5 - Social Influence Flashcards
Conforminty
- acting differently to how we would act when alone, in response to perceived or real pressure from others
Conformity by omission
- failing to act in the way we would when alone, in response to perceived or real pressure from others
Obedience
- doing as one is told by an authority figure
- can result from social influences, not specific to the presence of an authority figure
Asch’s study on conformity
- will the participant conform with the rest of the group and give the wrong answer?
Results: - 24% gave no wrong answers (completely independent)
- 5% gave all wrong answers (complete conformity)
When conformists were asked:
- self-doubt, so they turn to the majority
> via informational influence
+ task is unfamiliar or ambiguous
+ others provide information about correct responses
+ causing CONVERSION/internalisation (converting to the norm that you have seen)
- wanted to fit in
> via normative influence
+ gaining approval or avoiding dissaproval
+ leads to COMPLIANCE
What about the 69% that were partially independent and partially conforming?
- Compromise Reactions
> partial conformity, so have lost independence
Types of conformity (4)
Compliance
- conformity to gain social rewards or avoid punishment or disapproval
- public but not private conformity
Conversion / internalisation
- Genuine acceptance of the norm
- thus public and private conformity
Identification
- conformity to establish or maintain a relationship with others
- public, not private conformity
Ingrational
- conforming to gain favour or impress
- public not private conformity
Non-conformist explanation of Asch’s findings
- people compute multiple values simultaneously
> personal integrity
> respect for others’ views
> respect for one’s position within the group - thus, appropriate responses are:
> giving truthful responses (integrity)
> going along with the majority to let them know you’ve heard them (others’ views)
> not deviating too far from the group (own position)
Milgram Study on Obedience
- participants acted as a teacher, administering shocks to a learner when they got a question wrong, with increasing severity of shocks per wrong question
- 65% of participants shocked people all the way to the maximum (which seemed incredibly dangerous)
> even though the learned was screaming
> just because the researcher said that they must continue
Why did they obey?
- experiment took place at a highly regarded university (respected authority figure)
- the experiment was seen to have a significant and meaningful purpose
- teacher and learner are obligated to carry out the experiment by volunteering
- teacher faces unclear rules on how to stop the experiment, they only encounter the experimenter
- there is no completely satisfactory solution (either the experimenter or learner must be prioritised, someone loses)
Follow-up findings:
- (65% obedience in the original study)
- when the authority figure was on the phone, obedience was reduced to 21%
- when the experiment took place in a nondescript building (rather than university), obedience was reduced to 48%
- presence of disobedient others reduced obedience to 10%
Stanford Prison Experiment
- arbitrary assignment to either guard or prisoner affected their behaviours
Critiques:
- selection bias
> the people selected were higher in aggression and social dominance and authoritarianism
- not published in a reputable journal
- small sample
- no control over extraneous variables
- experimenter actively involved and shaped the study to create brutality in the guards
- some guards went in with the idea of the role
Minority influence
- a minority with consistent views are more likely to change the views of the majority
- minority with inconsistent views have no effect
- consistent minorities can influence public and private behaviours of others
