Topic 5: Social influence Revision Notes

What is Conformity to Majority Influence?

Conformity to majority influence is a type of social influence where an individual changes their behaviour, attitudes, or beliefs to align with the perceived norms of a larger group. This change can be driven by a desire to be liked and accepted (normative social influence) or by a belief that the group is more knowledgeable (informational social influence). It is distinct from obedience, which involves following direct orders from an authority figure.

Situational Factors Affecting Conformity

Several situational factors can influence the extent of conformity. Group size: conformity increases with group size up to a certain point (e.g., 3-5 confederates), then levels off. Unanimity: a unanimous majority significantly increases conformity; the presence of even one dissenter dramatically reduces conformity. Task difficulty/ambiguity: when a task is more difficult or the correct answer is unclear, individuals are more likely to look to others for guidance (informational influence) and thus conform. Public vs. private responses: conformity is higher when responses are made publicly, as individuals are more concerned with group acceptance.

Personality Factors and Conformity

Individual differences, particularly personality traits, also play a role in conformity. Self-esteem: individuals with lower self-esteem or self-confidence tend to conform more readily, as they may doubt their own judgment and seek external validation. Locus of control: people with an external locus of control (believing external forces control their destiny) may conform more than those with an internal locus of control (believing they control their own destiny), as they are more susceptible to outside influences. Need for affiliation: individuals with a strong need to be accepted by others are more likely to conform to group norms to maintain social connections.

Research Evidence: Asch's Study (1951)

Asch's study demonstrated conformity to an unambiguous task. Participants were asked to match the length of a target line with one of three comparison lines. In critical trials, confederates gave deliberately incorrect answers. Asch found that participants conformed to the incorrect majority answer approximately 32% of the time across critical trials. About 75% of participants conformed at least once. This classic experiment highlights the powerful effect of group pressure, even when the correct answer is clearly evident.

Personal Factors Affecting Intervention

Personal factors relate to an individual's characteristics that may influence their likelihood of helping. These can include: Mood (people in a good mood are often more likely to help). Empathy (higher empathy can lead to greater helping behaviour). Competence (individuals who feel capable of helping are more likely to intervene). Personality traits (e.g., altruism, agreeableness). Prior experience (having been in a similar situation or having received help can increase helping).

Situational Factors Affecting Intervention

Situational factors refer to aspects of the environment or incident that impact helping. Key factors include: The Bystander Effect (diffusion of responsibility, where individuals feel less accountable when others are present, and evaluation apprehension, fearing negative judgment). Ambiguity of the situation (unclear emergencies lead to less intervention). Proximity of the victim (closer victims receive more help). Social norms (observing others help can encourage intervention). Cost-benefit analysis (weighing potential risks against rewards of helping). Time pressure (less likely to help when in a hurry).

The Bystander Effect Explained

The bystander effect describes the phenomenon where individuals are less likely to offer help to a victim when other people are present. This effect is often attributed to two main psychological processes: Diffusion of Responsibility: When multiple bystanders are present, the responsibility to intervene is perceived to be shared among them, reducing each individual's personal sense of obligation. Evaluation Apprehension: Bystanders may fear being judged or making a mistake if they intervene, especially if the situation is ambiguous or they are unsure how to help. This fear can inhibit helping behaviour.

Relevant Research and Ethical Considerations

Classic research by Latane and Darley (e.g., seizure experiment) provides empirical support for the bystander effect. Such studies often used laboratory or controlled settings to manipulate variables like the number of bystanders. Ethical considerations in this field are crucial, as conducting experiments that simulate emergencies can cause distress to participants. Researchers must ensure informed consent, the right to withdraw, debriefing, and protection from harm are maintained. Debriefing is particularly important to explain the deception and ensure participants leave the study without undue stress.

Aim and Procedure of the Stanford Prison Experiment

Haney, Banks, and Zimbardo (1973) aimed to investigate the psychological effects of assumed power, specifically looking at how social roles (prisoner or guard) influence behaviour. They recruited 24 male university students, deemed psychologically stable, through newspaper advertisements. Participants were randomly assigned to play either a guard or a prisoner in a simulated prison environment set up in the basement of Stanford University. Prisoners were 'arrested' from their homes, blindfolded, deloused, and given uniforms and numbers instead of names. Guards were given uniforms, reflective sunglasses, and wooden batons, and told to maintain order without physical violence. The study was planned for two weeks.

Findings and Ethical Considerations

The experiment was terminated after only six days due to the rapid and severe behavioural changes. Guards adopted oppressive and sadistic behaviours, humiliating and controlling the prisoners, while prisoners became passive, submissive, and showed signs of extreme emotional distress, including crying, anxiety, and depression. Five prisoners had to be released early due to severe emotional reactions. The findings suggested that the situation, rather than individual personalities, dictated behaviour, supporting a situational explanation for conformity to social roles. Ethically, the study faced significant criticism, particularly regarding the psychological harm inflicted on participants, the lack of a clear right to withdraw for prisoners, and Zimbardo's dual role as researcher and prison superintendent, which blurred his ethical objectivity.

Deindividuation Theory

Deindividuation is a psychological state in which an individual loses their sense of personal identity and responsibility when in a crowd or group. This can happen due to factors like anonymity, diffused responsibility, and heightened arousal. When deindividuated, people may act in ways they normally wouldn't, leading to both anti-social acts like aggression or vandalism, as well as pro-social acts like collective help during emergencies. The theory suggests that uniforms or masks can increase anonymity and, consequently, deindividuation.

Social Impact Theory

Latane's Social Impact Theory proposes that the impact of a social influence on an individual depends on the strength (status, power), immediacy (proximity), and number (quantity) of source individuals relative to the target individual. In a crowd, the number of people exerting influence can be very high, leading to significant social impact. This theory can explain why individuals might conform to group norms or engage in collective behaviour, as the 'impact' from the crowd becomes overwhelmingly strong.

Pro-social vs. Anti-social Behaviour in Crowds

Crowds can facilitate both pro-social and anti-social behaviour. Pro-social examples include cooperative efforts in disaster relief or collective action for social justice. Anti-social examples often include riots, looting, or unprovoked aggression. The direction of behaviour often depends on the initial norms, goals, and emotional state of the crowd, as well as the presence of leaders or specific environmental cues. Research highlights the complex interplay of individual psychology and group dynamics in determining behavioural outcomes.