Social Influence Flashcards
Compliance
Changes public behaviour, not private beliefs
Internalisation
Genuine acceptance, results in private and public change of opinions/ behaviour
Identification
Identify with group we value/ want to be part of so publically change even if not privately agreeing
Normative Social Influence
Conforming to be accepted/ belong in group- socially rewarding or avoid social rejection
NSI evaluation
+ research support
- two-process model is oversimplified
- individual differences
ISI evaluation
+ research support
- two-process model oversimplified
- individual differences
Informational Social Influence
Conforms to gain knowledge/ other person is ‘right’- bc of lack of information
Asch (1951)- Procedure
- 123 American male students
- participants identified length of standard line on each trial
- confederates gave correct answer on first few trials but then selected all wrong answers.
- 18 trials, on 12 critical trials confederates gave wrong answer
Asch (1951)- Findings and conclusions
- wrong answer given 36% of time
- considerable individual differences: 25% never wrong so 75% conformed at least once
- most conformed to avoid rejection (NSI) and continued to privately trust own opinions (compliance)
Asch variables of conformity (1955)- procedure
1) Group size: number varied between 1 and 15
2) Unanimity: truthful confederate/ dissenting but inaccurate confederate
3) Task difficulty: task made harder by making lines more similar in length
Asch variables of conformity (1955)- findings
1) Group size: conformity for 2 confederates= 13%, for 3= 31%
2) Unanimity: dissenting confederate reduced conformity to 25%
3) Task difficulty: Conformity higher when task more difficult bc ISI
Asch- Evaluation
- Lacks ecological validity
- ‘Child of it’s time’
- Ethical issues: deception, no informed consent so possible embarrassment when true nature revealed HOWEVER were debriefed
The Stanford Prison Experiment- procedure
- Aim: wether brutality of prison guards was result of sadistic personalities or created by situation
- 24 stable students randomly assigned to roles, w prisoners arrested at home
- Prisoners routines heavily regulated
- De-individualisation
The Stanford Prison Experiment- findings
- within 2 days prisoners rebelled, guards harassed them w frequent head counts
- guards were enthusiastic, behaviour threatened prisoner’s psychological and physical health
- revealed power of situation to influence behaviour, w both sides conforming to roles
The Stanford Prison Experiment- evaluation
+altered the way US prisons are run
- ethical concerns: lack of fully informed consent (to arrest), protection from psychological harm
- demand characteristics/ lacks population validity