Social Influence Flashcards
Outline Asch’s conformity study
- 123 American male university students
- 1 standard line, 3 comparison lines
- Naïve participant either last or second to last
- In a group with 6 - 8 confederates
- Conformed 36.8% of the time
- 25% never conformed, 75% conformed at least once
Outline the Group Size variation in Asch’s conformity study
- Number of confeds varied from 1 - 15
- Conformity rose to 13.6% when 2 confeds were present
- Conformity rose to 31.8% when 3 confeds were present
- Conformity did NOT increase much if there were more than 3 confeds
Outline the Unanimity variation in Asch’s conformity study
- Dissenting confed was added - always DISAGREED with majority
- Conformity levels dropped significantly regardless of whether dissenter gave right or wrong answer
- Dissenter enabled participant to act independently and of their own will
Outline the task difficulty variation in Asch’s conformity study
- Line lengths more similar - situation became AMBIGUOUS
- Conformity increased
- INFORMATIONAL SOCIAL INFLUENCE - participants more likely to look to others for the right answer and assume they are experts
Asch’s conformity study used an artificial task. How is this a weakness?
- Demand characteristics - participants knew they were in a research study
- Task was trivial so no reason not to conform
- Fiske argued Asch’s groups were unlike groups in real life
- Findings hard to generalise to everyday life where consequences of conformity are important
Asch’s findings have little application to real life. How is this a weakness?
- Only American men were tested
- USA = individualist and studies in collectivist cultures, e.g. China have found higher conformity rates (Bond and Smith)
- Asch’s findings tell us little about conformity in women and people from other cultures
Asch’s findings have research support. How is this a strength?
- Lucas et al. asked participants to solve easy and hard maths problems
- Conformity increased when problems were harder
- Suggests Asch was correct that task difficulty is one variable affecting conformity
What is a counterpoint to Asch’s research support?
- Conformity = more complex than Asch thought
- Lucas showed conformity was related to confidence (high confidence = less conformity)
- Suggests individual-level factors interact with situational ones, but Asch did not investigate individual factors
Why does Asch’s research have low temporal validity?
- Asch’s study was a “child of its time)
- Higher rates of conformity across America in the 1950s due to fear of Communism, the Red Scare and McCarthyism
- Conformity rates lowered when fear of Communism ended, so findings do not apply outside of its time period
What are Kelman’s 3 types of conformity?
- INTERNALISATION : when a person genuinely accepts group norms. Private and public change of behaviour. Permanent change
- IDENTIFICATION : when a person identifies with a group due to certain beliefs. Public change of behaviour, but not always private. Can be permanent or temporary
- COMPLIANCE : when a person goes along with the majority in public with no private change of behaviour. Superficial and temporary change
Outline the 2 explanations for conformity
INFORMATIONAL SOCIAL INFLUENCE (ISI)
- Cognitive process
- Occurs in ambiguous situations
- Desire to be right
NORMATIVE SOCIAL INFLUENCE (NSI)
- Emotional process
- Occurs in stressful situations where there is a need for social support
- Desire to be liked by a group
Why is research support a strength of NSI?
- Asch found participants conformed because they were afraid of disapproval
- When participants wrote down answers (no social pressure), conformity dropped to 12.5%
- Suggests some conformity is due to not wanting social rejection for disagreeing with the majority
Why is research support for ISI a strength?
- Lucas et al. found participants conformed more when maths problems were difficult
- Situation became ambiguous so they relied on “experts” for correct answers
- Results of Lucas’ study are what ISI would predict
What is a counterpoint to the research support strength of NSI and ISI?
- Unclear if NSI and ISI work in studies and real life
- A dissenter may reduce power of NSI or ISI
- Therefore, ISI and NSI are hard to separate and operate together in most situations
How are individual differences in NSI a weakness?
- nAffiliators (people who need to be liked by others)
- McGhee and Teevan found nAffiliators more likely to conform
- Suggests NSI underlies conformity for some people more than for others - an individual difference NOT explained by a theory of situational pressures
Discuss whether the NSI / ISI distinction is useful
- Lucas et al.’s study shows NSI / ISI distinction may not be useful as it’s impossible to work out which one is operating
- HOWEVER, Asch’s research supports both NSI and ISI
- Therefore, both concepts are useful as they can be identified and used to explain the reasons for conformity in studies and real life
Outline Zimbardo’s prison simulation
- 21 male volunteers participated after a battery of psychological tests proving them to be mentally stable
- Randomly allocated role of guard or prisoner
- Prisoners = strip-searched, given uniforms and numbers which encouraged DE-INDIVIDUATION
- Guards = enforced rules, given uniform with handcuffs, wooden clubs etc.
- Prisoners told they could not leave but could ask for parole
- Guards had complete power over prisoners
- Guards treated prisoners harshly : prisoners rebelled after 2 days (ripped uniforms, shouted and swore at guards - guards retaliated with fire extinguishers and harassment)
- Prisoners became subdued, anxious, and depressed after rebellion
- 3 prisoners released early due to psychological breakdowns
- 1 prisoner went on hunger strike - guards force-fed him
- Study stopped after 6 days instead of the intended 14
How is high control over variables a strength of the Stanford Prison Simulation?
- Only emotionally stable participants were used
- Random allocation
- Guards and prisoners given roles by chance - behaviour due to situation, not disposition (personality)
- Therefore, study has HIGH INTERNAL VALIDITY
The Stanford Prison Simulation lacked realism of a true prison. How is this a weakness?
- Banuazizi and Mohavedi suggested participants were play-acting - behaviour reflected stereotypes of how prisoners and guards are supposed to behave
- One guard based his role on a character from a film, prisoners rioted because they thought that’s what real prisoners do
- Suggests SPS tell us little about conformity to social roles in real prisons
What is a counterpoint of the lack realism evaluation in the Stanford Prison Simulation?
- Participants behaved as if prison was real - 90% of conversations were about prison life
- Prisoner 416 thought it was a real prison run by psychologists
- Suggests SPS replicated the roles of guard and prisoner just as in a real prison, INCREASING INTERNAL VALIDITY
Zimbardo exaggerated the power of social roles. How is this a weakness?
- Only a third of guards behaved brutally, the others applied rules fairly
- Other guards supported prisoners, offering cigarattes and reinstating privileges
- Suggests SPS overstates the view that the guards were conforming to a brutal role and minimised dispositional influences
Explain the alternative explanation as to why Zimbardo’s participants conformed (SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY)
- Zimbardo claimed participants naturally took on their roles
- Doesn’t explain behaviour of non-brutal guards
- SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY (Reicher and Haslam) argues only those who identify with the role of guards conform
- Suggests it’s possible to resist situational pressures to conform to a social role, as long as the individual does not identify with that role
Outline Milgram’s obedience study
- 40 male participants (told they’d be taking part in a memory study)
- Participants “randomly assigned” their role of teacher
- Confed (Mr Wallace) always learner, another confed (Mr Williams) was the Experimenter and wore a grey lab coat
- Teacher gave learner electric shocks increasing in 15V increments whenever they gave an incorrect answer (HIGHEST VOLTAGE = 450V)
- Shocks were fake but participants thought they were real
- If participant wanted to stop, Experimenter gave 1 of 4 verbal prods
- 12.5% stopped at 300
- 65% continued to 450V
- 0% stopped below 300V
- Observations (qualitative data) showed participants displayed signs of extreme tension - 3 had uncontrollable seizures
- Before the study, Milgram asked 14 students to predict results : estimated 3% would continue to 450V (results = very unexpected)
- 84% felt glad to have participated after being debriefed
Replications support Milgram’s findings. How is this a strength?
- Beauvois et al. : in a French game show, contestants paid to give (fake) electric shocks when ordered to by the presenter to other participants (actors)
- 80% gave maximum 460V to a seemingly unconscious man
- Like Milgram’s participants, many showed signs of anxiety
- This supports Milgram’s findings on obedience to authority
Milgram’s study lacked internal validity. How is this a weakness?
- Orne and Holland argued that participants guessed electric shocks were fake
- This was supported by Perry’s discovery that only half of the participants believed the shocks were real
- Suggests participants may have been responding to demand characteristics
Sheridan and King’s puppy study found the obedience in Milgram’s study may have been real. How is this a counterpoint to the lack of internal validity argument?
- Sheridan and King’s participants gave real shocks to a puppy
- 54% of males and 100% females delivered what they thought was a fatal shock
- Suggests the obedience in Milgram’s study might be genuine
Haslam found the findings of Milgram’s study may not have been due to blind obedience. How is this a weakness?
- Haslam found every participants given the first 3 prods obeyed the Experimenter, but those given the 4th prod disobeyed
- According to SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY, the first 3 prods required identification with the science of the research, but the 4th prod required blind obedience to the Experimenter
- This suggests that the findings are best explained in terms of identification with the science and not as blind obedience to authority
How are ethical issues a weakness of Milgram’s study?
- Participants were DECEIVED - thoughts shocks were real, Milgram dealt with this by debriefing the participants. However, some weren’t debriefed until up to 12 months after the study ended
- Baumrind felt this deception could have serious consequences for participants and researchers (IMPOSSIBLE FOR INFORMED CONSENT TO BE GIVEN)
- Therefore, research can damage reputations of psychologists and their research in the eyes of the public
Outline Milgram’s proximity variations (same room, touch, remote)
- Teacher and learner in same room - obedience = 65%
- Touch proximity (teacher forced learner’s hand on shock plate) - obedience = 30%
- Remote instruction (Experimenter gave instructions via phone) - obedience = 20.5% (participants also often pretended to give shocks)
Explain the effects of Milgram’s proximity variations on obedience
Decreased proximity allows people to mentally distance themselves from the consequences of their actions, e.g. when teacher and learner were separated, teacher was less aware of harm being done, so was obedient
Outline Milgram’s location variation
Study conducted at run-down building, rather than Yale (where baseline study was conducted) - obedience = 47.5%