It is impossible to live among other people and not be influenced by them in some way (Gross, 2015.). According to Hogg and Vaughan (2005); cited by Eysenck (2012), Social influence is the process whereby attitudes and behaviour are influenced by the real or implied presence of others. In social life, people yield to group pressures (Crutchfield, 1955). Situations can influence our judgement, beliefs and behaviour. Social norms dictate how we are expected to think, behave and feel in societal groups. Deutch and Gerard (1995) identified two types of social influence; normative, based on our need to be accepted by others, leading to compliance. In contrast, informational social influence is our desire to be right based on a need for certainty, leading to internalisation. Social norms provide structure and organisation. McLeod (2008), defined social norms as unwritten rules on how to behave.
Conformity (majority influence), minority influence and obedience are types of social influence. Conformity is a psychological need for acceptance by others, (Gross, 2015). Kelman (1958); cited by Changing Minds (2002), identified three types of opinion change: compliance, identification and internalisation. People comply for many reasons, a person is compliant by publicly changing their behaviour to fit in with the majority but also conflicted, as privately they disagree, maintaining their own views. However, this can cause feelings of cognitive dissonance as outwardly their actions are not true to their internal beliefs. Identification is when we value membership of a group and identify with that group’s social norms. Internalisation is defined as a true conversion both publicly and privately, without any coercion.
In ambiguous situations, we avoid standing-out from the crowd and look to others for cues however, conforming to group social influence does not always guarantee accuracy. Sheriff (1935), used the autokinetic effect (an illusion) to measure conformity. In a dark room, individuals estimated how far a single spot of light moved on the opposite wall. However, unknown to the participants, the light remained still. As they tired the spot appeared to move creating an optical illusion. Repeating the test in groups of three, Sheriff found the individuals replaced their private opinion and aligned with the group norm. A further individual test showed participants maintained the group estimate demonstrating informational social influence and conformity. The ambiguousness of the study means it is difficult to ascertain whether the findings are a true representation of conformity. Asch (1956), conducted an unambiguous study (a line judgement task) to see if individuals would conform to group opinion. Groups consisting of four to seven participants, except one naive participant, were confederates briefed to give the incorrect answer in 12 out of 18 trials. The naive participant (seated second to last), was under pressure to voice their own opinion or conform to group opinion. Compared to the accurate answers given by a previous controlled group situation containing no confederates, 37% of naive participants conformed and gave the wrong answer, 74% conformed at least once and 26% never conformed (Hill, 2008). In variations of the study, if a confederate dissented, conformity dropped to 5.5% suggesting people feel less isolated with social support therefore encouraging individual opinion. Groups of two people showed minimal conformity whereas, groups of three or more increased conformity. As the difficulty of the task increased, conformity also increased, suggesting people align with the majority opinion, whereas, when the participant could write the answer down, conformity dropped. The study found that even the non-conforming participants felt the pressure to go along with the group. Asch’s study, however, lacks population and ecological validity. Participants were all young males at the same university, so the results only reflect young American men as opposed to women and other cultures in wider society. In society, we value individualism however we also tend to react to the culture of the time. Therefore, the American socio-political environment in the 1950s (known as McCarthyism), may have measured conformity through fear of the political culture rather than peoples’ natural tendency to conform. Smith and Bond (1998); cited by Cardwell and Flanagan (2012), studied the link between culture and conformity in studies carried out between 1952 and 1994 using similar processes to Asch. Collectivist countries such as Japan showed higher levels of conformity than individualist countries such as America and the UK.
Minority influence is an indirect form of social influence, where people reject the norms of the majority and move towards the minority. A minority group’s difference, however, is in how it behaves and influences its audience. Majority influence uses normative social influences, whereas minority influence uses informational social influence. People start to listen to the minority’s viewpoint leading to a gradual change of opinion, eventually leading to internalisation. To be effective and to create doubt in the minds of the majority, minority influence needs consistency, persistence, flexibility, commitment and sacrifice, (known as the augmentation principle). Individual differences also affect minority influence. The Suffragettes were active and organised possessing a high internal locus of control in their resistance to conform to the status quo of the time. Confident but committed to their cause, they succeeded in their campaign forcing a shift in societal attitudes. As minority groups initially have less power, the process of conversion (essential for social change) is gradual. However, over time, the minority group’s message spreads, creating a snowball effect. If the minority’s message is clear and consistent, the minority will eventually become the majority and the original source of the message or, how change came about, will be forgotten (known as social cryptomnesia).
Attitudinal change only occurs as the zeitgeist (the culture of the time) also changes. When a new social norm is created, conformity to the new rules is expected. People who do not internalise the change, simply conform to avoid retribution, (Psychology Hacked, 2018). Hogg and Vaughan (1980), suggested majority views are accepted passively whereas, in contrast, minorities bring about private change due to cognitive conflict, to produce a conversion effect. Moscovici (1976); cited by Cardwell and Flanagan (2012) believed that without the minority advocating a different way there would be no innovation or social change. Moscovici (1969); cited by Eysenck (2012), wanted to evidence that a minority, when consistent, can influence a majority, making the distinction between compliance and conversion. Repeating Asch’s line study he placed two confederates amongst four naive participants showing 36 blue slides. The confederates consistently answered green. In the second trial they answered 24 green and 12 blue. The findings showed that a consistent minority had more effect than an inconsistent minority. Sampson (1991); cited by McLeod (2008), suggested laboratory studies lack ecological validity. Artificial environments and tasks involving strangers, differ to real-life situations where a minority in wider society seeks to change the opinions of a majority. Sampson argued that artificial environments do not simulate the wider differences in power and status that separate minorities and majorities. Terrorism is an example of minority influence, Kruglanski et al. (2009); cited in Eysenck, (2012) looked at Arab countries’ support of terrorist attacks on Americans and found those endorsing collectivist goals were more supportive than those with individualistic goals. Consistency of extremist viewpoints are all shared goals of the majority sympathetic to the terrorists’ cause.
Unlike conformity and minority influence, obedience is a direct form of social influence where a person yields to instructions from an authority figure, Colman (2001); cited by Eysenck (2012). Obedience and conformity involve social pressures however, obedience differs in the following ways: firstly, we act as instructed; secondly, we tend to be of lower status to the authority figure as opposed to equals of the influencing group; and lastly, behaviour is due to social power as opposed to pressure to conform to social norms. For people to display obedience, the authority must be perceived as legitimate. As children we trust authority figures, are obedient to our parents/teachers, therefore obedience to orders could be viewed as an ingrained behaviour characteristic. Pennington, Gillen and Hill (2004), state that most obedience was benign and constructive, necessary to maintain social order, whereas, blind obedience can be destructive.
Milgrim (1963); cited by PsychTeacher (2019), tested the hypothesis of whether American people would obey questionable orders from a legitimate authority figure. War crimes of the Nazis in WWII, particularly the Eichmann trial, made Milgrim question whether the Germans were a different breed or, were they just agents blindly obeying orders. Milgrim termed this the Agentic State, where a person enters an authoritative system and passes responsibility to the authority figure. Whereas, a person is characterised as in an autonomous state when taking responsibility for their actions. In situations of obedience, a person shifts between an agentic and autonomous state, Milgrim called this the Agentic Shift.
Milgrim’s experiment advertised for 40 American males of different backgrounds (the participants). The study was looking at the effects of punishment on learning. The study involved an experimenter (who wore a grey laboratory coat – a power symbol) and a confederate. The study was scripted but the measure was how far the participants would go in obeying the experimenter’s instructions in giving electric shocks. The learner (a confederate) in another room, was observed being strapped into a chair and wired with electrodes. The teacher (real participant), buffered from the learner, was instructed to administer electric shocks starting at 15 volts gradually increasing to 450 volts as punishment for incorrect answers. Any hesitation, the experimenter would insist the process continued. Participants felt obligated and felt committed to the experiment (i.e. smaller shocks to begin, participants who had volunteered were paid for their time and the environment which was Yale University, provided credibility). The participants experienced undue anxiety thinking they were causing actual pain but were under pressure not to disrupt the process. Asking the participants to issue 450 volts at the outset would be too much, whereas through the process of gradual commitment, (known as the foot-in-the-door technique), all participants went to 300 volts and 65% gave 450 volts. This suggests obedience is a reaction to situations as opposed to sadistic personality traits. Buffering serves as a visual barrier as it depersonalises the impact and may explain why people will drop weapons of mass destruction. Releasing an atomic bomb is different from using a knife, it minimises the impact and consequences. The teacher and learner were visually separated, increasing obedience, suggesting it is easier to obey when the victim is out of sight. When the experimenter gave orders from another room, obedience fell to 20%. If the teacher could see the learner, obedience fell to 40%. However, when the teacher was told he was responsible for administering the shocks, participants refused to obey unless the experimenter took full responsibility, demonstrating the agentic shift. Orne and Holland (1968); cited by Hill (2009) claimed the experiment lacked realism. The participants did not really believe the learner would be harmed but were reacting to the demand characteristics of the experiment which would increase obedience, thus evidencing deception. Obedience was also demonstrated by Hofling et al, (1966) where nurses followed orders by phone from an unknown doctor prescribing the incorrect dosage of drugs and not insisting on written authority. Situational factors can therefore dictate behaviour, inhibiting the moral compass and undermining ethics under the influence of a higher authority.
Ethics are principles which guide moral behaviour. Codes of conduct establish trust and provide and form a legal framework of accountability. It is important participants are not caused undue stress and harm or deceived about the motives of the study. However, in some cases a certain level of deception may be required to not illicit a predetermined outcome. Participants should be made aware of their right-to-withdraw and are adequately debriefed upon completion of the study. Milgram’s study was criticised due to its deception and lack of due care towards its participants, raising concerns of unethical behaviour but also emphasising the importance of ethics in research. Baumarind was critical of Milgram, claiming, the levels of anxiety experienced was enough to halt the experiment, emphasising the damage caused to public opinion of participant welfare. The right-to-withdraw clause was also challenged, telling a participant they must continue, contravenes this clause. The Data Protection Act makes confidentiality a legal right. It is important also to note participant privacy when conducting studies without the participant’s awareness.
2019-1-9-1547058530