the participants would know the electric shocks weren t real, as that is not a credible punishment for getting the wrong answer. Therefore the experiment lacked internal validity, as the obedience wasn t the genuine effect. However the participants stress reactions contradict this. Orne and Holland also claimed the research lacked mundane realism. The research set up was unlike real-life as it was in an artificial, controlled environment. Consequently the findings have low External validity. However experimental realism can compensate for a lack of mundane realism, which it could be argued is the case with this study. (Because although the situation didn t resemble something that would happen in real life the participants were still completely consumed in the experiment and felt it was real) Ethical issues. Milgram s study raised a number of ethical issues. He failed to obtain informed consent, as the participants were deceived about the aims of the experiment. He also tried to prevent participants from leaving the experiment, removing their right to withdraw, and also potentially causing serious psychological harm.

Validity is the extent to which a study measures what it was set out to. There are two types:

Internal Validity (a.k.a experimental realism)

*If an experiment is internally valid it means that the experimental design actually tests the behaviour its set out to test. *i.e. whether the IV (not some other factor) effected the DV. *Demand characteristics, experimenter expectancy and lack of standardised procedures can all affect internal validity.

External Validity
*The extent to which the findings can be generalised to all settings. *If an experiment has high external validity the findings can be generalised to different settings (ecological) cultures (populational) and time periods (temporal validity) *The results can only be applied to other situations if they are internally valid.

Ecological Validity
*Ecological validity is whether or not the results of an experiment hold any value in real world situations. *For example, the results of a study on children s behaviour in a laboratory may not be applicable to the children s behaviour at home. *Often an entire study s validity can be brought in to question if the ecological validity is lacking.

Hofling:
Conducted a field experiment, which took place in an American hospital, 22 nurses on night duty were the participants. His aim was to examine obedience in the work place. Unknown Doctor called the hospital and spoke to each nurse. He instructed them to give 20mgs of medication to a patient, and that he would sign the relevant authorisation papers when he arrived. HOWEVER nurses are not supposed to take orders over the phone, and the dosage they were told to administer was double the maximum allowed dosage. 21/22 nurses obeyed the telephone instructions and began to prepare the medication before they were stopped and the situation explained. In their roles as nurses, it s the social norm to accept orders from higher authority (doctors) without questioning their judgment, showing obedience is commonplace in everyday life.

Evaluation
Very high in validity> field experiment> showed how obedience is found in real life situations. Unethical> field experiment> participants didn t have the chance to give informed consent. This experiment shows the importance of responsibility in relation to obedience. The doctor claimed that he would sign the authorisation papers when he arrived, thus the responsibility was removed from the nurses, making them more likely to obey.

Bickman:
Conducted a field experiment using New York pedestrians. He aimed to investigate the role of the perception of someone s authority on obedience. There was three male experimenters, one dressed as a civilian, one as a milk man and one as a police officer. They ordered participants to do things such as pick up a bag from the street, give parking money to a stranger, and move to the opposite side of a bus pole. Bickman found people were most likely to obey orders from the security guard. This experiment shows that obedience can be related to the amount of perceived authority a person has.