Social Influence Flashcards
Aims of Asch’s study on conformity
To assess what extent people will conform to the opinion of others, even in a situation where the answer is certain
Participants of Asch’s study on conformity
123 white male undergraduate Americans
Procedure of Asch’s study on conformity
- Each participant saw 2 white cards - ‘x’ being the standard line & lines A,B,C being 3 comparison lines - one = same length as ‘x’
- Each trial, participants had to say out loud which comparison line matched ‘x’
Results of Asch’s study on conformity
- 36.8% conformed = 1/3 of the time
- 25% participants never conformed
What were Asch’s variables?
Group size, unanimity & task difficulty
Group size - Asch’s study
- He found curvilinear relationship between group size & conformity rate
- Conformity increased with group size to an extent
- 3 confederate, conformity to wrong answer rose to 31.8% - presence of more made little difference
What does group size suggest?
Suggests that most people are sensitive to the views of others because 1 / 2 confederates was enough to manipulate opinion
Unanimity - Asch’s study
- He wondered if presence of non-conforming person would affect naïve p’s conformity
- One variation, person gave correct answer & in another, he gave a wrong answer
- P conformed less often in presence of dissenter
- Rate decreased less than 1/4 when majority was unanimous
- Presence gave p independence - true when they gave alt answer to p
What does unanimity suggest?
Suggests that influence of majority depends on it being unanimous & that non-conformity is more likely when cracks are perceive in majority’s unanimous view
Task difficulty - Asch’s study
- Wanted to know whether making task harder would affect degree of conformity
- Increased difficulty by making stimulus line & comparison lines more similar in length
- Found conformity increased - situation is more ambiguous when task becomes harder
- Ambiguous situations = natural to look for guidance & assume they are right (ISI)
Strengths of Asch’s study
- Lucas et al 2006 asked p’s easy & hard maths q’s - p’s given answer claimed to be from 3 other students - conformed more often when harder - task difficulty = variable that affects conformity
Limitations of Asch’s study
- Participants knew they were in a research study - demand characteristics
- Tasks were artificial
- Deceived (6th p) - informed consent - however, stress was minimal
Define internalisation
- When person genuinely accepts group norms & values
- Public & private change of opinions / behaviour
- Permanent change - absence of group members
Define identification
- Value the group & want to become part of it
- Publicly change opinion / behaviour but privately disagree with group norms
Define compliance
- Going along with others in public but privately disagrees
- Results in superficial change
- Behaviour stops with group pressure
Define conformity
- Change in person’s behaviour / opinions as result of real / imagines pressure from person / group
One explanation for conformity - informational social influence
- Desire to be right
- Occurs when we agree with opinion of majority as we believe it’s correct
- Some ambiguous situations - where decisions need to be made quickly
- Cognitive response
- May lead to internalisation
One explanation for conformity - normative social influence
- Desire to be liked
- Occurs when we agree with majority opinion as we want to be accepted
- Situations with strangers / friends
- Emotional response
- May lead to compliance
- nAffiliators = strong need for affiliation / relate to others
Two process theory - Deutch & Gerard 1955
- Brought both explanations of conformity together in this theory of social influence
- Argued that people conform because of the need to be right (ISI) & liked (NSI)
Strengths of ISI
- Lucas et al 2006 asked students to answer maths problems - easy & hard - conformed more when harder (ambiguous) - most true for students with poor ability
Strengths of NSI
- Asch 1951 p’s conformed to wrong answer because others did - when asked = felt self conscious giving correct & afraid of disapproval - when repeated & asked to write answer, conformity fell to 12.5%
Limitation of NSI
- McGhee & Teevan 1967 students who were nAffiliators = more likely to conform
- Individual differences affect conformity rate
Aims of Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment 1973
- Set up mock prison in basement of psychology department at Stanford University to investigate effect of social role on conformity
Participants of Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment 1973
- 21 male student volunteers
- Selected by psychological testing that showed them to be emotionally stable
- Randomly allocated role of guard / prisoner
Procedure of Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment 1973
- Prisoners arrested in real time & were issued a number & uniform which encouraged de-individuation
- 16 rules enforced by guards
- Social roles = strictly divided
- Guards given wooden club, handcuffs, keys & mirror shades
Results of Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment 1973
- Within 2 days prisoners rebelled (swearing) - prisoners became subdued, depressed & anxious after
- 3 p’s released on 4th day
- 1 went on hunger strike - guards attempted force feed & punished by putting him in ‘the hole’ (small dark closet)
- Ended in 6 days rather than 14
Conclusion of Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment 1973
- Social roles have strong influence in behaviour - were easily taken on by p’s - given authorative position?
Strength of Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment 1973
- Emotionally stable p’s = recruited & randomly allocated roles - only by chance - behaviour due to roles not personality - increased internal validity
Limitation of Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment 1973
- Ethical issues - Zimbardo talked to them as their social role - arrested in real time - psychological harm - right to withdraw (talked back into it)
- Lost validity - Zimbardo being part of study - player roles well
Aims of Milgram’s Baseline Obedience Study
- To what extent people would obey instructions involving harming another person
- Although told it was a study for memory
Participants of Milgram’s
- 40 American males
Procedure of Milgram’s Obedience study
Results of Milgram’s Obedience study
Strengths of Milgram’s Obedience study
Limitations of Milgram’s Obedience study
What were Milgram’s situational variables?
Proximity, location & uniform
Proximity - Milgram’s study
What does proximity suggest?
Location - Milgram’s study
What does location suggest?
Uniform - Milgram’s study
What does uniform suggest?
Strengths of Milgram’s situational variables
Limitations of Milgram’s situational variables
What does the agentic state suggest as a situational explanation of obedience?
What is the autonomous state?
What are binding factors?
Strengths of the agentic state as a situational explanation of obedience
Limitations of the agentic state as a situational explanation of obedience
What does legitimacy of authority suggest as a situational explanation of obedience?
What is destructive authority?
Strengths of legitimacy of authority as a situational explanation of authority
Limitations of legitimacy of authority as a situational explanation of obedience
What does the authoritarian personality suggest as a dispositional explanation of obedience?
How does an authoritarian personality link to obedience?
What are the origins of the authoritarian personality?
Research on the authoritarian personality - Adorno et al 1950
Strengths of the authoritarian personality as a dispositional explanation of obedience
Limitations of the authoritarian personality as a dispositional explanation of obedience
What does social support suggest as an explanation of resistance to social influence?
- Resisting conformity -
- Resisting obedience -
Strengths of social support as an explanation of resistance to social influence
Limitations of social support as an explanation of resistance to social influence
What does locus of control suggest as an explanation of resistance to social influence?
Strengths of locus of control as an explanation of resistance to social influence
- Holland 1967;
Limitations of locus of control as an explanation of resistance to social influence
- Twenge et al 2004;
- Rotter 1982;
What is minority infleunce?
What are the 3 main processed in minority influence - Moscovici
What is the explanation of the process of change?
Strengths of minority influence
- Moscovici et al’s study
- Martin et al 2003;
Limitations of minority influence
- Real world application -
- Artificial tasks -
How does minority social influence create social change?
What are the lessons from conformity research in relation to social influence & social change?
What are the lessons from obedience research in relation to social influence & social change?
Strengths of social change
- Nolan et al 2008;
- Nemeth 2009;
Limitations of social change
- Mackie 1987;
- Foxcroft et al 2015;
- Bashir et al 2013;
