1. Conformity
1.1. Why people conform
1.1.1. Informational social influence
1.1.1.1. To be right
1.1.1.1.1. e.g. Sherif's (1935) autokinetic effect
1.1.2. Normative Social Influence
1.1.2.1. To fit in and be liked
1.1.2.1.1. e.g. Asch's (1951) lines
1.1.3. Deutsch & Gerard (1955)
1.1.3.1. ISI = to do with ambiguity and expert power
1.1.3.2. NSI = to do with need for social acceptance, coercive power
1.2. Key studies of majority influence
1.2.1. Asch (1951)
1.2.1.1. 74% conformed at least once
1.2.1.1.1. -High conformity may reflect norms of time/culture
1.2.1.2. Ceiling of influence 3-4
1.2.1.3. Dissenting confederate drop in C to 5.5%
1.2.1.3.1. Deception
1.2.1.3.2. Low ecological validity
1.2.2. Jenness (1932)
1.2.2.1. Shift towards group's estimate
1.2.3. Smith and Bond
1.2.4. Perrin & Spencer
1.2.5. Sherif (1935)
1.2.5.1. Autokinetic effect
1.3. Kelman (1958) - 3 types
1.3.1. Compliance
1.3.1.1. Asch
1.3.2. Identification
1.3.2.1. Zimbardo (1973)
1.3.2.1.1. Lack of ecological validity
1.3.2.1.2. Certain level of deception re arrests etc
1.3.2.1.3. Early termination due to the intense stress felt by prisoners
1.3.3. Internalisation
1.3.3.1. Occurs through minority influence
1.3.3.2. Moscovici et al (1969
1.3.3.2.1. Blue slides
1.3.3.2.2. Minority confeds identified them as 'green'
1.3.3.2.3. In consistent condition 8.42% women said 'green and conformed
1.3.3.3. Clark et al
1.3.3.3.1. 12 Angry men - fake jury/trial
1.3.3.3.2. Minority given additional information
1.3.3.3.3. If minority have evidence and are consistent and persuasive this leads to change within the group
2. Obedience
2.1. Milgram's Obedience Study
2.1.1. Yale University
2.1.2. 15-450 Volts
2.1.3. Teacher/Learner
2.1.4. 65% to 450 V
2.1.5. Variations
2.1.5.1. Seedy office 47.5%
2.1.5.2. Learner in same room 40%
2.1.5.3. Absent experimenter - phone - 20%
2.2. Why people obey
2.2.1. Legitimate power
2.2.1.1. Teacher/Doctor/Experimenter in Uni etc
2.2.2. Agentic state
2.2.2.1. 2 states of being acc to Milgram
2.2.2.1.1. Autonomous - taking responsibility for own actions
2.2.2.1.2. Agentic state - being an agent for someone else - doing as you are told
2.2.3. Graduated commitment (FITD)
2.2.3.1. 15V increments
2.3. Other obedience studies
2.3.1. Hofling et al (1966) Nurses
2.3.2. Bickman (1974) power of the uniform - 80% obeyed coin to stranger
2.3.3. Sheridan & King (1972) 100% of women shocked puppy
3. Independent behaviour
3.1. Who showed independent behaviour?
3.1.1. Milgram - 35% of men in original study didn't go to 450V
3.1.2. Asch - 24% didn't conform
3.1.3. Hofling - 1/22 nurses didn't obey
3.2. What is independent behaviour?
3.2.1. Independence
3.2.1.1. Pays no attention to behaviour of others
3.2.1.2. May be due to high level of morality
3.2.2. Anti-conformity or Counter-conformity
3.2.2.1. Still linked to group behaviour - just the opposite
3.2.2.2. May be due to reactance (rebellious anger)
3.3. Locus of control
3.3.1. Rotter (1966)
3.3.1.1. LOC is a personality dimension
3.3.2. Internal LOC
3.3.2.1. Own actions affect outcomes
3.3.2.2. More likely to show independent behaviour
3.3.2.3. +resistant to social pressure
3.3.3. External LOC
3.3.3.1. Fate/Stars cause outcomes - no control
3.3.3.2. Less likely to show independent behaviour
3.3.3.3. -resistant to social pressure
3.3.4. AO2
3.3.4.1. LOC is measured using a scale of measurement which may not be suited to looking at independent behaviour in social settings
3.3.4.2. Too simplistic to say obediencce/conformity are the result of LOC
3.4. Key study Gamson Fireman & Rytina (1982)
3.4.1. MHRC (fake public relations co)
3.4.2. Group discussion re oil co employee sacking
3.4.3. Filmed/consent requested
3.4.4. 32/33 groups rebelled
3.4.5. +importance of group/time to process/ (systematic processing)
3.5. Situational or dispositional factors
3.5.1. Independence is culturally specific
3.5.2. Western (individualistic) cultures more independent
3.5.3. Collectivist cultures more conformist/obedient
3.5.4. Disposition is a personality aspect such as LOC
3.5.5. Need to consider both the situation and personality
3.5.6. Gender
3.5.6.1. Women are more conformist than men (Eagly & Carli (1981))
3.5.7. Status of instructor
3.5.8. AO2
3.5.8.1. Important to consider situation plus LOC/Personality traits
3.6. Encouraging independent behaviour
3.6.1. Presence of other dissenters
3.6.2. Increasing the feeling of personal responsibility (autonomous rather than agentic)
3.6.3. Morality
4. Social Change
4.1. Examples
4.1.1. Rosa Parks civil rights movement and the bus boycott
4.1.2. Greenpeace - started off as 'cranks' in Canada now mainstream, accepted, legitmate voice for environmental issues
4.1.3. Suffragettes
4.1.4. Gay rights
4.2. Process
4.2.1. Consistent minority
4.2.2. Flexible minority
4.2.3. Committed minority
4.2.4. Gradual process of change where minority opinions become majority opinion through...
4.2.5. Snowball effect
4.2.6. Social cryptoamnesia
4.2.6.1. This is where the original cause of opinion/view is lost from memory
4.3. Key Studies that demonstrate aspects of social change (minority influence)
4.3.1. Moscovici et al (1969)
4.3.2. Clark et al