social influence Flashcards
conformity definition
conformity is a type of social influence defined as a change in belief or behaviour in response to real or imagined social pressure.
what are the the three types of conformity
compliance, identification, internalisation
compliance definition
a type of conformity where you change your beliefs and opinions even though you dont believe or agree with the majority. People often do this to be accepted. The opinion/behaviour stops as soon as the group pressure stops. compliance is a weak form of conformity. This is because, privately, it does not change opinion or behaviour and therefore results in superficial change.
identification definition
identification is a type of conformity where you change your beliefs and opinions to fit in with a particular group of people for a role and then revert back to your original group of people
internalisation definition
a type of conformity where you change your beliefs and opinions because you genuinely think that the majority is right. it results in a private and public change in opinions and behaviour. this change is more likely to be permanent, even in the absence of the group or pressure, the change will remain
what are the two explanations for conformtiy
normative social influence and informational social influence
what is normative social influence
an explanation for conformity where a person conforms to fit in with the group because they don’t want to appear foolish to be left out and gain social approval and be liked. Normative social influence is usually associated with compliance, where a person changes their public behaviour but not their private beliefs. It is an emotional process and happens with strangers that are more concerned about rejection
informational social influence
an explanation for conformity where a person conforms because they have a desire to be right, and look to others who they believe may have more information. This leads to internalisation because they adopt the opinions and attitudes of the group since they actually believe the majority to be right. This type of conformity occurs when a person is unsure of a situation or lacks knowledge and is associated with internalisation. this is a cognitive process.
what study was Jenness for
information influence
name a study for information influence
Jeness’s Bean Jar experiment
Jenness’s Bean Jar experiment (AO1)
Jenness carried out a study into conformity - in his experiment, participants were asked to estimate how many beans they thought was in the jar. Each participant had to make an individual estimate, and then do the same as a group.
- individual
- in a group
He found that when the task was carried out in a social group, the participants would report estimates of roughly the same value (even though they had previously reported quite different estimates as individuals.
The study was successful in showing majority influence, thus proving that individuals’ behaviour and beliefs can be influenced by a group. Additionally, this is likely to be an example of informational social influence as participants would be uncertain about the actual number of beans in the jar.
what study is ‘variables affecting conformity’ for
Asch’s line study
Asch’s line study (AO1)
Asch wanted to investigate whether people would conform to the majority situations where an answer was obvious.
procedure: In Asch’s study, there were 123 male American students who were asked to take part in a ‘task of visual perception’. The participants were seated in groups around a large table. The experimenter showed them two cards:- one card showed the standard line, the other card showed 3 comparison lines. The participants were asked to say out loud which of the 3 comparison lines (A,B or C) matched the standard line (X). This procedure was repeated 18 times. Asch used confederates who were asked to give the same wrong answer in 12 out of the 18 trials. The real participant was seated second to last so that they were exposed to the same wrong answer repeatedly before giving their own answer.
results: The overall conformity rate was 37%. This is the % of the trials in which the real participants gave the same wrong answer as the confederates. 5% of the participants gave the same wrong answer as the confederates on all 12 critical trials. 25% of the participants remained independent and gave the correct answer on all 12 critical trials.
strength of Asch’s study
reflects the historical and cultural view of that time rather than the psychological phenomenon - For example, Asch used approximately 123 American male students. However, other research such as by Neto in 1995, suggests that women may be more conformist, possibly because they are concerned about social relationships and being accepted. Furthermore, Perrin and Spencer used 33 British students in 1980 and found only 1 conforming response in 396 trials. The difference between male and female, and American and British suggests that cultural changes in recent times have led to reduction in the change of conforming. Moreover, USA is considered an individualist culture, therefore people are more concerned about themselves rather than their social group. On the other hand, in collectivist cultures such as China, the social group is more important than the individual and have therefore found that conformity rates are higher. This evidence has been supported by an experiment by Bond and Smith in 1996. In addition to this, Asch’s research took place at a particular time in US history when conformity was arguably higher and has been criticised as ‘a child of its time’. In the 1950s, America was very conservative, and involved in an anti-communist witch hunt against anyone who was though to hold sympathetic left-wing views. Therefore conformity to American values was expected. This suggests that Asch’s experiment lacks historical validity and the conformity rates found in his experiment may not provide an accurate reflection of conformity in modern times.
weakness of Asch’s study
lacks ecological validity - For example, Asch’s research was conducted in an artificial setting, and therefore does not reflect the conformity in everyday life meaning that the task lacks mundane realism. Furthermore, the participants were not aware that they were being studies and may have shown demand characteristics, the groups they were in and the task they were doing was not in the nature of an everyday task. His experiment being an artificial task is an issue and a weakness as it does not generalise to everyday situations. Therefore as a result, the validity of Asch’s research is compromised, and the overall credibility is reduced.
the ethical issues - The participants were not protected from psychological stress which may have occurred if they disagreed with the majority. Evidence that participants in Asch-type situations are highly emotional can be found. For example, Back et al, (1963) found that participants in the Asch situation has greatly increased levels of autonomic arousal. This finding therefore suggests that they were in a conflict situation, and was finding it hard to decide whether to report what they saw or to conform to the opinion of others.
what are the 3 factors affecting conformity
group size, unanimity, task difficult
how does group size affect conformity (AO1)
Asch carried out many variations to determine how the size of the majority, affects the rate of conformity. These variations ranged from 1 confederate to 15 confederates, and the level of conformity varied dramatically. When there was one confederate, the real participants conformed on just 3% of the critical trials. When the group size increased to two confederates, the real participants conformed on 12.8% of the critical trials. Interestingly, when there were three confederates, the real participants conformed on 32% of the critical trials, the same percentage as Asch’s original experiment, in which there were seven confederates. This demonstrates that conformity reaches it’s highest level with just three confederates.
Asch continued investigating group size and in one condition he used 15 confederates. In this experiment the rate of conformity slightly dropped, although Asch didn’t report the percentage. It is possible that the rate of conformity dropped because the real participants became suspicious of the experiment and not because the pressure to conform is less, in larger groups.
how does unanimity affect conformity (AO1)
In Asch’s original experiment, the confederates all gave the same incorrect answer. In one variation of Asch’s experiment, one of the confederates was instructed to give the correct answer throughout. In this variation the rate of conformity dropped to 5%. This demonstrates that if the real participant has support for their belief, then they are likely more likely to resist the pressure to conform. Furthermore, in another variation, one of the confederates gave a different incorrect answer to the majority. In this variation conformity still dropped significantly, by this time to 9%. This shows that if you break the group’s unanimous position, then conformity is reduced, even if the answer provided by the supporter, is still incorrect.
how does task difficulty affect conformity (AO1)
In Asch’s original experiment, the correct answer was always obvious. In one his variations he made the task more difficult, by making the difference between the line lengths significantly smaller. In this variation Asch found the rate of conformity increased. This is likely to be the result of informational social influence, as individuals look to another for guidance when completing the task
what experiment is conformity to social roles
Stanford Prison experiment
Stanford Prison experiment (AO1)
In1973, Zimbardo et al. conducted an experiment to show how the taking of social roles would lead to excessive conformity to their roles.
procedure: He set up a mock prison in the basement of the psychology department at Stanford University. He advertised asking for volunteers to participate in a study of the psychological effects of prison life. The advert read ‘male college students needed for psychological study of prison life. $15 per day for 1-2 weeks’. 75 people responded and completed a questionnaire such as their family background, physical and mental health, involvement in crime.
Zimbardo’s sample consisted of 24 men who were white, middle class, male students. They then signed a contact that they would have to have some basic civil rights suspended. They were randomly assigned to the role of a ‘prisoner’ or ‘guard’ and wore uniforms to help with identification. For example, guards wore khaki shirts and pants, with reflective sunglasses and batons. Furthermore, police cars also arrived, and the participants were arrested by real local police. They were fingerprinted and blindfolded, searched, stripped naked and deloused. The prisoners wore loose fitting socks with ID numbers, no underwear, a lock, and chain around one ankle and stocking caps to cover their hair. The guards were instructed to run the prison without using physical violence. The experiment was set to run for two weeks but cut to 6 days. Zimbardo played the role of a superintendent.
results: within a very short time, both guards and prisoners were settling into their new roles, with the guards adopting theirs quickly ad easily.
Within hours of beginning the experiment, some guards began to harass prisoners. They behaved in a brutal and sadistic manner, apparently enjoying it. Other guards also joined in, and other prisoners were also tormented.
The prisoners soon adopted prisoner-like behaviour too. They talked about prison issues a great deal of the time, and ‘told tales’ on each other to the guards. They started taking the prison rules very seriously, and some even began siding with the guards against prisoners who did not obey the rules.
As the prisoners became more submissive, the guards became more aggressive and assertive. They demanded even greater obedience from the prisoners. The prisoners were dependent on the guards for everything so they tried to find ways to please.
evaluation of Zimbardo’s experiment (AO3)
ethical issues - It had a lack of informed consent, whether or not the consent gained was sufficiently informed. For example, they were not told prior that they would be arrested from their homes. This leads to reputations being damaged specifically from their neighbours as well as their family members who were also not informed. This is uninformed consent. The advertisement also did not inform them what would happen in the prison which is deception. Furthermore, by acting as both a researcher and a prison superintendent. This is a weakness to Zimbardo’s experiment as there was not enough consent from the participants. Therefore, Zimbardo’s research into social roles as ethical issues such as lack of consent and deception.
a lack of protection from psychological harm - For example, five of the prisoners left the experiment early because of their adverse reactions to the physical and mental torment. One prisoner in particular had to be released after 36 hours because of uncontrollable bursts of screaming, crying and anger. The guards had total control over the prisoners, and were abusing their power, despite the guards being instructed to run the prison without using physical violence. In addition to this, some of the guards reported feelings of anxiety and guilt, as a result of their actions. This is another weakness to Zimbardo’s experiment as Zimbardo had a duty of care to stop the experiment or to stop the guard’s incontrollable actions and behaviour. Therefore, there was lack of protection from psychological harm.
Zimbardo playing a ‘dual-role’ - His behaviour affected the way in which events unfolded, thus the validity of the questions could be questioned. For example, Zimbardo created a major ethical issue by making it difficult for the participants to leave. When a prisoner asked to leave, Zimbardo responded as a prison superintendent concerned about his prison instead of as a psychologist worried about his participant’s mental state. As Zimbardo became immersed in how quickly the participants took on the roles they were assigned, as the head of the prison quickly overtook any ethical concerns regarding how the prisoners were being degraded and abused the by guards. This shows that Zimbardo playing a dual role of both prison superintendent and lead researcher had an impact on how the experiment was carried out. Therefore, Zimbardo’s dual role was a weakness to the experiment.
methodological issues such as sample bias; demand characteristics; lack of internal validity; lack of ecological validity; mundane realism and their implications for the findings - His experiment had sample bias as his sample consisted of 24 men who were white, middle class, male students meaning that there isn’t variety. Due to his sample being very limited, his experiment may/will not apply to be of other genders, races, and age etc. Furthermore, the experiment lacked mundane realism. Other psychologists have argued that the participants were merely play acting rather than genuinely conforming to the roles. They argued that their behaviour was based purely on stereotypes that they have seen on how prisoners and guards are supposed to behave rather than their natural behaviour. One guard interviewed after, also said that he based his behaviour off a guard he saw in the movie ‘Cold Hand Luke’. This also explain the prisoners’ riot as that is what they expected prisoners to do.
obedience definition
a type of social influence where a person follows an order from another person who is usually an authority figure
what study is an explanation for obedience
Milgram’s shock study
Milgram’s shock study (AO1)
Milgram wanted to know why Germans were willing to kill Jews during the Holocaust. He thought that it might have been because German’s were just evil. He thought that Americans were different and would not have followed such orders. To test the hypothesis that ‘German’s are different’, he carried out this study.
procedure: his sample consisted of 40 male participants from a range of occupations and backgrounds. The participants were al volunteers who had responded to an advert in a local paper, which offered $4.50 to take part in an experiment on ‘punishment and learning’.
The 40 participants wee all invited to a laboratory at Yale University and upon arrival they met with the experimenter and another participant, Mr Wallace and were both confederates.
The experimenter explained that one person would be randomly assigned the role of a teacher and the other, a learner. However, the real participant was always assigned the role of a teacher.
The experimenter explained that they would the read the learner a series of word pairs and then test their recall. The learner, who was positioned in an adjacent room, would indicate his choice using a system of lights. The participants was instructed to administer an electric shock every time the learner made a mistake and to increase the voltage after each mistake.
The participants (the learner) watched the learner being strapped to the electric chair and was given a sample electric shock to convince them that the procedure was real. However, the learner wasn’t actually strapped to the char and gave predetermined answers to the test.
As the electric shocks increased the learner’s screams, which were pre-recorded, it became louder and more dramatic.
180 volts - the learner complained of a weak heart.
300 volts - he banged on the wall and demanded to leave
315 volts - he became silent, to give the illusions that he was unconscious or even dead.
The experiment continued until the teacher refused to continue, or 450 volts was reached. If the teacher tried to stop the experiment, the experimenter would respond with a series of prods.
prod 1: please continue
prod 2: the experiment requires you to continue
prod 3: it is absolutely essential that you continue
prod 4: you have no other choice but to continue
results: 65% of participants continued to the highest level of 450 volts. All the participants continued to 300 volts.
He concluded that under the right circumstances, ordinary people will object unjust orders.
conclusion: people will obey orders from an authority figure, potentially harming a stranger in doing so.
weakness of Milgram’s study (AO3)
deception: Milgram deceived his participants as he said that his experiment was on ‘punishment and learning’, when in fact he was measuring obedience. Many of the participants also reported feeling exceptionally stressed and anxious while taking part in the experiment and therefore they were not protected from psychological harm. This is an issue, as Milgram didn’t respect his participants, some of whom felt very guilty following the experiment, knowing that they could have harmed another person. However, it must be noted that it was essential for Milgram to deceive his participants and remove their right to withdraw to test obedience and produce valid results. Furthermore, he did debrief his participants following the experiment and 83.7% of his participants said that they were happy to have taken part in the experiment and contribute to scientific research.
ecological validity: Milgram tested his obedience in a laboratory, which is very different to real-life situations of obedience, where people are often asked to follow more subtle instructions, rather than administering electric shocks. As a result, we are unable to generalise his findings to real life situations of obedience and cannot conclude that people would obey less severe instructions in the same way.
population validity: Milgram used a bias sample of 40 male volunteers, which means we are unable to generalise the results to other populations, in particular females, and cannot conclude if female participants would respond in a similar way
strength of Milgram’s study
high level of control: All participants experienced the same procedure and used the same equipment. The experimenter followed a script when explaining the task to the participants, and he also used the same standardised verbal prompts to encourage the participant to continue with the experiment, for example “the experiment requires that you continue.” This means that the results are highly likely due to the effect of the independent variable (the pressure to obey), as opposed to studies with low control where results may often be due to extraneous variables. Ultimately, this means that the results could be generalised to a wide population, as we expect others to behave the same when put in situations where they must obey an authority figure.
Milgram’s agency theory (AO1)
Agency theory says that people will obey an authority when they believe that the authority will take responsibility for the consequences of their actions. Milgram explained the behaviour of his participants by suggesting that people actually have two states of behaviour when they are in a social situation.
autonomous state - people direct their own actions, and they take responsibility
agentic state - people allow others to direct their actions, and then pass off the responsibility for the consequences to the person giving the orders.
agentic shift - when a person changes from an autonomous state to an agentic state
Milgram argued that people operate in one of two ways when faced with social situations. Individuals can act autonomously and choose their behaviour, or they can enter an agentic state, where they carry out orders of an authority figure and do not feel responsible for their actions. When a person changes from autonomous state to an agentic state, they have undergone an agentic shift.
