social influence Flashcards
social psychology
looks at how people interact and influence each other
social influence
when the behaviour of others causes a person to change their behaviour
conformity
when the behaviour of an individual or a small group is influenced by a larger group
study for conformity
Asch’s line study
Procedure: 123 US male undergraduate students participated in a study where they judged line lengths by saying out loud which comparison line matched the standard line. They were in groups of eight, however each group had one REAL participant - the rest were confederates. In 12 out of the 18 trials, confederates gave an incorrect answer.
Findings: participants conformed to the majority 37% of the time and 75% at least once. In control trials, participants gave the wrong answer 1%
Conclusion: study showed normative conformity as majority of the participants conformed to the rest of the group
variables affecting conformity: group size
having a bigger group means that you are more likely to conform compared to having a smaller group.
- Asch (1956) conducted his experiment again with fewer confederates, and found conformity decreased to 14% with two confederates, and 32% with 3
variables affecting conformity: unanimity of the group
Asch wondered whether the presence of non-conforming person would affect the participants conformity - he introduced a confederate who said the same answer as the participant
- conformity decreased from 37% to 5.5%
variables affecting conformity: task difficulty
Asch made the task more difficult by making the lines more similar.
- This increased conformity rates due to the uncertainty of the real participants
evaluation of Asch’s study
✔️lab experiment (control over EV) ✔️standardised procedures ❌low ecological validity ❌artificial tasks (not applicable to real life) ❌ethical issues (deception & protection)
internalisation
- person conforms publicly & privately because they have internalised and accepted the views of the group
- deepest form of conformity
identification
- person conforms publicly as well as privately, but the change of belief is often temporary
compliance
- person conforms publicly but NOT privately, and therefore continues to privately disagree
- shallowest form of conformity
conformity explanation: informational social influence
- when you agree with a group because you are unsure of a situation & we believe others have the right information
research to support informational social influence
- participants saw a video of what they thought were other people reacting to the candidates speeches
- this produced a large shift in participants views on each candidate due to the participants thinking the reactions they watched were correct
conformity explanations normative social influence
- when you agree with a group due to a need for social approval & a desire to avoid social rejection
research to support normative social influence
- hotel guests were exposed to the normative message “75% of guests reused their towels each day rather than requiring a fresh one”, and their own towel usage then decreased by 25%
- this shows people will change their behaviour to fit in with the majority
evaluation of explanations of conformity
✔️evidence to support (after Asch’s study, some participants that conformed said they did because they were afraid of disapproval)
❌nafiliators (people who are greatly concerned with being liked by others)
social roles
the ‘parts’ people play as members of social groups
- our role is often accompanied with expectations
study for conforming to social roles
Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment
Procedure: 21 male college students randomly assigned into two groups - prisoner or guard. When the prisoners were arrived at the prison they were stripped off all identity
Findings: both guards and prisoners easily conformed to their roles, but the guards conformed quicker. Within hours of the study beginning, guards harassed prisoners and behaved in a sadistic manner. The prisoners started taking prison rules very seriously, and some began siding with the guards. Some prisoners even began to leave the study early
Conclusion: people will conform to the social roles they are expected to play
evaluation of Zimbardo’s study
✔️realistic ✔️ethics (withdrawal & debriefing) ❌ethical issues (deception, protection) ❌lab ❌sample bias (androcentric, western culture, small sample size)
obedience
a form of social influence concerned with direct order
- a figure of authority gives orders, and has the right to punish if these orders aren’t followed
study for obedience
Milgram
Procedure: 40 males aged between 20 and 50years took part in Milgram’s shock experiment. They were introduced to Mr Wallace, an actor, and were assigned the role of teacher or learner (it was rigged so the participant was always the teacher). The learner was strapped to a chair and the participant began asking questions - if the learner got one wrong they would be shocked, and the voltage kept increasing.
Findings: all participants gave Mr Wallace at least 300 volts, but 65% gave the maximum of 450 volts. Throughout the study many participants showed signs of nervousness, as they sweat, trembled, stuttered and dug fingernails into their flesh.
Conclusion: participants were distressed by the task as they believed they had killed Mr Wallace, and when interviewed they said they felt as if they had to continue the study due to the experimenters orders
evaluation of Milgram’s study
✔️laboratory experiment (control over EV)
✔️ethics (debriefed)
❌ethical issues (deception, protection, withdrawal)
❌sample bias (androcentric, small sample size)
situational variables
features of the environment which may influence a person’s behaviour (proximity, location, uniform)
situational variable: proximity
refers to how close someone is to you
- the closeness of the authority figure to you and whether this will influence your obedience
⚫️teacher + learner in same room = decrease from 65% to 45%
⚫️teachers involvement = decrease to 30%
⚫️experimenter left the room and called the teacher = decrease to 20.5%
situational variable: location
Milgram’s original study conducted in Yale, one of the most prestigious universities in America (gave the study legitimacy and authority)
situational variable: uniform
uniforms encourage obedience as they are recognised as a symbol of authority
- obedience decreased to 20% when the experimenter wore everyday clothes instead of a lab coat
evaluation of situational variables
✔️evidence to support (Bickman 1974)
❌demand characteristics
❌unrealistic study
agentic state
people operate on two levels:
- autonomous individuals
- agentic level
autonomous individuals
behaving voluntarily and are aware of the consequence of their actions
agentic level
seeing themselves as agents of others and not responsible for their own actions
agentic shift
more likely to shift if there is an authority figure doing this first
binding factors
aspects of the situation that allow a person to ignore or minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour
evaluation of the agentic state
✔️research to support (Milgram’s study)
❌agentic shift doesn’t explain research findings about obedience (Rank & Jacobson 1977 found that 16 out of 18 nurses disobeyed orders from a doctor to administer an excessive drug dose to a patient)
destructive authority
legitimate authority becomes disruptive
disposition
an individuals personality/character
dispositional explanations
refers to any explanation of behaviour that highlights the importance if an individuals personality
authoritarian personality
a particular rigid and intolerant personality type, who are hostile towards minorities
study of authoritian personality
Adorno
- carried out a questionnaire with over 2000 white middle Americans in 1950. he wanted to test their personalities and their unconscious attitudes towards other racial groups
- He used the F-scale which tested for potential fascism
- Adorno found that people who scored high on the F scale tended to be people who had traditional views. They are very respectable to people with a higher status, but look down on those with lower statuses.
characteristics of an authoritarian personality
- hostile to those who are of inferior status
- obedient to high status individuals
- conventional (hold traditional beliefs)
origins of an authoritarian personality
- forms during childhood due to harsh parenting, which consists of strict discipline, expectations of absolute loyalty, impossible high standards and severe criticisms. These childhood experiences create resentment and hostility within the child, but the feelings cannot be expressed due to fear of punishment
- feelings are then displaced onto those they see as weaker, a process which is known as scapegoating
evaluation of authoritarian personality
✔️evidence to support (Milgram & Elms)
✔️F-scale is a self report method (time effective for psychologist, answers are clear and can be compared easily)
❌F-scale is a self report method (particpants cannot elaborate, & can lie about specific aspects which causes incorrect results)
social support
the presence of people who resist pressures to conform or obey can help others to do the same
- these people act as models to help show that resistance is possible
social support & resisting conformity
pressure to conform can be resisted if there are other people present who are not conforming
- links to Asch’s study as breaking the unanimity of the group allowed the participant to answer with their individual opinion
social support & resisting obedience
pressure to obey can be resisted if there is another person who also disobeys
- links to Milgram’s variation studies as having a disobedient model allows the participants to disobey
evaluation of social support
✔️evidence to support (Albrecht et al)
Locus of control
the sense we have about what directs events in our lives
- a person’s perception of personal control over their own behaviour
internal locus of control
believe that things that happen to them are largely controlled by themselves
external locus of control
believe that things that happen are out of their control
locus of control applied to resistance to social influence
people who have a high internal locus of control are more able to resist the pressures to conform or obey
evaluation of locus of control
✔️evidence to support (Holland 1967 - repeated Milgram’s experiment and measured whether participants had an internal or external LOC. He found 37% of participants with an internal LOC did not continue to the highest shock level, whereas only 23% of externals did not continue)
minority influence
a form of social influence in which a minority of people persuade others to adopt their beliefs, attitudes or behaviours.
- leads to internalisation, in which private attitudes are changed as well as public behaviours
minority influence: synchronic consistency
all people in the group are saying the same message
- makes others rethink their views
minority influence: diachronic consistency
consistent over time - carry on saying the same message until others listen
minority influence: commitment
minorities exert influence by showing dedication: willing to make sacrifices.
- this gives the minority credibility and people eventually respect the minority
minority influence: flexibility
a willingness to compromise: they need to be willing to adapt their views and understand opposing arguments
study of minority influence
Moscovici et al (1969):
Procedure: 172 participants , in groups of 6 (2 confederates, 4 real participants). were shown 36 blue coloured slides which varied in shade. They had to match the colour and the shade
Findings: when confederates consistently said green, participants agreed with then on 8.42% of the trails. However, when confederates were inconsistent, agreement reduced to 1.25%. If two confederates consistently agreed with each other, they were able to persuade a majority that the blue slides were green
evaluation of Moscovici’s study
✔️lab experiment (control over EV, standardised procedures, low ecological validity)
❌gynocentric sample
❌artificial tasks
❌ethical issues (deception)
social change
when society adopts a new belief or way of behaving which then becomes widely accepted as the norm
drawing attention to the issue
when minorities views are different, it draws attention to their view because it is a conflicting opinion
- the first process of social change
the snowball effect
minority influences initially has a small effect on the majority but they gradually gain more members of the majority, until the view is widely accepted
- this is needed for social change to happen
social cryptoamnesia
people have a memory, that change has occurred
- this comes after social change
evaluation of social change
✔️evidence to support that conformity can lead to social change (Nolen et al)
✔️research to support that minority influence does bring about social change (Nemeth)
❌people still resist social change
minority research & social change
Moscovici (1967):
- researched a minority group and found that when it was consistent and confident in its beliefs, then it was more effective in influencing society
- the implication of this research is that if a minority group wants to have an impact, they need to be consistent and confident
obedience research & social change
Milgram (1963):
- found that when people had allies who were disobedient, it was easier for them to be disobedient too
- implications: social role models may provide ‘allies’ to be guided by
conformity research & social change
- Normative social influence brings about social change by drawing attention to what the majority are doing
- this draws attention to the ‘norm’ in society so people want to change their behaviour to fit in with the majority
