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
Milgram Obedience study (1963)- procedure
- 40 males recruited through newspaper ads and postal flyers, paid $4.50
- drew lots, conf always teacher and ptp learner
Agentic state
An individual believes they don’t have responsibility for their behaviour as they are the agent of an authority figure
Autonomous state
When individuals actions are free from control
Legitimacy of authority
The idea that individuals accept that other individuals who are higher up the social hierarchy should be obeyed, that there is a sense of duty
- learnt through socialisation
- some have right to punish
- accepted by most that it is needed
Legitimacy of authority ADV
Milgram:
+ demonstrated power of legitimacy w professors demonstrating high social level due to extensive education and respect for science as a discipline
+ shows Agentic state as ptp often agreed to continue after experimenter clarified he was responsible
Legitimacy of authority DISADV
Milgram:
- 35% of ptp resisted resisted authority and refused to deliver 450 volt shock to ‘learner’. If Agentic shift was true of all people then all would’ve given full shock
