How social influence processes affect real-world behavoiurs

The Impact of Social Influence on Real-World Behavior Student’s Name Institution of Affiliation Course Date The Impact of Social Influence on Real-World Behavior Human behaviour is an essential component of social influence on how people think, act, and decide with others present, according to Spears (2021). It means how social pressure forces people's behaviour, attitudes, and beliefs. Social influence affects all things and people, whether it is pressure to conform to a group, obedience to an authority figure, and the slight influence of society. Properly analyzing individual and collective behaviour in real-world contexts requires understanding these dynamics. Psychologists have developed several theories to explain how social influence progresses. For instance, early studies like Stanley Milgram's famous obedience experiment (1963) showed that people are inclined to do things contrary to their moral feelings once an authoritative presence directs them (Dolinski & Grzyb, 2024). Solomon Asch's conformity experiments (1951) showed how individuals tend to go along with a group of people, even when facts are presented to them (Gudehus, 2023). Bibb Latane and John Darley (1968) introduced the Bystander Effect to illustrate how the ability of others can result in diffusion of responsibility, making people less likely to help with emergencies. This work has laid out to further expound on the mechanism of social influence, such as referent informational influence, among other mechanisms that can be conducted by group identity on individual behaviour. This paper also explains the theories well, how they manifest in the workplace, and how they shape human behaviour in group settings where people are supposed to contribute to decision-making. Moreover, the paper will explain the intended outcomes of such experiments and how they influence future behaviour in the workplace. Lastly, their historical development will be considered when these theories are explored, and the reasons behind their influence in modern society will be explained. Theory Descriptions Milgram’s Obedience Study (1963) One of the most famous and controversial psychological experiments ever occurred was Stanley Milgram's obedience study in 1963. This study aimed to study to what extent individuals would comply with an authority figure when that authority figure would command something that directly conflicted with the individual's ethical standards (Bridgman & Cummings, 2023). In the subsequent trial, the electric shocks to the person were made increasingly more painful. However, the person was only an actor and was not receiving painful electric shocks. The shocks went from a mild 15 volts up to 450 volts, which could prove fatal. In a lab coat, the authority figure insisted the participant carry on giving the shocks as the actor screamed in pain and, at one point, fell silent, playing dead. Despite the suffering, a significant fraction (65%) of participants kept giving the maximum shocks (up to the maximum level) (Doris et al., 2024). Based on these trials, Milgram concluded that people tend to obey authority figures, even if manhandling the victims is involved. The results indicated that people believe they must comply with this authority, even if playing against personal moral values. On the other hand, Milgram's findings apply to real-life settings that are endowed with authority figures. In the workplace, employees may have to do unethical things to workers because of the orders from superiors that these employees would follow without compromising their moral judgments, worrying about job security, or the authority they exercised over them. The institution's hierarchical nature implies that soldiers under military orders may be sent to use violence or commit other unethical actions. According to Doris et al. (2024), Milgram's study on blind obedience and its dangers reminds us not to do it and that a checkout system should be implemented to check for ethical issues when ordering authority over others. Asch’s Conformity Experiment (1951) The 1951 experiment on conformity conducted by Solomon Asch further shed light on the effect of peer pressure on an individual's behaviour, according to Weng et al. (2021). A line with a matching length to three comparison lines, one of which was the same, was drawn for participants in this experiment. However, the twist was that participants were pitted against others offered by confederates (actors) as individuals who gave the wrong responses and prevented them from answering (West & Mendes, 2023). The idea was to determine if the participant would comply with the majority opinion, even when it was crystal wrong. Asch discovered that 75 per cent of participants at least once yielded to the incorrect majority opinion. Participants were primarily incorrect, conforming to the wrong group answer about one-third of the time on average (Weng et al., 2021). The results of this study also provide compelling evidence of the powerful effects of peer pressure and group dynamics on an individual's decision. Even in cases where the answer was objectively obvious, people would choose to conform instead of deviating from social influence. In the workplace, people may keep their opinions underground and fit in with group norms, leading to suboptimal decisions (Dreyer et al., 2025). This may happen in politics or social movements, where people conform to their group's or even society's views, although the personal view might contradict. The implications of this experiment can reach beyond education when students' peers affect their behaviour, and we can be influenced by what our peers buy. Asch's work points out that there is a tension between individuality and wanting social acceptance, and the role of peer pressure in determining behaviour can be better noted. Hofling’s Nurse Study (1966) In 1966, Charles Hofling conducted a study examining obedience in a real-life professional setting. Hofling's research involved nurses who asked a doctor to give them a potentially dangerous dose of medication (Astroten) to administer to a patient. A doctor they did not know instructed the nurses to administer a dose above the standard over the phone (Meyer, 2021). All the nurses were prepared and did not know the order was part of an experiment. Despite knowing the drug could cause harm, that the order did not follow hospital protocols, and all but one of the 22 nurses complied with the order, the medication was prepared for administration. These findings of Hofling matched Milgram's obedience study perfectly, that even professionals, despite working in high stakes and high responsibility environments such as healthcare, can be taken off their guard by blind obedience to authority figures. Within a healthcare environment, trust in authority is vital for its operations. One application of Hofling's findings is especially salient in medical fields, where the hierarchical structure can cause subordinates to blindly follow warders without questioning it. For instance, the study points out that such a culture, where ethical concerns can be raised and authority questioned, is critical in conditions of high pressure, such as those of a hospital. In addition, it indicates how proper training and protocols must exist, creating systems in which the professionals critically assess decisions made by authority figures to ensure the safety and well-being of the patients. Latane and Darley’s Bystander Effect (1968) In 1968, psychologists Bibb Latane and John Darley conducted a series of studies on the bystander effect, which states that individuals are less likely to intervene in an emergency when other people are present. The story involved the murder of Kitty Genovese in New York City, attended by 38 witnesses who refused to intercede or call the police (Hubell, 2024). According to Latane and Darley, the responsibility would diffuse with the presence of others, resulting in a reduced likelihood of intervention. Their experiments confirmed this hypothesis. A couple of times, the other participants were placed in a room with participants who were part of the study. The bystander effect has significant consequences, especially in emergencies (Bednarz et al., 2023). People may be hesitant to do so in public spaces when it comes to situations of violence, medical emergencies, or accidents, as they assume others would help. However, this phenomenon is of great importance in a large crowd or a crisis, when people may not be sure what to do or if they are anonymous. Referent Informational Influence (Turner, Wetherell, & Hogg, 1989) John Turner, Michael Wetherell, and Steve Hogg (1989) modelled a concept referred to as referent informational influence. This theory states that people follow the norms and behaviours of other groups with which they identify (Spears, 2021). It states that people conform to the expectations of their group as this aids in determining what is expected of members. The theory stresses that people do not just follow the forces around them, but they should conform in that they behave in a way that is in congruence with the group’s identity and values. This theory states that the stronger one is tied to a group, the more likely the person is to adopt the norms and behaviour of that group. For instance, a member of a religious community may wear and behave in a specific way to represent the community's values. Theories Over Time: Social Influence Theories Historical Perspective: Overview of the Development of Social Influence Theories Regarding theories of social influence, these have developed significantly over time. Considerably earlier in the century, we can trace the roots of social influence to seminal experiments and theoretical developments that helped form the core framework of what modern psychological and social science th...