Social Influence

Conformity  

Deindividuation 

Process of losing our personal identity when we are part of a crowd or group. When we lose our individual identity, we become anonymous. Consequently, we act differently and feel less responsible for our own actions

Bystander effect

• In 1964, Kitty Genovese was brutally murdered outside her New York apartment. There were many witnesses, none of them immediately stepped in to help her. 
• Bibb Latane and John Darley explained this as a bystander effect/ apathy.
• We look to others to see how to behave, if no one is helping then we will not help either.

Situational factors:

1. Diffusion of responsibility

We feel less personally responsible when there are more people around to potentially help. The larger the crowd, the less responsible we feel because we diffuse responsibility onto those around us. We justify our inaction because there are plenty of bystanders who can help instead. 

2.  Noticing the event 

In large crowds we pay less attention to what is going on around us.

Latane and Darley did an experiment: we take longer to notice smoke and react in a group compared to being alone.

3. Pluralistic ignorance

We often look at others and react based on what others are doing. Looking at others helps us interpret the situation.

4. Cost of helping

We may evaluate a situation as having too high a cost as it risks harm to us, so we choose not to help. When the cost of helping is not great we may help. This could be because we selfishly try to avoid the guilt we would experience if we hadn’t helped. 

Personality factors:

1. Competence 

Whether we feel competent enough to help influences our choice to do so. E.g. being trained in CPR.

2. Mood 

More likely to help in a good mood, we pay attention to those around us. When in a bad or sad mood, we tend to focus our attention inwardly on ourselves. 

3. Similarity 

If we identify with the victim, we can see the same fate for us and are more likely to intervene. 

Conformity 

Situational factors 

1. Size of majority 

The greater the majority, the greater the influence they have on your behaviour.

E.g. Solomon Asch

• A participant was placed on a table with confederates.
• Experimenter showed them a card with 3 lines labelled A,B,C
• A second card was shown with one line, they were asked which (A,B,C) resembled the line the most. 
• Confederates lied and picked the wrong line.
• 1 confederate = conformity rate 3%
• 2 confederates = conformity rate 13%
• 3 confederates = conformity rate 32%
• This demonstrates normative social influence
• The optimal number for a majority to exert influence was 3-4 people, if more chose the wrong line it tended to arouse suspicion. 

2. Unanimity of the majority 

Disagreement within the majority means you will be less influenced as the decision was not unanimous. Therefore you have social support.

3. Task difficulty/ambiguity 

If a task is hard or ambiguous, we are more likely to look at others for the right answer. (informational social influence). 

E.g. Solomon Asch 

• When the three lines were more similar to the comparison line, he found a higher rate of conformity because it was ambiguous.

Personality factors 

1. Internal locus of control

Believe we have personal control over our own behaviour.

Person with an internal locus of control would be less influenced and less likely to conform.

2. External locus of control

Believe we don’t have control over our own behaviour, caused by something external to us.

Person with an external locus of control would be more likely to conform and be influenced.

Obedience to authority

Milgram’s electric shock experiments:

Background – 

• Participants thought they were invited to Yale university and was introduced to Mr Wallace (a confederate)
• If Mr Wallace recalled a word wrong, he was given a shock, the more he got wrong, the higher the eclectic shock was.
• The shock wasn’t real but participants thought it was.
• Mr Wallace was in a diff room from participants but they could hear him protest at being shocked through a speaker.

Situational factors

1. Proximity of the victim

Mr Wallace was in a different room so it was easier for participants to administer a shock because the effects could not be seen.

When Mr Wallace was in the same room, obedience fell by 40%

2. Proximity of authority figure

When Mr Williams was in the same room, 65% of participants gave the highest level of shock. When he gave orders on the phone, obedience fell to 20.5%

3. Authority figure

When Mr Williams was wearing a lab coat, he looked official and legitimate. When Mr Williams was replaced by an ordinary person, obedience fell to 20%. This demonstrates that the level of authority affects obedience.

4. Legitimacy of the context

Original study conducted at Yale. when it was replicated in a run down office, obedience fell to 47.5%. Removing the prestige and legitimacy of the context lowered obedience.

5. Personal responsibility

When participants worked with someone who gave the shock for them, obedience rose to 90%. This decreases personal responsibility.

6. Support of others

When one participant refused to continue at 150 volts, the second refused at 210 volts. Higher disobedience from confederates generated social support.

Personality factors

• Authoritarian personality
• Respectful and more likely to follow orders.
• This concept came from Theodor Adorno et al. 
• He assumed this type of person would have: 

Respect for authority figures, rigid beliefs and attitudes, a strong belief in justice, right-wing 

• politics and be aggressive to those inferior to themselves 
• He developed the F-scale to test whether someone had an authoritarian personality. 

Behaviour of crowds

Prosocial behaviour: behaviour that is seen as kind, helpful and peaceful

Antisocial behaviour: behaviour that is unhelpful, destructive and aggressive

Crowd behaviour can be understood in terms of deindividuation, members lose their personal identity among others. 

You could also conform to the group’s behaviour and your views may become as strong as theirs, in case of a protest.

Preventing blind obedience

1. Social support 

Rank and Jacobson replicated Hofling et als study of the drugs and patients, when nurses were able to discuss with each other they found obedience significantly decreased. 

2. Familiarity of the situation 

If we are unaware of how to behave we look to others for advice /guidance. 

Hofling used drugs the nurses were unfamiliar with, Jacobson used one they were aware of which decreased obedience because they knew what amount of the dose was inappropriate.

3. Distance 

If we create distance between ourselves and authority, their impact is lessened.

4. Education 

Education of blind obedience is key to resisting it as it gives us insight into our own behaviour. 

Key studies 

Piliavin et al. Good Samaritanism: An Underground Phenomenon

Haney, Banks and Zimbardo: A Study of Prisoners and Guards in a Simulated Prison