social influence Flashcards
define conformity
- the tendency to change what we do/think/say in response to pressure from others
- the change in belief to go along w majority influence
define social influence
the scientific study of the ways people’s thoughts/feelings/behaviours = impacted by others
the types of conformity
who, when, what?
- kelman (1958)
- 3 types:
- compliance (shallowest form of conformity)
- identification
- internalisation (deepest form of conformity)
what is compliance conformity?
- when one may agree w a group of ppl in public but privately disagrees w the viewpoint/behaviour → hence, it doesn’t change their private beliefs
what is identification conformity?
- takes on views of others - they admire
- when people desire to imitate a role model // fit a social role
- public attitude changes
- attitude = change for as long as they admire social role // role model
- if role model’s opinion changes => so does theirs
- internalisation + compliance → they agree to not be shunned and can result in the change of their private beliefs
what is internalisation conformity?
- agrees w group’s belief as they have accepted that point of view -> have been persuaded that this new attitude = correct
- hence, there’s a change in their private beliefs → may have longer lasting effects than public compliance
what are the 2 explanations of social influence?
- normative social influence {= compliance}
- – when someone conforms to fit in // gain approval // avoid disapproval from others
↳ aka → the need to be liked, so they agree / go along w it even if they disagree privately - informational social influence
– when ppl conform cos they’re uncertain of what to do in a sitch -> looks for guidance
(desire to be right) (when placed in new / amiguous sitchs)
eval normative social influence as an explanation of conformity?
(A)) it has supporting evidence
- Linken + Perkins (2003) → found out that adolescents were less likely to take up smoking if they were exposed to the message: “most teenagers didn’t smoke”
- this heavily supports normative social influence → ppl will change their behaviour w the intention of meeting / achieving social norms
- it’s a natural exp -> high levels of credibility
(CP) lacks population validity → aimed at adolescents → no guarantee that the findings can be applicable to others that don’t classify as adolescents
(A) Schultz et al. (2007)
- hotel guests = given messages encouraging them to reuse their towels in order to conserve water
- messages either emphasized environmental benefits or the social norm that “75% of hotel guests reuse their towels”
- normative message was more effective in increasing towel reuse, demonstrating the power of normative influence.
(A) Cialdini et al. (1990)
- researchers placed different signs in a national park to discourage littering.
- One sign had a normative message stating that “most people who visit the park do not litter.” The other sign = littering was prohibited.
- The normative message = more effective in reducing littering behavior.
(D) don’t take individual differences into consideration
- McGhee + Teevan (1967) found out that people who are less concerned with being liked = less likely to be impacted by normative social influence –> whereas those who have a high need to be in a relationship with others have a high need to be liked / socially accepted - more likely to conform
variables that affect conformity?
group size (situational variable)
- small majority = not enough to make someone conform –> but a large majority isn’t needed either
- 3 confederates = 31.8% & 7 confederates = 36.8% –> little difference
unanimity (SV)
- if someone gives a diff answer, more likely to conform
task difficulty (SV)
- people want to be right –> more difficult = higher chance of conformity
Asch’s study
A01
(1951)
he asked male student volunteers to take part in a visual discrimination task to see how how people would behave in a group
procedure:
- 123 male US undergrads were tested
- they were seated around a table & were asked to look at three lines and select the one that seemed identical to the ‘standard line’ next to it
- in each group there would only be one real participant and the others would be confederates (instructed to give a wrong answer for some questions) → 12/18 significant trials where confederates answered wrong
- the real participant would always answer second to last
- they would call out their answers one by one
- ctrl grp = 0.04% error rate -> low task difficulty => mistakes made in sig trials = likely due to normative SI (not informational SI)
findings:
- avg conformity rate = 32%
- 75% conformed at least once
- 25% never conformed in the critical trials
- 1/2 or more conformed in 6 of the trials
- majority who conformed, privately trusted their own perspective but wanted to ignore pressure / discomfort from others
↳ copmliance
↳ normative
evaluate Asch’s study
(D) did not take cultural differences into consideration
- all participants = American → have a very individualistic culture
- Smith et al… (2006) compared findings of Asch-like studies between individualist + collectivist cultures
↳ results → higher percentages in collectivist cultures (37%) than individualistic cultures (25%)
↳ this could suggest how there may be more pressure to conform in CC (they may be shunned / looked down upon) as they prioritise shared beliefs + succeeding together
- therefore Asch’s explanation = inclusive to cultural differences in conformity
(D) lack of temporal validity
- considered as outdated → no longer relevant in today’s society
- Perrin + Spencer (1981) repeated Asch’s study 25yrs later in the UK w engineering students
↳ from the 396 trials, only 1 student conformed - even though majority unanimously gave the wrong answer
- conveys how 1950s America = more conformist that 1980s UK → illustrates how society changes & how ppl may be less conformist over time
(D) lab exp -> lack of eco val
- cannot guarantee this is how ppl IRL would act {not an everyday task}
– no consequences for agreeing / disagreeing w confeds => may be diff IRL
(D) cos it was a lab exp (knew they were being obsereved), may have answered incorrectly because they thought that’s what they were supposed to do = demand characteristics
(A) supporting research from Asch
- (1956) repeated similar exp
- changed 3 variables:
– grp1: a confed disagreed w others {tested unanimity} => lowered conformity -> avg rate = 5.5%
– grp 2: varied number of confed -> 1 fed + 1 ptt -> continued to add confeds until there was 15 {tested grp size} => 2 fed = 13%, confed >/= 3 = 32% (adding more inc-es conformity toan extent)
– grp 3: lines = more similar {tested task diff} => (norm + info SI) -> more conformity
(CP) could be investigator bias, he may optimistic abt the results of this study so he can support his other study -> limiting the reliabilty of this exp as support
What was Zimbardo’s study into conformity to social roles
A01 + A03
- He wanted to see how quickly people would conform to either role of a prisoner / guard in a simulated prison → completed through a lab experiment
- they could act aggressive if they thought it was their social role [identification]? or was it their personality?
- procedure:
↳ converted the basement in Stanford uni into a mock prison
↳ 24 male student volunteers (meant to last for 2 weeks) → paid $15 per day
– terminated after only 6 days due to the extreme psychological distress experienced by the ptts
↳ volunteers = randomly selected as guard or prisoner (by flipping a coin)
↳ prisoners = arrested + fingerprinted + given uniforms & were only referred to by their numbers
↳ guards = given tools: whistles & handcuffs & uniforms + sunglasses {further establishes power / social roles -> lack of eye contact}
↳ zimbardo = prison superintendent (ptts knew)
– controlled, overt observation {data collection} => SDB
-Findings: both prisoners and guards adapted quickly.
– firstly, prisoners rebelled => guards punishment (brutal)
↳ guards = brutal sadistic manner → enjoyed it → other prisoners = tormented
↳ prisoners started taking the rules very serious → some prisoners sided with the guards against prisoners who disobeyed
↳ prisoners = more submissive & guards = more aggressive
-> when sitch + social role = dramatically changed => changed in behaviour
-> prison brutality = driven by situation + expected social roles
eval:
(D) unethical
- psychological harm & lack of informed consent & right to withdraw
- hysterical crying + hunger strikes -> exp only stopped after 6 days
(CP) however, Z hired psychologically healthy ppl from the 75 applicants & didnt expect such violence & stopped experiment (couldn’t worsen)
(D) lack of culture + population valiidty
- ptts = white, middle-class men => can’t generalise
(D) lab exp => low eco val
- artifical results ad they knew aim
- could show SDB // help show what he wanted to see so they could leave quicker
- not authentic reactions
(CP) real emotion = shown (psych damage => crying + hunger strikes)
- 90% of convo = life in prison -> hence they took it seriously
(D) investigator bias
- may have influenced ptts’ behaviour
- guards may have been more brutal -> may have limited themselves as they were being watched by Z {could’ve seen the extent of effects of social roles / identification}
define obedience
- direct form of social influence
- individual = faced w a choice to comply or defy to an order (given by a member of authority) → decision = can be influenced by fear or punishment
situational variables
factors that effetc obedience
[changes in the enviro that effect behaviour]
proximity
- to authority figure
– closer proximity => higher obedience
- to vicitm
– closer proximity => lower obedience {guilt / regret / consience -> had to deal w consequences of action}
location
- more likely to obey in places that carr authority {school, police station…}
uniforms
- uniforms implies authority + power => higher obedience
legitmacy of authority {A01 + A03}
explanations of obedience
(situational variable)
Milgram suggested this
lives = spent in social hierarchies => taught to respect those higher up in the hierarchy & won’t question their authority
respected authority = legitamte authority
(A) supporting evidence from Milgram
- higher obedience when researcher = in lab coat (in context it implies they have high + legitmate authority)
- location can imply authority -> higher obedience in Yale (well respected + known) > when study = repeated in office
(D) ignores individual variables {personality // morals …}
- suggests everyone should obey someone of legitimate power
- only 65% obeyed to full volts in Milgram’s study {not everyone obeyed} -> maybe due to individual variable
