psychology - social influence Flashcards
what are the 3 types of conformity ?
internalisation - a person genuinely accepts the groups norms and changes their public and private beliefs permanently
identification - conforming because you value something about the group, we change our public behaviour to fit in even if we don’t privately agree
compliance - a temporary superficial change, changing public actions but not private.
explanations for conformity
informational social influence- the desire to be right - this occurs when the right answer is ambiguous and its an unfamiliar situation so we look to others for guidance. this a cognitive process that leads to internalisation
Normative social influence - our desire to be liked - we dont go against the majority out of fear of being rejected. this is an emotional process that leads to compliance.
types and explantions of conformity evaluation.
- McGhee and Teevan - NSI doesnt affect everyone in the same way as student with affiliation (need for a relationship) will conform more
- lucas et al proof of ISI, they asked students the answer to easy and hard maths problems, conformity increased when the question was difficult, we look to other people for help.
- after asch asked people why they conformed, they said they were afraid of disapproval and felt self conscious. writing down , conformity dropped to 12.5%
asch’s line study method and results
he showed 2 cards: 1 with a standard line and the other with 3 comparison lines and has to match them. the 123 american undergrad students, each ptp was tested in a group of 6-8 confederates in the first few trials all confederates gave the wrong answer and then they started giving the the wrong answer.
75% conformed atleast once
ptps gave the wrong answer 36.8 % of the time.
asch’s variations and results
task difficulty - he found conformity increased when the standard line and comparison lines more similar
unanimity - the presence of a dissenter reduced conformity as the group wasnt unanimous
group size - he varied confederates 1-15. with 3 confederate conformity increase to 31.8% but adding more made little diference.
zimbardos study conformity procedure and results
mock prison in the basement of stanford university. 24 white american males tested to be emotionally stable volunteers were assigned guard or prisoner 12 each. The guards had 2 rules : no one in the whole for more than an hour and no hitting. prisoners were arrested from home in a police car, strip searched and made to wear a smock. Guards had mirrored shades,keys and a wooden club
within 2 days there was a rebellion. the study that was meant to be 14 days was cut short at 6 days as prisoner 816 had a breakdown.
hunger strike so guards took away beds.
zimbardos study evaluations 3
- control over variables : mental health test and randomly assigned roles rules out personality - high internal validity
- demand characteristic - banuazizi and monavedi says ptps were just play acting based on sterotypes instead of genuinely conforming as they figured out the aim
- ethical issues with zimbardos dual roles as the researcher and superintendant. when someone wanted to leave zimbardo responded as the researcher and denied him the right to withdraw
obedience milgram study and results
40 american males volunteered from a newspaper ad at yale university paid $4.50
teacher (ptp) learner (confederate) experimenter in a lab coat. teacher gave learner increasingly severe electric shocks whenever they made a mistake to the question ranging from 15v to 450v.
12.5% stopped at 300v
65% continued to 450v
people were sweating, trembling. biting their lip and 3 even had full blown seizures
evaluations of milgrams study
real life application into why the germans obeyed hitler and killed 11 mil (he an authority figure) it explains destructive obedience and can help prevent this.
cross culture replication, miranda et al found 90% obedience. applies across cultures and genders. however, still takes place in individualistic western culture and may be different in collectivistic.
lacks ecological validity as the artificial task doesnt replicate real life obedience, this doesnt recognise real life authority.
obedience situational variables
variation done at a run down building instead of yale: obedience fell from 65% to 47.5%.
variation : experimenter in lab coat went to take a call and someone in casual clothing took their place - obedience dropped to 20%
proximity variation the teacher and the learner were in the same room. obedience dropped from from 65% to 40% and to 30% when the teacher had to put their hand onto a shock plate
milgrams variations evaluation
- high internal validity, systematically changed one variable at a time and replicated with over 1000 ptps however artificial obedience examples
- cant be used to explain real life holocaust as the mass killing took place in close proximity but the soldiers didnt experience moral strain.
- research for situational variables. Bickman had 3 conferates ask people to pick up litter in the street . People obeyed the security guard more than the jacket and tie.
explain the agentic state
agentic state is when people believe that they are acting on behalf of the authority figure so they dont experience moral strain or take responsibility
autonomous state: people behave according to their own principles
binding factors keep us in the agentic state and reduce our moral strain
agentic state evaluation
- supported by milgrams study. 65% gave the electric shock as they believed the experimenter would take responsibility however 35% didnt so why?
- can be used to explain the holocaust as they were in the agentic state and thought hitler would take responsibility for them.
3.agentic shift doesnt explain research. Rank and jacobson found that nurses would refuse to administer excess drugs to a patient even if the authority (doctor) ordered it.
explain legitimacy of authority as an explanation for social obedience
in our heirarchical society we are obedient to those above us who have legitimate authority which is agreed upon by society
we trust them to use their power to keep order in society however some use this power unfairly like hitler who is an eg of destructive authority
evaluations of legitimacy of authority
its a useful account of cultural differences in obedience
hilham and mans replications :
in australia 16% went to 450v
in germany 85% went to 450v
authority is mor accepted in some cultures
it has real life application explaining the mai lai massacre. the soldiers obeyed the leuitenants orders to kill families as they percieved calley of being a higher status. we can use this knowledge to prevent this from happening again.
