Social Psychology Lecture 4.pdf

Social Influence II: Minority Influence & Obedience Lecture 4  Learning Outcomes At the end of this lecture you will be able to: ▪ define minority influence and the conversion effect ▪ describe and evaluate laboratory research on minority influence ▪ contrast...

Social Influence II: Minority Influence & Obedience Lecture 4  Learning Outcomes At the end of this lecture you will be able to: ▪ define minority influence and the conversion effect ▪ describe and evaluate laboratory research on minority influence ▪ contrast majority influence with minority influence ▪ describe and evaluate the Milgram studies on obedience ▪ discuss factors that reduce obedience in the Milgram studies  Outline ▪ Conformity Group Size Minority Influence ▪ Obedience Milgram’s Obedience Experiments o Reducing Obedience Field Experiment of Obedience  Factors Affecting Conformity ▪ Ambiguity ▪ Need to be accurate ▪ Crisis/emergency ▪ Unanimity ▪ Gender ▪ Expertise ▪ Status and attractiveness of the group ▪ Group size  Group Size and Conformity Percentage of conformity Number of people in group  Factors Affecting Conformity ▪ Ambiguity ▪ Need to be accurate ▪ Crisis/emergency ▪ Unanimity ▪ Gender ▪ Expertise ▪ Status and attractiveness of the group ▪ Group size  Definition ▪ Minority influence Processes of social influence in which a numerical or power minority can change the attitudes and behaviours of the majority  Minority Influence ▪ Moscovici, Lage, & Naffrechoux (1969): Based on Asch’s paradigm Ps were in groups of 6: o Control condition (6 naïve Ps) o Minority conditions (4 real Ps + 2 confederates) Ps presented with a blue slide (varying in intensity) Task was to name the colour of the slide (aloud)  Minority Influence cont’d. ▪ Moscovici, Lage, & Naffrechoux (1969): Control condition Inconsistent minority condition o Confederates said green on 2/3 of trials and blue on 1/3 of trials Consistent minority condition o Confederates said green on all trials  Minority Influence cont’d. ▪ Moscovici, Lage, & Naffrechoux (1969): 9 8 When the minority % green responses 7 is consistent in 6 5 their views, they 4 sway the views of 3 others 2 1 0 Control Inconsistent minority Consistent minority Experim ental Condition Ps in the consistent minority condition conformed 9% of the time Ps in the inconsistent minority condition conformed 2% of the time Majority vs. Minority Influence Majority Influence Minority Influence Public compliance or Private acceptance private acceptance Normative or Informational reasons informational reasons Not much thought Think arguments through carefully Direct Indirect  Definition ▪ Minority influence Processes of social influence in which a numerical or power minority can change the attitudes and behaviours of the majority ▪ Conversion effect Process by which minority influence brings about internal, private change in the attitudes of a majority  Consistent Minority Influence ▪ Demonstrate certainty and commitment to a position ▪ Position is distinct from the majority norm Disrupts the majority norm ▪ Not motivated by self-interest Perception that minority members freely chose their position and express it freely Draws attention to an alternative position Highlights that the only solution to a conflict is the adoption of the minority’s position  Obedience ▪ Milgram’s (1963) studies: Experimenter “Learner” “Teacher”  Obedience ▪ Milgram’s (1963) studies: Cover story: “The effects of punishment on memory” Rigged allocation of role to “teacher” (vs. “learner”) Learner’s memory for a word list is tested by teacher For every wrong answer, teacher delivers* an electric shock, which increases by 15V every time there is a wrong answer * No shocks were actually delivered  Obedience ▪ Why do we obey? Informational social influence o In ambiguous, novel situations, we look to others (authorities) for information and guidance Normative social influence o We do not want to disappoint others o We do not want to face social disapproval ― Even with strangers Not due to personality!  Reducing Obedience ▪ (In)consistent information 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Baseline Two other dissenting Contradictory "teachers" experimenters  Why do we continue to obey? ▪ No time to think it through ▪ Self-justification Shocks were gradual Cognitive dissonance ▪ Loss of personal responsibility “Just doing my job” “Just following orders” ▪ Not due to personality!  Reducing Obedience cont’d. ▪ Tuning in the “victim” 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 10 0 0 Remote Baseline Voice Remote feedback VoiceTwo feedback Proximity Touch Proximity Contradictory other dissenting Touch feedback feedback "teachers" proximity proximity experimenters  Reducing Obedience cont’d. ▪ Tuning out the “authority” 70 60 50 50 40 40 30 30 20 20 10 10 0 0 Remote Baseline VoiceTwo feedback Proximity Contradictory other dissenting Touch feedback Baseline Absent "teachers" experimenter Ordinaryproximity experimenters person  Field Experiment of Obedience ▪ *Zimbardo and colleagues (1973): Stanford Prison Experiment Interested in examining why prisons were so violent Set up a prison in the basement of Stanford Uni Ps were 24 males (screened) in a 2-week study Ps were randomly assigned to guard or prisoner role 9 prisoners; 9 guards (the rest were on reserve) Guards worked in shifts o Only order was to keep order  Field Experiment of Obedience cont’d. ▪ *Zimbardo and colleagues (1973): Prisoners were degraded Prisoners revolted on the 2nd day Guards crushed the revolt with physical and psychological tactics o “The guards had won total control of the prison, and they commanded the blind obedience of each prisoner” (Zimbardo, 2007) The prisoners and guards lost track of reality o The experimenters did too Experiment called off after 6 days  Stanford Prison Experiment Website ▪ To find out more: http://www.prisonexp.org lucifereffect.com ▪ For a summary and critique: ▪ https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/freedom- learn/201310/why-zimbardo-s-prison-experiment-isn-t-in-my- textbook  Next lecture Interpersonal Processes I