Social Influence Flashcards
KEY STUDY: Asch’s Study about
research into conformity (line comparison study)
KEY STUDY: Asch’s findings and what did he conclude from these?
1In the control trials, participants gave the wrong answer 0.7% of the time. In the critical trials, participants conformed to the majority 37% of the time. 75% conformed at least once. Afterwards, some participants said they didn’t really believe their answers, but did not want to look different. Conclusion - The control condition showed that the task was easy to get right. However, 37% were wrong on the critical trials- they conformed to the majority due to normative social influence
what are the limitations of aschs study (there are 5)
- Ecological validity (Mori and Arai)- may not tell us anything about real life situations because its artificial and unlike real life- lacks mundane realism as it was a lab experiment. 2. Population validity: ppt sample wasn’t representative s all male Americans (smith and bond- conformity levels were higher in collectivist cultures (interdependence is highly valued) than in individualist cultures (independence is highly valued)) (Eagly & Carli- meta analysis of 145 studies- women are more likely to conform than men). 3. Temporal validity- took place at a time in US history where conformity would’ve been particularly high due to the political situation (smith and bond- found a negative correlation between date and levels of conformity - early studies show higher levels (Asch) but later studies show lower levels). 4. Methodological problem- confeds weren’t trained actors and may not be convincing, leading to demand characteristics. 5.Ethical issues- deception (Mori & Arai avoided use of confeds but was still unethical)
what are the types of conformity and who proposed them?
compliance, identification, internalisation Kelman
What is meant by: compliance?
type of conformity- when we publicly change our views / beliefs but not privately
What is meant by: identification?
type of conformity- beliefs/ views only change when in that group
What is meant by: internalisation?
type of conformity- true change of public and private beliefs to match those in the group
What is meant by: normative social influence?
explanation for conformity- humans have a need to be liked, accepted and approved by others and have a fear of being rejected
What is meant by: informational social influence?
Explanation for conformity- Humans have a desire to be right, and if unsure, they’ll look to others for guidance- We conform to majority behaviour in order to behave in the correct way.
Evidence to support normative social influence (4 cases)
- Asch- Most participants who conformed said they thought their perception must be inaccurate so yielded to the majority. 2. Linkenbach and Perkins- Adolescents that knew that the majority of their year group did not smoke were LESS LIKELY to take up smoking. 3. Garandeau and cilessen- children who have a greater need for social acceptance were the most likely to comply to pressure of bullying another child- by conforming they believed to be accepted and could maintain the friendship to members of that group 4. Nolan et al- real world application- people asked what influenced their own energy conservation behaviour- research showed neighbours had the most impact, responses showed they believed this however had the least impact
Garandeau and cilessen- support for normative SI
children who have a greater need for social acceptance were the most likely to comply to pressure of bullying another child- by conforming they believed to be accepted and could maintain the friendship to members of that group
Linkenbach and Perkins- support for normative SI
Adolescents that knew that the majority of their year group did not smoke were LESS LIKELY to take up smoking.
Nolan et al- real world application- support for normative SI
people asked what influenced their own energy conservation behaviour- research showed neighbours had the most impact, responses showed they believed this however had the least impact
Evidence to support informational social influence (3 cases, 1 point)
- Asch- Some participants really tough that they were giving the correct answer and didn’t think they were being influenced. 2. Jenness- Jelly bean case- Investigated whether individual judgements of jellybeans in a jar was influenced by discussion. Yes- There was an average change by 256 within males and 382 within females 3. Allen- more intelligent and self- confident people are less likely to conform as they don’t need to look to others for information - Evolution- makes sense to look to others for guidance as new situations could be potentially dangerous
Allen- support for informational SI
more intelligent and self- confident people are less likely to conform as they don’t need to look to others for information
Jenness- support for informational SI
Jelly bean case- demonstrated the power of informational social influence. Investigated whether individual judgements of jellybeans in a jar was influenced by discussion. Yes- There was an average change by 256 within males and 382 within females
limitation of normative SI
ambiguity with asch- conformity was higher suggesting something other than normative SI was influencing the ppts- it was informational SI
limitation of informational SI
Asch- highly intelligent people conformed much less than moderately intelligent ppts and ppts with the lowest intelligence conformed mid way between the two
Three variables that affect conformity? Who proposed them?
group size, unanimity, task difficulty Asch
How does group size affect conformity?
Conformity rate increases the size of the majority increases
How does unanimity affects conformity?
Conformity rate declines when the majority is not unanimous (in agreement)
How does task difficulty affects conformity?
conformity rate increases as the task difficulty increases and the right answer becomes less obvious
Supporting research evidence for group size (2 cases)
- Asch- found 13% conformed with two confederates and 32% conformed with three confederates 2. Smith and Bond- conformity peaks at around 4/5 confederates
Supporting research evidence for unanimity (Asch)
Asch- 1 confederate went against the others and gave the correct answer, then the conformity rate dropped to 5.5%, even if this hadn’t have occurred the conformity rate would’ve dropped to 9%
Supporting research evidence for Task difficulty (Asch)
- Asch- found that when the comparison lines were more similar to each other, participants were more likely to conform to the wrong answer 2. Crutchfield- eliminated face to face contact by placing participants in booths and confirmed Asch’s findings , with levels conformity increases as task were made more difficult
Crutchfield - task difficulty
This study eliminated face to face contact by placing participants in booths and confirmed Asch’s findings , with levels conformity increases as task were made more difficult
conformity to social roles
involves both public and private acceptance of the behaviour and attitudes exhibited in that role
KEY STUDY: What was Zimbardo study about?
research into conformity to social roles- prison experiment
KEY STUDY: Zimbardo (1973) Procedure
24 Male students were recruited to act as either guards or prisoners in a mock prison. They were randomly given roles of prisoner or guard, and their behaviour was observed. The prisoners were ‘arrested’ as they went about their day, taken to ‘prison’ and given uniforms and numbers. The guards also wore uniforms and mirrored glasses.
social roles
refers to the parts individuals play as members of a social group, which meet the exceptions of that situation.
Haslam and Reicher
argued that conforming to social roles is not automatic and the fact guards went from being nice to abusive suggests that guards chose how to behave, rather than them blindly conforming to their social role
Research that contradicts Zimbardo
Reicher and Haslams
study that argues Milgram was unethical
Baumrind- Milgram showed insufficient respect for his participants and there were inadequate steps taken to protect them
Findings of MIlgrams study of obedience?
62.5% of participants that continued to a maximum of 450v, Every ppt gave atleast 300V, Most became extremely distressed
What was concluded from Milgram’s study
That people have a strong tendency to obey orders even if they go against moral values- people would kill / injure if ordered by authority even if it makes them stressed.
Ethical Issues with Milligram’s study
Protection of participants, Deception, Informed consent, Right to withdraw
Androcentrism
A bias in psychological research in which a male perspective is over- emphasises at the expense of a female one
Sheridan and King- limitation of Milgram- gender bias
puppy study- found women were more obedient than males in giving electric shocks to puppies
Hofling Et Al- strength of Milgram
Support Milgram with ecological validity- Nurses told over phone to administer a drug that they were unfamiliar with, in an amount that was above the maximum safe dose. 21/22 obeyed.
what are the two explanations for obedience?
- The agency theory 2. Legitimacy of authority
Agentic State (Agency Theory)
Milgram- proposed that people can operate in two social states: 1. As autonomous individuals- able to choose actions and aware of consequences 2. In an agent state, seeing themselves as the agents of others and not responsible for their actions
Agentic shift
shifting to the agent state allows the individual to mindlessly accept the authority of the person giving the order and to shift the responsibility onto them
increase in obedience rates when someone else controlled the shocks- Milgram
increased from 65% to 92.5% - Agentic state
Criticisms of Agentic State (2 cases)
Mandel- sees unlikely that the agent state could last as long as the holocaust Lifton- fails to explain the gradual and irreversible conversion process- nazi doctor believe that the medical experiments they were carrying out on prisoners were justified
legitimacy of authority
linked to the idea that we are socialised to recognised the value of obedience to authority figures as helping to keep stability in society- those higher in the social hierarchy should be obeyed
Research support for legitimacy of authority
Milgram- some pots ignored the learners distressed and focussed on following rules, showing they recognised the authority of the researcher
Findings from Milgram when he changed 2 factors of the experiment
When experimenter gave orders by phone the obedience dropped to 20.5% when the experiment was relocated to less intimidating surroundings- 47.5%
What are the types of comformity?
Compliance, Identification, Internalisation
Who produced the types of conformity?
Kelman
Proximity
Situation variable- realtes to how aware individuals are of the consequences of their actions in obeying authority figures
Situation variables (3)
Are an external explanation for obedience, where features of the environment are seen as affecting obedience levels. Examples we look at: proximity, location, uniforms
Bickman- strength for uniforms
dressed up as a milkman, a civilian and a security guard to test the obedience towards uniform. Civillian 19% obedience, milkman 14% obedience, security guard 38% obedience
Authoritarian personality
This is a personality type characterised by a tendency to see the world in ‘black and white’ and having the belief in absolute obedience, submission to authority and adherence to social roles. These people have insecurities and are fearful of social change & hostile to non-conventional people.
Adorno - Case
Suggested the authoritarian personality type was shaped in early childhood by hierarchical, authoritarian parenting.
F-scale questionnaire
Proposed by Adorno to measure an individuals degree of authoritarian personality.
social change cause
when a minority challenges the majority view and is eventually accepted as the majority
what must the minority have in order to create social change?
consistency, flexibility, commitment, acting from a principle (not self-interest) and are similar to the people they’re trying to influence
intra- individual consistency
individual members of the minority maintain a consistent position over time
inter- individual consistency
there is an agreement among the different members of the minority
research support for the role of consistency (2 cases)
Moscovici et al, Clark
Clark
gave different groups different versions of the jury discussion in ‘twelve angry men’- ppts were most persuaded when they heard consistent persuasive arguments from the minority jury member & when another juror had defected from the majority position
evaluation of minority influence
- they’re disadvantaged as they lack social power- so are unlikely to have the power to influence people on a wide scale- they are therefore seen aa threatening the social order ad perceived as deviant to the majority - Mackie- views of majority make us think more than those of minority… majority express a view that is different from the on we hold, we are compelled to work out why and consider their view- people end not to waste time working out why the minorities view is different
Moscovici et al - research support for the role of consistency
investigation into perception- in groups they were shown 36 blue slides of varying intensity- the consistent minority (2 confeds said green to all 36 slides)- 82% of responses were ‘green’, the inconsistent minority where 2 confeds said blue for 12 slides and green for 2 slides- 1.25% of responses were ‘green’. percentage was higher for the consistent condition showing its an important variable
supporting research for flexibility in minority influence (2 cases)
Mugny, Nemeth
Mugny- supporting research for flexibility in minority influence
rigid minority that refuses to compromise risks are dogmatic (narrow minded) so some flexibility is needed to have an effective minority influence BUT there is a fine line between flexibility and consistency
Nemeth- supporting research for flexibility in minority influence
(compensation guess) when the confed was flexible in his number, moving the suggestion upwards slightly, ppts were far more likely to be influenced than when the confed rigidly stuck with their low suggestion
augmentation principle
increase in the influence of the minorities message because they’re willing to make sacrifices
what are the two processes of social change called?
social crypto-amnesia and the snowball effect
example of social change
womens right to vote - prior to first world war (1918)- suffragettes thought to have had an internal loc as they believed they had the power to affect events and win the right to vote, and they may have had strong social support from each other
The snowball Effect
Members of the majority slowly move towards the minority opinion, as the minority grows it slowly builds up momentum so more and more majority members convert to the minority opinion until that opinion becomes the majority opinion.
Social Cryptoamnesia
Slow, gradual process whereby society gradually ‘forgets’ the source of the message and so accepts the views of the minority without too much disruption to the social order.
evaluation of minority influence in social change
- being percieved as deviant limits the influence of minorities as it takes away the focus from the main message itself, unless SC occurs - just stimulating through the majority can be useful- makes the majority think in even more creative ways about an issue, even if they’re not desired by the minority, the message still gets out - social change through minority influence is likely to be very gradual
role of conformity & obedience in causing social change
even if an individual doesn’t believe in certain social changes i.e gay rights, they will publicly change their views to fit with the majority, but privately will remain against the view (compliance)
Nolan et al- potential of NSI in bringing social change
only the ppts with the messages given regarding their neighbours beliefs decreased the energy consumption
what are social norms interventions- alcohol consumption
used where people within a target population have a misconception of the social norm relating to a specific risky behaviour i.e young people’s misperception of alcohol consuming- 1 in 7 15-16 yr olds have been involved in an accident/ been injured as a result of alcohol consumption- for 16024 yr olds 26% of deaths in males and 23% in females- young people feel under pressure of NSI to fit in with others and be accepted
limitations of social norms approach
- not all have led to social change
- often those whose behaviour was more desirable than the norm start to engage in more destructive behaviour
- obedience only becomes a factor once the social change has become a law- i.e banning smoking in public places in 2007- during the first month 97% of pubs and clubs complied
what are resistance to social influence?
social support and locus of control
social support
individual has assistance and solidarity available from others - this decreased conformity and obedience with asch and milgram
What is locus of control and who created the idea?
a persons perception of how much control they have over their own life and behaviour, Rotter
what is meant by a high internal locus of control?
the individual is in control of what happens to them and they are responsible for some outcomes in their life- they rely less on others
what is meant by a high external locus of control?
individual sees themself at the mercy of external factors - what happens to them is out of their control i.e luck. theyre more passive as they believe they canny affect the outcomes of situations
research support for locus of control (5 cases)
- Brehony and Geller- loc in 120 ppts- those with an external loc were more conformist in an asch style study and conformed more to stereotypical gender roles- those with high internal loc showed independent behaviour and were more androgynous (mixture of masculine and feminine behaviour) 2. Shute- undergrads with an internal loc conformed less to pro-drug attitudes 3. Moghaddam- japanese people conform more than americans & have more of an external loc- differences in resistence to SI over cultures is because of differences in loc 4. Holland- Variations on Milgram- later analysed by Blass- ppts with an internal loc were more resistance to pressures to obey 5. Jones and Kavanagh- ppts with a high external loc were more likely to obey unethical authority figures- explains corporate fraud & institutionalised abuses of power where junior members of staff fail to resist directives give by senior managers
Shute - support for loc
undergrads with an internal loc conformed less to pro-drug attitudes
Moghaddam- support for loc
japanese people conform more than americans & have more of an external loc- differences in resistence to SI over cultures is because of differences in loc
Jones and Kavanagh- support for loc
ppts with a high external loc were more likely to obey unethical authority figures- explains corporate fraud & institutionalised abuses of power where junior members of staff fail to resist directives give by senior managers
Brehony and Geller- support for loc
loc in 120 ppts- those with an external loc were more conformist in an asch style study and conformed more to stereotypical gender roles- those with high internal loc showed independent behaviour and were more androgynous (mixture of masculine and feminine behaviour)
Holland- support for loc
Variations on Milgram- later analysed by Blass- ppts with an internal loc were more resistance to pressures to obey
what are the limitations of loc?
- its a correlation which doesnt prove cause and effect 2. Spector- found a correlation between loc and resistance in situations involving NSI but not ISI 3. gender bias- Eagly- females may appear less independent due to the way they’ve been socialised- they’re taught to be supportive and agreeable which may influence both loc and resistance
spector- limitation of loc
found a correlation betwen loc and resistance in situations involving NSI but not ISI
eagly - limitation of loc
gender bias- females may appear less independent due to the way they’ve been socialised- they’re taught to be supportive and agreeable which may influence both loc and resistance
minority influence
A type of social influence that motivates individuals to reject established majority group norms- caused by ISI (need to be right) and is a slow and gradual process.
KEY STUDY: Sherif (1935) Study about
Research into conformity & Autokinetic effect
KEY STUDY: Sherif (1935) Findings
When they were alone, participants developed their own stable estimates (personal norms), which varied widely between participants. Once the participants were in a group, the estimates tended to converge and become more alike. When the participants were then retested on their own, their estimates were more like the group estimates than their original guesses.
KEY STUDY: Sherif (1935) Evaluations (Limitations)
- The method is flawed because the participants were being asked to judge the movement of a light that was not moving- this rarely happens in real life. 2. Because it created an artificial situation, the study can be criticised for lacking ecological validity. 3. The sample used was quite limited- all of the participants were male, so the results cannot be generalised to everyone. 4. An ethical problem with this study was deception- the participants were told the light was moving when it was not.
KEY STUDY: Rank and Jacobson (1977)
Nurses were asked to administer Valium, a drug that the nurses should have been familiar with.
what were Rank and Jacobson’s Findings and what did they conclude?
- In these realistic circumstances only two out of 18 nurses obeyed the doctor’s orders. 2. They also gave the doctor a name known to the nurses, and the nurses all had the chance to discuss the order with each other.
KEY STUDY: Sherif (1935) Evaluations (Strengths)
- This was a laboratory experiment, so there was strict control of the variables. This means that the results are unlikely to have been affected by a third variable, so it should be possible to establish cause and effect. 2. It also means that the method could be replicated. 3. The repeated measures design meant that participant variables that could have affected the results were kept constant.
KEY STUDY: Sherif (1935) Conclusion
Participants were influenced by the estimates of other people, and a group norm developed. Estimates converged because participants used information from others to help them- they were affected by informational social influence.
KEY STUDY: Sherif (1935) Procedure
This was a laboratory experiment with a repeated measures design. Sherif used a visual illusion called the autokinetic effect, where a stationary stop of light, viewed in a dark room, appears to move. Participants were falsely told that the experimenter would move the light. They had to estimate how far it had moved. In the first phase, individual participants made repeated estimates. They were then put into groups of 3 people, where they each made their estimate with others present. Finally they were retested individually
KEY STUDY: Zimbardo’s findings and conclusions
- Guards were abusive (conformed due to the environment and misused their power) 2. Prisoners rebelled/ proestend through strikes, tried to escape. 3. Participants ideas of these behaviours came from television programmes. Conclusion - Guards and prisoners adopted their social roles quickly. Zimbardo claims this shows that our social role can influence our behaviour- seemingly, well-balanced men became unpleasant and aggressive in the role of guard.
KEY STUDY: Zimbardo (1973) Evaluations (Strengths)
- Good internal validity as he randomly assigned the roles of prisoners and guards.
KEY STUDY: Zimbardo (1973) Evaluations (Limitations)
- Ethical issues, such as lack of informed consent; participants who were assigned to the role of prisoner did not consent to being arrested at home or stripped naked and deloused. The participants consent was obtained through deception. The prisoners also experienced psychological harm.2. Zimbardo’s role as superintendent affected the validity of the experiment and as the lead psychologist he did not protect the participants from harm. His role influenced the experiment and the validity of the findings. 3. Ecological Validity, The participant sample was bias and unrepresentative as he only included male student volunteers and did not include other ethnicities or female participants.
