Social influence Flashcards
what are the 3 types of conformity?
- INTERNALISATION: long term
. change in public and private beliefs that continues even without group pressure - IDENTIFICATION: temporary
. change in private and public beliefs, but private belief reverts back once group pressure is gone (private belief is not strong enough to continue w/o group pressure) - COMPLIANCE: short term
. change in public belief and actions but private beliefs remain the same (actions stop when group pressure is removed)
what are the 2 explanations of conformity?
normative social influence/ NSI
. explanation: to gain approval, and be accepted. they go along with something that they don’t believe to fit in
. when: with strangers, friends, or anywhere that you fear rejection
. usually an explanation for compliance as is is temp.
- informational social influence/ ISI
. explanation: conforming because you really believe that others are right and you don’t want to be wrong
. when: when tasks are ambiguous/ answer is not easy
. usually an explanation of internalisation as you genuinely think others are right.
APFC for Asch
AIM: to see how social pressure to conform to unanimous majority affects conformity in an unambiguous situation
PROCEDURE:123 (male American) participants were told it was a vision test when it was actually a test of conformity
. each ppts was in a group of confederates
. had to match choose the line that matched standard line- answers were clear
. confederates chose the wrong answer 12/18 trials
FINDINGS: participant gave the wrong answer 36% of the time
75% of participants conformed at least once
CONCLUSION: after interviewing students, most participants went along with the wrong answer to gain approval- NSI
what were Asch’s variations?
- GROUP SIZE
. changed the number of confederates in different trials
. 1 confederate: conformed in 3% of trials
. 2 confederates: conformity is 12.8%
. 3 confederates: conformity is 32%
. 6-8: 32%
. conformity levels drop after 15 confederates - UNANIMITY
. one confederate gave the correct answer: conformity dropped to 5%
. one confederate gave a different incorrect answer: dropped to 9% - TASK DIFFICULTY
. harder the task, higher conformity levels.
AO3 for Asch
+ : controlled lab setting: limiting extraneous variables (e.g., whether ppts had issues with eyesight) so it is scientific and easily replicated
- : lab setting means it lacks ecological validity and the participants may have shown demand characteristics
-: biased sample: participants were all males so lacks population validity and cant generalise results to women
-: dispositional factors: Perrin and Spencer (1980) repeat experiment on engineering students and 1/396 conformed
-: task acks mundane realism- how likely are people to conform in a real life situation over things like, political beliefs?
-: lacks temporal validity: his experiment is a ‘child of its time’ and was studied in a highly conformist era so results are no longer valid
situational factors affecting conformity AO3
(AO1 is Asch’s variations)
+ controlled lab experiment
. limiting extraneous variables, such as how long ppts were given to decide (if they were given longer they may be more likely to conform) so can conclude causation between the situational variables and its affect on conformity.
-: mundane realism
. simplifies conformity to whether they change their answer on a line task (reductionist as well). in real life conformity is much more complex, and as decisions may have larger consequences on the individual’s life; this means that in real like situational variables might not have as big of an effect, if the individual’s decision to conform would actively impact their life
-: GENDER BIAS IN ASCH’S RESEARCH
. all male sample
. beta bias- minimising differences, e.g., Jenness found that women conform more than men. what s the are affected by situational variables to a greater extent too?
. lowers pop. validity
-: IGNORES THE IMPACT OF INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES
. research has shown that dispositional factors can greatly affect conformity e.g., nAfilliators (people who have a need for social relationships). McGhee and Teevan found nAfilliators were more likely to conform.
. impact of IDs are ignored by research into situational variables, but SVs may have a bigger/smaller effects on certain people
t= Asch’s research may be ungeneralizable due to limited sample and the presence of individual differences that affect the influence of SVs
-: RESEARCH SUPPORTING DISPOSITIONAL FACTORS
. Perrin and Spencer repeated Asch’s OG experiment and found that only 1/396 conformed. This could be because of dispositional factors affecting likelihood of conformity, like engineering students are more confident.
. suggests that dispositional factors could impact how SVs affect conformity
-: RESEARCH INTO SVs COULD LACK TEMPORAL VALIDITY
. Perrin and Spencer argued that the difference in findings is because they conducted research at a later time. Asch’s research was conducted in a highly anti-communist era where people were more scared to be different. This means that SVs had a larger affect on Asch’s sample than it would on today’s population
t= influence of SVs may be undermined by dispositional research and current societal norms.
explanations for conformity AO3 (NSI vs ISI)
+ RESEARCH SUPPORTING NSI FROM ASCH
. after his initial experiment he interviewed participants who reported that they knew they were giving the wrong answer all along but conformed in order to gain approval from the rest of the group
+ RESEARCH SUPPORTING ISI FROM ASCH’S VARIATIONS
. found that if he made the tasks harder, conformity increased which could support ISI as ISI is more common in ambiguous situations.
-: GENDER BIAS
. Asch’s sample consisted of 123 men. His study suffers from beta bias as it minimises the differences between men and women. Jeness found that women conform more, so maybe they also conform for different reasons.
undermines generalisability of supporting research, we don’t know if NSI and ISI applies to women
-: INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES MAY AFFECT WHY WE CONFORM
. Perrin and Spencer repeated Asch’s experiment with engineering students and only 1/396 conformed.
. are engineering students more confident? suggests that dispositional factors play the largest role as the influence of NSI and ISI depends on the individual’s traits.
(+ SUPPORTING EVIDENCE FOR ISI FROM JENESS.
asked ppts to guess how many jellybeans were in a jar after a discussion. ppts gave answers anonymously so there was no fear of rejection from a social group. majority of ppts answers moved closer to the majority view.
supports that ppts can conform because they genuinely believe others are correct.)
-: IT MAY BE OVER-SIMPLIFYING TO LOOK AT NSI AND ISI AS 2 SEPARATE EXPLANATIONS
Deutsch and Gerrard proposed a two process model. an example of this is with social support. Asch found that if a confederate gave the correct answer (different to the incorrect majority) conformity dropped from 75%-5%.
. D+G that social support reduced the effect of NSI as someone else was also going against the group, while also reducing ISI as the ppt becomes more confident that their answer is the correct one.
. this reduces the validity of looking at NSI and ISI and two mutually exclusive mechanisms, and suggests we should instead look at them as complementary.
APFC for Zimbardo
AIMS: to examine whether people would conform to the roles of a prisoner/guard when placed in a mock prison
. wanted to to study whether behaviour in prisons was due to dispositional factors or situational factors
PROCEDURE: set up mock prison in basement of uni.
. advertised for student volunteers- chose 24 who seemed most emotionally stable were selected and randomly assigned prisoners/ guard
. prisoners and guards given distinct roles- addressed by numbers
FINDINGS: experiment stopped after 6 days instead of 14 because guards’ behaviour was threatening to the prisoners
. after 2 days the prisoners rebelled against guards, who retaliated with even harsher conditions- taking away their beds
. 5 prisoners left early due to psychological harm
CONCLUSION: people quickly conform to social roles even if it goes against their morals
. situational factors were largely responsible as no participants demonstrated behaviour before
AO3 for conformity to social roles
-: investigator bias: he was too involved in the study
. didn’t use covert observation so participants saw him meaning they could have shown demand characteristics
. gave prompts
. involvement could act as a confounding variable.
. reduces internal validity, as conformity was not as influenced by situational variable as it was by Zimbardo’s presence and prompts
+ : application to real life: brought attention to the ill treatment inmates in prisons and caused attempts to reform the conditions in prisons to minimise conflict
. e.g., cells are no longer under constant surveillance from a monitor, as this exaggerates differences in social roles between prisoners and guards
. these successful reforms suggest there must be some truth in Zimbardo’s research.
-: gender bias- beta bias
. sample consists of white male Americans.
. Jenness found that women conform more than men so there are clear gender differences in conformity.
so can’t be generalised to women who may conform to social roles more or less.
. cant be applied to female prisons?
. furthermore, the social roles Zimbardo looked at are stereotypically aggressive, so men may be more likely to conform to these specific social roles due to higher testosterone.
low pop. validity
-: culture bound
. only used sample of Americans
. cannot conclude to what extent other cultures conform to social roles
. for example, collectivist cultures, such as
China or Japan, may be more conformist to social roles as these cultures have more hierarchy and distinct roles within society
- contradicting evidence: Reicher and Haslam repeat experiment in 2006 (15 participants split to guards and prisoner)
. guards did not conform like in Zimbardo’s and refused to impose authority leading to collapse of prison dynamic
. this undermines the findings of Zimbardo’s research, that suggested such an extreme conformity to social roles.
-: dispositional factors play a bigger part: Z overstated his conclusion
. treatment from guards varied in his experiment since while some tormented prisoners, othered offered sympathy and support (3.g. lending cigarettes)
what is the difference between obedience and conformity?
- obedience happens in direct response to orders
. conformity comes from group pressure - obedience occurs within social hierarchy
. this is not always the case with conformity - obedient behaviour is usually different to the authority figure
. behaviour is usually copied in conformity - people tend to deny the fact that they conform but use obedience as an explanation for their behaviour
APFC for Milgram
AIM: to investigate whether ordinary people would obey an unjust order and injure an innocent person
PROCEDURE: sample- 40 male Americans recruited through newspaper and paid to take part
. participant was always teacher and confederates were learners
. participant had to test the learner’s (confederates) ability to recall words and was instructed by experimenter to give a shock for every wrong answer
. shocks went up in 15V intervals 15V-450V
. experiment continued until participant refused or got to the max level (450V)
. when participant tried to stop experimenter would give prod (e.g. experiment requires you to continue)
FINDINGS: all participants went up to at least 300V, and 65% gave the max. 450V lethal shock (participants showed signs of stress like sweating and stuttering)
CONCLUSIONS: under the right situational circumstances ordinary people would follow unjust orders from someone perceived to be a legitimate authority figure.
how did proximity affect Milgram’s experiment?
CONDITION 1- teacher + learner in same room
. % of people who gave max shock dropped from 65%-40% (teacher could directly see the learners pain)
CONDITION 2- teacher forced learner’s hand onto plate
. % of people who gave full shock went to 30%
CONDITION 3- experimenter left room and gave orders on the phone
. % of people who gave max shock went to 20.5%
CONCLUSION: increased proximity between learner and teacher decreased obedience and decreased proximity between teacher and experimenter
how did location affect Milgram’s experiment?
CONDITION 1: conducted OG experiment in a Yale uni. lab
. % of people who administered full shock was 65%
CONDITION 2: repeated experiment in a rundown building
% of people who gave max shock decreased to 47.5%
CONCLUSION: location plays a part in creating a prestige atmosphere, generating respect and therefore obedience
how did uniform affect Milgram’s experiment?
CONDITION 1: in OG experiment the experimenter wore a lab coat and smart clothes
. % of people who gave full shock was 65%
CONDITION 2: experiment is called away and replaced by an ordinary participant (confederate) in casual clothing to administer the orders
. % of people who gave the max. shock dropped to 20%
CONCLUSION: uniform works to create the appearance of a legitimate authority figure.
AO3 for Milgram
+ : controlled lab experiment
. in controlled lab at Yale uni.
. limits extraneous variables (such as how orders were phrased) and allowed M. to individually investigate different factors
- : lacks ecological validity
internal validity is debatable
. Orne and Holland (1968) said that so many participants gave full shock as they could see it was an experiment and they knew the shocks were not real
. recent review of recordings report that many ps vocalised doubt about the genuine nature of the shocks
. lab setting is artificial so not applicable to real life
+ : his results are still valid due to supporting research
. Hofling et al. (1966) nurse study : nurses were unaware they were part of an experiment
. doctor phones nurses (can’t accept instructions over the phone) at the hospital telling them to give double the max. dosage of medicine to a patient and he would sign off authorisation after
.21/22 nurses were easily influenced to carry out orders.
-: GENDER BIAS
. sample only made of male Americans
. not representative so not generalisable- BETA BIAS
. Sheridan and King- 100% of women obeyed ordered and shocked puppies, compared to around 50% of men.
. Kilham + Mann (1974) repeated Milgram’s study in Australia on women where only 16% gave max shock, compared to 40% of men
-: CULTURALLY RELATIVE
. also indicative of a culture bias, as Australian men obeyed less than those in Milgram’s study
. Mantell (1971) repeated it in Germany and 85% gave max shock
. it would be an imposed etic to apply Milgram’s findings outside of America
t= cannot conclude effect of situational variables on women and different cultures.
-: socially sensitive
. by implying that situational variables affect obedience more that dispositional, this could perhaps permit violent or illegal behaviour, where people use obedience to an authority as their excuse
. negative implications.
