Social Influence Flashcards
Social influence definition
The process by which individuals and groups change each other’s attitudes and behaviours
Compliance definition
Publicly agreeing with a group or others to gain approval/avoid embarrassment or disapproval, while privately disagreeing. Temporary change of view.
Identification definition
A change in an individual’s behaviour and internal beliefs to that of a specific group, but only in the presence of that group. Short term.
Internalisation definition
A complete change in an individual’s behaviour and internal beliefs to conform with a group. These changes exist outside of the presence of the group and are permanent. Strongest type of conformity.
Informational social influence (ISI) definition
When an individual conforms because they want to be right and assume others are. usually leads to internalisation
EVIDENCE for ISI (president)
Fein et al - ask participants to vote for a US president. participants copied the candidate they saw others voting for bc they wanted to be correct
Normative social influence (NSI) definition
When an individual conforms because they want to be liked and accepted, driving compliance. Often occurs because someone wants to avoid embarrassment/discomfort of disagreeing with majority.
evaluation for NSI (bullying)
Evidence supporting link between NSI and bullying; real world application. Garandeau et al found a boy can be manipulated by a bully into bullying someone else to avoid disapproval
evaluation for ISI (maths)
Evidence supporting; Lucas et al (2006) found that when presented with difficult maths problems to solve, participants were more likely to conform to the majority answer
Evaluation for roles of ISI and NSI (complementary)
It may be beneficial to look at NSI and ISI as complementary not mutually exclusive. Deutsch and Gerrard’s Dual-Processing model (1955). Can be hard to separate as in many real world conformity situations they probably operate together.
Deutsch and Gerrards Dual-Processing Model reasons
Argues there were two main reasons people conform - the need to be liked and the need to be right
Limitation of NSI (McGhee)
NSI doesn’t’ predict conformity in every case. People who are very concerned with being liked called nAffilliators, have strong need for affiliation (relatability). McGhee and Teevan (1967)found nAffiliators more likely to conform. Shows NSI underlies conformity for some people more than others. INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES.
evaluation for NSI (evidence)
Asch (1951). giving answers privately meant no normative group pressure, showing at least some conformity is due to desire not to be rejected by a group for disagreeing
Schultz et al (2008)
Found that messages in hotel rooms that suggested other guests use less towels was most successful messaging in encouraging them to use less.
Asch (1951) baseline procedure
123 american men, each in group with 5-7 confederates. They saw four lines - a, b, c, and x. One clearly matched x (unambiguously) while others were clearly wrong. On each trial they were last or next to last to give answer out loud, but confederates gave the same incorrect answer each time
Asch (1951) BASELINE FINDINGS
On avg, genuine participants conformed about 1/3 of the time. There were individual differences - 25% never conformed.
Asch three variables + what was he investigating
Whether variables would lead to increase or decrease in conformity. Group size, unamity, task difficulty
Asch group size variable procedure and findings
Varied no of confederates from 1 to 15. Found curvilinear relationship - conformity increased with group size up to a point, levelled off at 7 but with 3 confederates was higher than 1. Showed people are very sensitive as just 1/2 confeds was enough to sway opinion
Asch Unamity variable procedure and findings
Introduced a confederate who disagreed with others (A DISSENTER), either giving right or other wrong answer. The participant conformed less with a dissenter, with conformity rate decreasing to less than 1/4 than when unanimous. Suggests that influence of majority depends on unanimosity, and conformity is less likely when there are cracks in majority view.
Asch task difficulty variable procedure and findings
Increased difficulty by making stimulus and comparison lines more similar, making it harder to see differences between lines. Found conformity increased - may be ISI as it was unclear what the right answer is so they look to others for guidance
Asch limitation (artificial)
Participants knew it was a study and may have gone along with expectations - demand characteristics. Trivial task with no reason not to conform. Groups didn’t resemble groups experienced in everyday life. Do not general use to real-world situations, especially when there are important consequences to conformity.
Asch limitation (participants)
Participants all American men. Can’t be applied to women (other research shows tend to be more conformist). US is individualistic and results may not be applied to collectivist cultures where conformity rates will be different. Tells us little about women and other cultures.
Asch support (research)
Research evidence to support task difficulty. Lucaset al (2006) found conformity higher with hard maths questions than easier ones when answered aloud.
Asch research support (lucas) counterpoint
Lucas et al found conformity is more complex than asch suggested - confidence was also a variable. Asch did not research roles of individual factors and differences and how they interact with other variables but Lucas showed they can influence conformity.
Milgram (1963) baseline procedure
40 US men (20-50yrs) at Yale Uni. Each volunteer introduced to another participant (actually confederate) and they did a fixed draw so real participant teacher and confederate was learner (Mr Wallace). Experimenter (confederate) was also involved, dressed in lab coat. Teacher could hear but not see ‘learner’, and had to give them electric shock if they made a mistake. Shocks were fake but labelled increasingly dangerous up to 450v fatal.
Baseline Milgram results
Every participant shocked up to 300v - 12.5% stopped there but 65% went to full ‘fatal’ 450v
How many shocked up to full voltage in Milgram baseline
65%
Milgram qualitative observation
signs of extreme tension and stress - sweating, stuttering, trembling, three even had seizures
Milgram ethical considerations
All participants fully debriefed and told their behaviour was normal. 84% said they were glad they consented
What did Milgram want to investigate
why such a high proportion of Germans obeyed Hitler’s commands to murder 11million+. Thought it might be ‘Germans are different’ and more obedient so wanted to test how obedient people could be.
Milgram conclusion
Germans not different- Americans were also highly willing to obey orders where they hurt another person.
EVALUATION - Research support for Milgram (TV Game SHOW)
Fake gameshow - Le Jeu de la Mort - found 80% of participants were willing to give lethal electric shocks to an ‘unconscious’ confederate while being cheered on by audience and presenter. Replication increases validity of original findings, supports original findings
EVALUATION - Milgram internal validity and demand characteristics.
May have had low internal validity. Milgram thought 75% of participants believed it was real. Perry (2013) listened to tapes and researched, reported only half thought they were real and most of these (2/3) were disobedient, suggesting participants may have been responding to demand characteristics
EVALUATION - counterpoint to low internal validity and demand characteristicsMilgram
Sheridan and King (1972) did similar with puppies. Low voltage but participants believed to be high and saw dog in genuine distress. 54% men and 100% of women gave ‘fatal’ shock. Suggests Milgrams study saw genuine effects
EVALUATION - Complexity Milgram
Participants given different prods reacted differently. ‘You have no other choice, you must go on’ was always disobeyed, showing conclusions about blind obedience cant be justified and Social identity theory may provide a more valid interpretation of findings
What factors did Milgram investigate?
Proximity, Location and Uniform
Milgram proximity variation to learner procedure and findings (3 conditions) and overall conclusion
Experimenter and learner in same room - 40%. (empathy)
Proximity to learner - when had to force participant’s hand on electric plate only 30% obeyed (empathy)
Additional confederate administered shocks on behalf of teacher - 92.5% obeyed
CONCLUSION - Closer proximity to authority = higher obedience.
Closer proximity to ‘victim’ = lower obedience.
Milgram location variation procedure and findings, and conclusion
Original in Yale. Variation in run down building no longer associated with Yale. Full 450v dropped from 65% to 47.5%. Shows more credible locations/more authority = higher obedience.
Milgram uniform variation procedure and findings
Experimenter called away and replaced by another participant (actually confederate). They ‘come up with’ idea of increasing every time learner makes mistake. Percentage of full 450v dropped from 65% to 20%.
Support for uniform (Bickman 1974)
field experiment new york. 3 actors - milkman, security guard, ordinary clothes. Asked members of the public to do simple tasks like picking up money or standing in certain place. Obeyed guard 76%, milkman 47%, pedestrian 30%. Suggests people more likely to obey people with sense of legitimacy and power.
STATS - BICKMAN YEAR
1974
STATS - BICKMAN GUARD OBEYED %
76%
STATS - BICKMAN MILKMAN OBEYED %
47%
STATS - BICKMAN PEDESTRIAN OBEYED %
30%
