Social influence Revision Notes

Understanding Conformity

Conformity is the act of aligning your behaviour, beliefs, or attitudes with those of a group or society. There are two main types: normative social influence and informational social influence. Normative influence occurs when an individual conforms to be accepted and liked by the group, avoiding rejection. This is often seen in public compliance. Informational influence happens when an individual conforms because they believe others in the group are more knowledgeable or correct, especially in ambiguous situations. This can lead to private acceptance. Factors affecting conformity include group size, unanimity, task difficulty, and individual characteristics like self-esteem. Classic research by Solomon Asch demonstrated how individuals would often give incorrect answers to simple perceptual tasks to conform with a majority group, even when they knew the correct answer. This highlights the powerful effect of group pressure on individual judgement.

Exploring Collective Behaviour

Collective behaviour refers to spontaneous and often unstructured actions by a group of people reacting to the same event or situation. It includes phenomena like crowds, riots, panics, and fads. Unlike conformity, collective behaviour is not necessarily about individuals changing their personal beliefs but rather acting similarly within a specific setting. Key aspects include deindividuation, where individuals in a large group may lose their sense of personal identity and responsibility, leading to behaviour they might not exhibit alone. Le Bon's crowd theory suggested that individuals in a crowd lose their rationality and become susceptible to primitive urges. While this theory has been criticised for being overly simplistic, it highlights the distinct psychological processes that can occur within collective gatherings. Understanding collective behaviour helps explain large-scale social phenomena, from peaceful demonstrations to aggressive social unrest, and is distinct from highly organised group actions.

Analysing Obedience to Authority

Obedience is a specific type of social influence where an individual complies with a direct order or command from an authority figure. This differs significantly from conformity, which involves peer pressure or implicit group influence. The most famous research on obedience is Stanley Milgram's experiment, which demonstrated that a high proportion of individuals would administer what they believed were painful and dangerous electric shocks to a confederate, simply because an authority figure instructed them to do so. Factors influencing obedience include the proximity of the authority figure, the proximity of the victim, the perceived legitimacy of the authority, and institutional support. Ethical concerns surrounding Milgram's study, particularly regarding the deception and psychological distress caused to participants, are crucial points for evaluation. However, the study provided powerful insights into the power of situational factors over individual moral judgment and the potential for ordinary people to commit harmful acts under coercive authority.

Distinguishing the Concepts

It is important to differentiate between conformity, collective behaviour, and obedience. Conformity involves adjusting to group norms, often through implicit pressure, aiming to fit in or be correct. Obedience involves following direct orders from an authority figure due to perceived power or legitimate commands. Collective behaviour is about spontaneous, often unorganised actions of large groups, where individuals may lose their sense of distinct identity (deindividuation). While they are all forms of social influence, their mechanisms and motivating factors differ. For example, a person might conform to their friends' fashion choices (conformity), follow a police officer's instructions during an emergency (obedience), or participate in a spontaneous cheer during a sporting event (collective behaviour). Each scenario illustrates a distinct way social forces shape individual actions. Evaluating these concepts involves considering the ethical implications, real-world relevance, and methodological strengths and weaknesses of the studies that have investigated them.

Aim and Methodology

Bickman (1974) aimed to investigate the impact of uniform on levels of obedience. It was a field experiment conducted on Brooklyn streets in New York. Three male confederates wore different outfits: a guard's uniform, a milkman's uniform, or a civilian outfit (jacket and tie). They gave one of three instructions to passers-by: 'Pick up this bag for me,' 'Give this man a dime,' or 'Stand on the other side of this bus stop sign.' A fourth confederate observed responses. The independent variable was the type of uniform worn by the confederate, and the dependent variable was the level of obedience shown by participants.

Key Findings and Conclusion

The results showed that obedience varied significantly depending on the uniform worn. The highest obedience rates were observed when the confederate wore the guard's uniform (e.g., 76% for picking up a bag), followed by the milkman's uniform (47%), and then the civilian clothes (30%). This indicates a clear correlation between perceived authority, signified by uniform, and willingness to obey. Bickman concluded that symbols of authority, such as uniforms, have a considerable influence on compliance and obedience in everyday situations, even without actual power or enforcement capabilities.

Evaluation: Strengths

A key strength of Bickman's study was its high ecological validity. As a field experiment conducted in a real-world setting (Brooklyn streets), the participants were unaware they were part of an experiment, leading to more natural and realistic behaviour. This reduces demand characteristics, as participants were not trying to guess the aim of the study. The large sample size, spread across various locations and tasks, enhances the generalisability of the findings to a broader population and different situations. The use of confederates and standardised instructions for each uniform condition allowed for control over extraneous variables and made the results more reliable.

Evaluation: Weaknesses

The study raised ethical concerns due to the deception involved; participants were unaware they were in an experiment and did not give informed consent. They also had no right to withdraw their data. The lack of debriefing is another ethical issue. Demand characteristics, while reduced, were not entirely eliminated, as some participants might have suspected something unusual, or simply reacted to the oddness of a specific request. Additionally, the study was conducted in a specific cultural context (New York in the 1970s), which might limit its generalisability to other cultures or time periods, as perceptions of authority and uniforms can vary globally.

Background and Aim of the NatCen Study

The NatCen 2011 study was a detailed investigation into the August 2011 riots across England, commissioned by the Cabinet Office. The main aim was to understand the factors and motivations that led people to participate in the unrest, violence, and looting. The riots, which began in London and spread to other major cities, raised significant social and political concerns, prompting a need for empirical research to inform future policy and prevention strategies. Understanding the complex interplay of individual, social, and situational factors was crucial to responding effectively.

Methodology of the NatCen Study

The study used a qualitative research approach, primarily employing semi-structured interviews with two main groups: individuals who had participated in the riots and a comparison group of non-participants from similar demographic backgrounds. A key sampling technique used was 'snowball sampling,' where initial contacts led researchers to other participants. This was particularly useful for reaching individuals involved in sensitive or criminal activities. This method allowed for in-depth exploration of motivations and experiences, rather than just collecting quantitative data. Researchers had to consider ethical issues carefully, such as participant anonymity and protection, given the sensitive nature of their involvement.

Key Findings of the NatCen Study

NatCen's findings indicated multiple, often overlapping, motivations for riot participation. These included opportunism for looting (desire for consumer goods), a thrill-seeking or 'carnival' atmosphere, feelings of injustice or anger towards the police, and significant peer pressure. Underlying socioeconomic factors such as deprivation, unemployment, and perceived lack of opportunities were also identified as contributing to a sense of disenfranchisement. The study also noted the role of social media in quick mobilization and communication among rioters. These findings painted a complex picture beyond simple criminality.

Evaluation of the NatCen Study

The NatCen study was valuable for providing rich, qualitative data on rioters' perspectives, which was largely missing from official reports. However, it faced criticisms regarding its methodology. Snowball sampling, while practical, can lead to a non-representative sample, potentially over-representing certain types of participants and making it difficult to generalise findings to all rioters. The reliance on self-report data also introduces the risk of social desirability bias, where participants might alter their accounts to present themselves in a more favourable light or downplay their involvement. Despite these limitations, the study significantly contributed to understanding the complex social dynamics of the 2011 riots.

Understanding Social Change

Social change involves significant alterations in a society's norms, values, beliefs, and behaviours over time. This can be a gradual process or occur more rapidly due to specific events or movements. Both minority and majority influence are key mechanisms through which these changes are initiated and sustained. It's important to distinguish between public compliance, where individuals outwardly agree but privately disagree, and private acceptance (internalisation), where individuals genuinely adopt the new belief or behaviour.

Minority Influence as a Driver of Change

Minority influence is crucial because it often leads to deeper, more lasting social change. Unlike majority influence, which can result in superficial compliance, a consistent, committed, and flexible minority encourages the majority to process information more deeply. This deeper processing can lead to internalisation, where individuals privately agree with the minority's viewpoint. Moscovici's work highlights that consistency is particularly important; a minority that wavers is less likely to be effective. Commitment can be shown through personal sacrifices, convincing others of the seriousness of their cause.

Key Factors for Minority Influence Success

For a minority to successfully bring about social change, several factors are critical:

1. Consistency: The minority must maintain a stable message over time and across its members. This creates doubt in the majority's views.
2. Commitment: Demonstrating dedication (e.g., through personal sacrifice) makes the minority's cause appear more credible and important.
3. Flexibility: While consistent, rigid dogmatism can be off-putting. A degree of flexibility, such as being willing to compromise on peripheral aspects, can make the minority more appealing and persuasive. These factors collectively enhance the minority's persuasive power by encouraging the majority to reconsider their own positions.

Majority Influence and Conformity

Majority influence, often synonymous with conformity, also plays a role in social change, though typically in reinforcing existing norms or accelerating the spread of already accepted ideas. When a majority adopts a new behaviour or belief, others often follow due to normative social influence (desire to be liked or fit in) or informational social influence (belief that the majority is correct). This can lead to rapid, widespread adoption, but it may only involve public compliance rather than true internalisation. For example, fashion trends spread quickly through majority influence.