social influence Flashcards
types of social influence
- conformity
- obedience
- minority influence
what is conformity?
- defined as ‘Yielding to group pressure’ by Crutchfield in 1955
- it is a change in a person’s behaviour or opinions as a result of real or imagined pressure from a group or person.
- Eg. fashion trends, opinions on people/things
Kelman 1958 differentiated between 3 types of conformity, what are they?
compliance, identification, internalisation
compliance
- superficial type of conformity
- conform for acceptance
- publicly change behaviours/opinions but privately disagree
- short-lived change, once perceived group pressure has gone, the behaviour/opinion goes too
- eg. fashion trends within friend group
identification
- moderate type of conformity
- change behaviours/opinions for group membership or to adhere to a social role that is valued
- change is not permanent so considered public but not private, once need for conformity to a social role is removed the behaviour reverts
- eg. teacher caring about uniform whilst at school
internalisation
- deep type of conformity
- genuinely accept group norms
- group beliefs become part of personal belief system (attitudes internalised), changing both public and private behaviours/opinions
- change is permanent, once the perceived group pressure goes the behaviours/opinions remain
- such as going vegan/vegetarian
what is the Dual-Process Dependency Model?
it was created by Deutsch and Gerard (1955) to explain why people conform. It gives two reasons for conformity both based on our dependency on others: normative and informational.
the normative explanation for conformity
(Dual-Process Dependency Model)
- conformity is based on our desire to be liked
- it occurs for approval or respect from other members of the group
- it does not lead to a person changing their personal opinions
- associated with compliance
the informational explanation for conformity
(Dual-Process Dependency Model)
- conformity is based on our desire to be right
- it occurs when we look to other for information on how to behave, therefore, conformity happens due to a belief that others have superior knowledge or judgment
- it does lead to people changing their opinions
- associated with internalisation
Abu Ghraib NSI/ISI example
(compliance, normative)
- reserve US soldier in Abu Ghraib prison stumbled across shocking images of his colleagues torturing Iraqi prisoners
- he knew it was wrong but it took him 3 weeks to hand int he photographs
- until he handed them in, he continued to laugh along with the group
War of the Worlds NSI/ISI example
(internalisation, informational)
- American radio drama anthology series aired a halloween episode based on H.G.Wells’ novel in which the first two thirds were presented as news bulletins suggesting to many listeners that an actual alien invasion was in progress
- in the days following the adaption, there was widespread outrage and panic by certain listeners who believed the events were real
evaluation of normative and informational social influence
+ supporting research for informational - Sherif (1935)
+ supporting research for normative - Shultz et al. (2008)
+ practical applications as we can use them to understand and alter behaviour in the real world, eg. the Abu Ghraib situation shows how the desire for acceptance can outweigh moral code
+ explain social change through creating internalisation eg. the suffragettes
- individual differences - nAffiliators who want to relate to other people and are concerned with being liked - so conformity cannot be explained by one general theory
- often both processes are involved which Deutsch and Gerard do not consider, this casts serious doubt over the view of ISI and NSI as two processes operating independently
Sherif (1935) aim and method
Aim
- to demonstrate that people conform to group norms when they are put in an unclear situation
Method
- lab experiment using the autokinetic effect (a visual hallucination where a small spot of light - projected onto a screen - in a dark room will appear to move, even though it is still)
- participants were individually tested for their estimates on how far the light moved
- participants then tested in group of three where two of three had similar answers and the other was very different
- each person in the group then had to say out loud how far they thought the light had moved
Sherif (1935) results and conclusion
Results
- found the group converged to a common estimate
- the person whose estimate was different to the other two conformed to the majority view
Conclusion
- the results show that when in an unclear situation a person will look to others (who know more/better) for guidance (ie. adopt the group norm)
- they want to do the right thing but may lack the appropriate information, observing others can provide this information
explanation for the results of Sherif (1935)
(estimates on how far a light had moved, answered independently then placed into groups of 3 where two had similar answers)
- internalisation
- informational because they have a desire to be right
Shultz et al. (2008) aim and method
Aim
- to investigate how to improve conservation behaviour in hotel guests
Method
- printed notes were placed in rooms that gave suggestions on what other guest were doing in regard to various things
- one of the notes told those staying that 75% of their guests reused their towels rather than requesting new ones
- they then measured how often new towels were required
Shultz et al. (2008) findings, conclusion, and explanations
Findings
- it was discovered that guests were 25% less likely to request a new towel when these notes were left in their room
Conclusion
- people will change their behaviour based on perceived pressure to do so due to other guests’ apparent behaviour
Explanations
- compliance
- normative because they wanted approval from others
what model do normative and informational explanations come from?
Dual-Process Dependency Model - created by Deutsch and Gerard (1955) to explain why people conform.
Solomon Asch (1955) - aim
To investigate the extent to which an individual will conform to a majority who give obvious wrong answers
Solomon Asch (1955) - procedure
- participants were 123 male students from the USA who volunteered to take part in a visual perception study
- each individual was placed into groups of between 6-8 actors
- they either sat in a line or in a circle with the real participant sat at the end (or one before the end)
- each participant was asked to identify which line (out of 3) matched with a given line
- on 12/18 ‘critical’ trials the confederates gave identical wrong answers with the real participant giving their answers after the confederates
Solomon Asch (1955) - results
- overall there was an average 36.8% conformity rate:
- 75% conformed to at least one wrong answer
- 25% never conformed
- 5% conformed to all wrong answers
- Asch interviewed the participants after the experiment. He wanted to know why they had conformed. Through these interviews he found that 3 kinds of distortion had taken place (perception, judgement, action)
perception distortion (Asch, 1955)
- believe they perceived it wrong eg. eye-sight
- don’t realise the others are wrong
judgement distortion (Asch, 1955)
- aren’t sure if their judgement is accurate
- realise the other answers are wrong
- believe group to be right
action distortion (Asch, 1955)
- normative conforming
- know the others are wrong but conform anyway
Solomon Asch (1955) - conclusions
- judgements of individuals are affected by majority opinions
- there are individual differences in extent to which participants conformed publicly or privately
what variations did Asch do on his original experiment?
- group size
- unanimity
- task difficulty
group size variation (Asch, 1955)
Conformity trials were carried out in groups of 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 10, and 15. There was still only one participant in each group.
For 1 confederate - conformity was 3%
For 2 - 12.8%
For 3 - 32% (similar percentage to the original experiment which had up to 7 confederates)
For 15 - slightly dropped but Asch didn’t report the percentage
explanation/analysis of Asch’s group size variation
> the more people there are in the group, the higher conformity is, however there is an optimum number after which conformity begins to decrease
> this number is somewhere between 3 and 15
> it could be because the participant starts to guess the aim of the study
unanimity variation (Asch, 1955)
- Asch decided to add a dissenter (rebel) into the group.
- When there was one confederate giving the correct answer: 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.
> gives social support to give what you believe to be the correct answer - When there was one confederate giving a different wrong answer: the rate of conformity dropped 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.
task difficulty variation (Asch, 1955)
- When a task is easy we are less likely to conform. As the task becomes more challenging, participants will begin turning to others to help them give the correct answer.
- When the line lengths were more similar (and therefore the task harder): the rate of conformity increased, although Asch did not report the percentage.
Asch evaluation
- population bias since volunteer sampling is often unrepresentative of the target group (also gender and cultural bias given they were all males from the United States)
- cultural differences in conformity - Smith et al. (2006) analysed the results of Asch-type studies across a number of different cultures. Average conformity rate was 31.2%. Individualist cultures had a rate of about 25% whereas collectivist cultures had a much higher level of conformity at 27%.
> conformity viewed more favourably - low mundane realism and the setting has low ecological validity
- ethical issues of deception - perhaps feelings of embarrassment or that there was something wrong with them (their eyes for example)
- demand characteristics after multiple trials
- low temporal validity/era-dependent eg. Perrin and Spencer (1980) repeated his research and found very little conformity
explanation of identification
Each social situation has its own set of social norms. Social norms tell us how to behave from situation to situation. Conforming to social roles involves identification. With each social role adopted, behaviour changes to fit the social norms of that situation. As an individual moves to another social situation, their behaviour will change to suit the new social norms. They are then playing out (identifying with) a different social role.
the hypotheses involved in Zimbardo’s study
- dispositional hypothesis (violence and degradation were found due to the ‘nature’ of the people within the system - both guards and prisoners)
- situational hypothesis (saw violence and degradation as a product of the ‘prison soil’ aka the interactions between environmental factors such as the brutal and dehumanising conditions of the prisons)
Zimbardo designed an experiment in a mock prison with ‘average’ people who had no record of violence or criminality. If no brutality occurred, the dispositional hypothesis would be supported and vice versa.
Zimbardo (1973) - aim
To investigate whether dispositional or situational factors affected behaviour when it came to identifying with a social role.
Zimbardo (1973) - procedure
- 24 US male student volunteers
- observational study (overt, participant, controlled)
- all had physical and psychological assessments before participating and were deemed healthy
- participants were randomly assigned a role of prisoner or guard
- prisoners were unexpectedly arrested at home
- deloused, given prison uniform and ID number (told not to use their names)
- given some rights eg. three meals, three supervised toilet trips, and two visits per week
- guards were given uniforms (clubs, whistles, reflective sunglasses) also not referred to by name
- guards were instructed to keep the prisoners under control but not to use violence (ultimately they were violent)
- Zimbardo took on the role of prison superintendent
Zimbardo (1973) - results
- within a day there were rebellions in which prisoners ripped off their numbers
- as a result they were stripped off their blankets and locked in their cells
- throughout the experiment prisoners were humiliated, sleep-deprived from being woken-up in the night, and locked in a 2x2 foot dark cupboard (incl. one prisoner who went on hunger strike and was force fed)
- prisoners rapidly became depressed, passive, and displayed serious stress related reactions
- began to think of themselves as real prisoners (identification) eg. asking for parole rather than to withdraw
- lasted just 6 days due to the psychological/physical harm being caused
Zimbardo (1973) - conclusions
- social roles appear to have a strong influence on an individual’s behaviour. The guards became brutal and the prisoners became submissive.
- social roles can be very easily adopted depending on the situation.
‘Certain very powerful social situations, settings and structures can shape and transform the behaviour of the persons who enter them, suppress individual differences and compromise deeply held values.’ - Zimbardo after the experiment
evaluation of Zimbardo’s 1973 study
- unrepresentative sample (all male students from the US)
- may lack realism eg. Banuazizi and Mohaveda (1975)
> however, McDermott (2019) suggests that they did behave as if the study was real - ethics, Zimbardo failed to protect them from harm, did not give them a right to withdraw
> on the other hand, the study followed the guidelines of the Stanford University ethics committee and no lasting damage was done - lack of research support eg. Reicher and Haslam (2006) had very different findings - social identity theory
- there are questions over zimbardo’s role since he played a superintendent, decreased validity since he could have affected the results
did Zimbardo’s study lack realism?
- eg. Banuazizi and Mohaveda (1975) argued that the ppt were play-acting their role based on stereotypes rather than conforming, demand characteristics - doesn’t tell us much about conformity to social roles in prison
> however, McDermott (2019) suggests that they did behave as if the study was real, 90% of prisoner conversation was about prison life and prisoner 416 expressed the view that it was a real prison but one run by psychologists - high internal validity
was Zimbardo’s study unethical?
- eg. a participant who wanted to leave spoke to Zimbardo but he responded like a prison superintendent rather than as a researcher, failed to protect them from harm, did not give them a right to withdraw
> on the other hand, the study followed the guidelines of the Stanford University ethics committee, participants knew which rights were going to be suspended. Zimbardo also checked on the participants for years afterwards and concluded that no lasting damage was done
lack of research support for zimbardo’s study
eg. Reicher and Haslam (2006) partially replicated the study and had very different findings with the prisoners taking control and subjecting the guards to harassment - this could be a result of social identity theory with the guards not forming a shared identity
What is obedience?
- a form of social influence where an individual follows a direct order
- the order usually comes from an authority figure who has the power to punish behaviour that is deemed to be disobedient
Is obedience to authority a good thing?
+ protects us
+ maintains social order
+ prevents chaos
- doesn’t allow for individuality
- abuse of power
- blindly following authority
world examples of obedience
- the Vietnam war (Americans killing civilians)
- Burma 2007 - violent troops quash peaceful demonstrations against military rule
- Nazi Germany
- Jonestown religious cult mass suicide
- Hofling (1966) > Rank and Jacobson (1977)
- Bickman (1974) study on uniform and obedience
- Clement (2002) article about the a plane collision, obedience to people vs machines
