Social Influence Flashcards
Conformity
Yielding to group pressures
Internalisation
Publicly changing behaviour to fit in with the group and agreeing with them privately too (internalise the behaviour).
Changed behaviour and views.
Deepest level of conformity.
Identification
Conforming to expectations of a social role.
Private views remain the same.
Compliance
Publicly changing behaviour to fit in with the group.
Private views disagree with the behaviour of the group.
Normative social influence
The person conforms because of a need to be accepted by the group.
Belonging to the group could be rewarding, or not belonging could lead to punishment.
While they publicly conform, they still privately disagree and keep their old attitudes.
Leads to compliance.
Informational social influence
This is based on our need to be right.
If we don’t know what to do, this means we look to what others are doing and conform to them because they might know instead.
You both publicly conform and privately agree - this is known as conversion.
Leads to internalisation.
Asch’s line study - Aim
To investigate the extent to which social pressure from a majority group could affect a person to conform.
Asch’s line study - Procedure
123 male undergraduate students, USA
The participants were given a false aim that they were taking part in a vision test.
Asch’s line study - Method (x4)
There was only one naïve participant in groups of 6-8 confederates.
The group were shown 2 cards, one with a standard line and another with 3 comparison lines.
Participants had to state which line was the matching one.
The naïve participant always answered second to last.
Asch’s line study - Findings (x4)
Conformity rate = 36.8%
25% did not conform at all (75% at least once)
In the control group 1% gave the wrong answer.
In post experiment interviews, participants said they knew the answer but did it to avoid social rejection.
Asch’s line study - Conclusion
People do conform (even in unambiguous tasks) in order to fit in and not be rejected by the group.
Changed variables in Asch’s line study (x3)
Group size
Unanimity
Task difficulty
Asch’s line study - Group size
With 3 confederates, conformity rose to 31.8% but after that there was little difference.
Asch’s line study - Unanimity
The presence of 1 dissenter reduced conformity to 5.5% compared to when there was a unanimity.
Asch’s line study - Task difficulty
When the task was made more difficult, conformity increased.
The Stanford Prison Experiment - Aim
To investigate how readily people would conform to the roles of guard and prisoner in a role-playing exercise that simulated prison life.
Dispositional factors vs situational factors.
The Stanford Prison Experiment - Procedure (x5)
24 male US college students (paid $15 a day).
Randomly assigned to the role of prisoner or guard.
Both had to wear uniforms.
Guards worked 8 hour shifts.
No physical violence was permitted.
The Stanford Prison Experiment - Findings (x4)
Within 2 days the prisoners rebelled - guards punished them and withdrew privileges.
The prisoners became subdued, depressed and anxious (one went on a hunger strike).
Zimbardo convinced prisoners to stay if they asked to leave.
The study ended after 6 days.
The Stanford Prison Experiment - Conclusions (x3)
People will readily conform to the social roles they are expected to play (especially if the roles are strongly stereotyped).
The prison environment was an important factor in creating the guards’ brutal behaviour.
Deindividuation and learned helplessness.
Deindividuation - The Stanford Prison Experiment
You become so immersed in the norms of the group that you lose your sense of identity and personal responsibility.
The guards may have been so sadistic because they did not feel what happened was down to them personally. This may also be because of the uniform (lost personal identity).
Learned helplessness - The Stanford Prison Experiment
The prisoners learned that whatever they did had little effect on what happened to them.
In the mock prison the unpredictable decisions of the guards led the prisoners to give up responding.
Milgram’s Obedience Experiment (1963) - Aim
Researching how far people would go in obeying an instruction if it involved harming another person.
Milgram’s Obedience Experiment (1963) - Procedure (x5)
Lab experiment
40 males aged 20-50
The teacher is told to administer an electric shock every time the learner makes a mistake when recalling word pairs (increasing the shock each time).
The learner gave mainly wrong answers on purpose.
When the teacher refused to administer a shock, the experimenter gave a series of orders/prods to ensure they continued.
Milgram’s Obedience Experiment (1963) - Findings (x2)
2/3 of participants (i.e teachers) continued to the highest level of 450 volts.
All the participants continued to 300 volts.
Milgram’s Obedience Experiment (1963) - Conclusion (x3)
Ordinary people are likely to follow orders given by an authority figure, even to the extent of killing an innocent human being.
Obedience to authority is ingrained in us all from the way we are brought up.
People tend to obey orders from people if they recognise their authority as morally right and/or legally based. This response to authority is learned in a variety of situations (e.g in the family, school and workplace).
Milgram’s Obedience Experiment (1963) - Altered variables (x5)
Agentic state (someone else administered the shock)
Location and legitimate authority
Proximity to the learner
Proximity to the authority figure
Uniform and legitimate authority
Autonomous state
We behave voluntarily and are aware of what will happen as a result of our actions - we feel responsible for our actions.
Agentic state
When we act as an agent (representative) of someone in authority. We find it easy to deny personal responsibility for our actions - it’s just doing our job or just following orders.
The agentic shift
When we move from an autonomous state to an agentic state. There is normally a moral strain.
Binding factors
The reason people stay in their agentic state. These are aspects of the situation that allow the person to ignore or minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour and reduce the moral strain they are feeling.
Legitimate authority
Milgram suggested that we are more likely to obey a person who has a higher position or status in a social hierarchy. People tend to obey others if they recognise their authority as morally right and / or legally based (i.e legitimate).
Destructive authority
Charismatic and powerful leaders can use their legitimate powers for destructive purposes.
Authoritarian personality (x3)
- People with the authoritarian personality defer to authority.
- They are more likely to obey an authority figure.
- They believe that people below them in the hierarchy should defer to them.
Internal locus of control
You have personal control over your own behaviour.
External locus of control
You believe that what happens to you is the result of luck or fate, or is determined by people in authority.
Social change processes
- Attention seeking
- Consistency
- Augmentation principle
- Deeper processing of the message
- Snowball effect
- Social cryptoamnesia
Minority influence (3 features)
- Consistent
- Commitment
- Flexibility
Conversion theory - Moscovici (x5)
- Different viewpoint = conflict
- We don’t like conflict
- We take steps to reduce it
- We examine arguments of minority closely and think more deeply about content
- More likely to be swayed on a private level and internalise
Conversion theory - Mackie (x3)
- We like to think others share our thoughts (false assumption)
- Result = when a majority disagrees with us we spend longer examining their arguments and weighing up the evidence
- When faced with a minority that disagrees we’re generally not that bothered (we are still in the majority)
Social identity theory
You are more likely to be influenced by people who you think are like you.
Tajfel social identity
Personal identity (definition of self) —>
Social identity (via) —>
Social categorisation (facilitates) —>
Distinct social groups —>
- In-group (‘we’) —> satisfied social identity
- Out-group (‘they’) —> dissatisfied social identity
Moscovici (1969) - Minority influence study (x7)
- To see if a consistent minority could influence a majority to give an incorrect answer, in a colour perception task.
- Groups of 6 shown 36 slides, which were all varying shades of blue.
- Consistent condition = the 2 confederates said that all 36 slides were green.
- Inconsistent condition = the 2 confederates said that 24 of the slides were green and 12 were blue.
- Consistent condition: real ppts agreed on 8.2% of the trials.
- Inconsistent condition: real ppts agreed on 1.25% of the trials.
- If a minority is consistent in their view then they are also showing commitment to their cause.
