Social Influence Flashcards
Types of conformity AO1
Internalisation - when person genuinely accepts group norms, permanent change (internalised), private + public change
Identification - Identify with group we value, want to be a part of it, don’t have to privately agree with everything
Compliance - Going along with others in public but not private, stops as soon as group pressure stops
Explanations for conformity - ISI AO1
Information - Cognitive process - people have the desire to be right, go along with others as you think they are right
Ambiguous situations where it isnt clear whats right and decision has to be made quick
Explanations for conformity - NSI AO1
Norms - Emotional process - social approval than rejection, we pay attention to norms as they regulate behaviour
Unfamiliar, stressful situations - need for social support, look to others on how to behave
NSI+ISI AO3
+ research support, lucas et al students had to give answers to maths problems, more conformity to incorrect answers when problems were difficult and maths ability poor, isi - people conform in ambiguous situations to be right so go along with others as they must be right
+ Asch (1951) research support, pps asked why they agreed with wrong answer, due to fear of disapproval, conformity rates fell to 12.5% when asked to write answers down - nsi - social approval
-two process approach is over simplified - states behaviour is due to either nsi/isi - but conformity was reduced when dissenter present who reduced power of nsi OR isi in aschs study - isnt possible to know whether nsi/isi at work.
-individual differences - asch and perrin and spencer (1980) found students less conformist, knowledgeable ppl less influenced by right view so differences in how individuals respond to ISI.
Variables affecting conformity Asch (1955) AO1
Group size - two confederates conformity to wrong answer was 13.6%, 3 confederates 31.8%, adding any more made little difference
Unanimity - Having a dissenter enabled naiive pp to behave independently and reduced conformity
Task difficulty - Conformity increased with diffculty - ISI look to others as we believe theyre right in ambiguous situations
Variables affecting conformity Asch (1955) AO3
- Ethical issues - naiive pps deceived, should be weighed up against benefits tho highlighted ppls susceptibility to conformity and its variables
- Findings only apply to american men - only men, neto argued women may be more conformist as theyre concerned about social approval, from usa individualist culture, smith and bond argued conformity higher in collectivist cultures like china - more concerned with group needs - conformity may be higher than asch found
- Situation and task artificial - demand characteristics pps knew they were in a study - line task trivial so no reason not to conform and was in groups - cant be generalised to everyday situations conformity may have consequences and more direct than just groups
- findings only apply to certain situations - pps were with strangers they wanted to impress, williams and sogon found conformity higher when majority were friends - asch effect varies depending on circumstances.
Conformity to social roles - Zimbardo AO1
Zimbardo (1973) Stanford Prison Experiment -
Tested whether brutality of prison guards was due to personality or situation
24 students randomly assigned roles of guards or prisoners. Prisoners heavily regulated had to follow rules set by guards
De individuation prisoners numbers were used not names and guards had own uniform and had complete power over prisoners.
Prisoners rebelled within 2 days, guards harassed the prisoners and highlighted differences in social roles by creating opportunities to punish
Guards behaviour had psychological effects on prisoners e.g. after rebellion prisoners were depressed
Study finished in 6 days rather than 14
Revealed the power of situation - the more the guards identified with their roles, the more brutal they were
Conformity to Social Roles - Zimbardo AO3
+ researchers had some control over variables - emotionally stable pps recruited and randomly assigned, behaviour due to situation not personality, increases internal validity
- Fromm: Zimbardo understated dispositional social influences - only a third behaved brutally, others behaved fairly - over exaggerating power of situation - could be fair despite situational pressure to conform to social role
- Lacks research support - reicher and haslam diff findings prisoners took control - tajfels social identity theory - prisoners refused to accept limits of their role - brutality in zimabardos due to shared social identity
- Ethical issues - zimbardo was prison superintendent too who responded to student who wanted to leave as being worried about prison - couldnt protect pps from harm - researcher and superintendent roles clashed
Obedience (Milgram) AO1
MIlgram 1963
-40 male pps recruited
- confederate was a learner and experimenter who wore lab coat, true pp was teacher
- pps told they could leave study at any time
- teacher had to give learner slight to severe shocks for wrong answers
- after 315 volt shock learner pounded on wall and gave no response and experimenter gave teacher instruction to treat it as a wrong answer and keep going on even when teacher felt unsure of continuing
- no pp stopped below 300 volts, 65% stopped at 450 volts, pps showed signs of exteme tension
-pps debriefed and assured their behaviour was normal in the end
Obedience (Milgram) AO3
+ good external validity - experimenter teacher relationship reflected real life authority relationships, hofling et al - levels of obedience by nurses to doctors were high - milgrams study generalisable
- lacks internal validity - orne and holland suggested pps guessed electric shock were fake but carried on just for the pay, but in another study pps gave real shocks to puppy and 100% females gave a fatal shock - 70% of milgrams pps believed shocks were genuine so milgrams may be genuin
- tajfels social identity theory is alternative explanation - obedience is about group identification in milgrams, reicher and haslam - only 4th prod from experimenter demanded obedience as u had no choice but to go on - shocks given as ppl identified themselves w experimenter as a scientist
- ethical issues - pps believed allocation of roles were random but were deceived, believed shocks were real - damages reputation of psychologists - makes pps less likely to volunteer in future
Explanations of obedience based on situational variables AO1
Proximity - When teacher and learner were in same room, obedience rate dropped from 65% to 40% and to 30% when pp had to put learners hand onto shock plate - hard to ignore suffering, when experimenter gave orders by telephone obedience dropped to 20% so orders easier to resist
Location - Changed from Yale University to run down building where obedience fell to 47.5% - experimenter had less authority
Uniform - When role of experimenter was taken over by ordinary member of public in everyday clothes obedience rate fell to 20% - uniform is symbol of strong visual authority
Explanations of obedience based on situational variables AO3
+ control of variables - altered one variable at a time others kept constant - certain that variable showed cause and effect
+research support - bickman - confederate dressed in jacket/milkman/security guard, more liekly to obey security guard than jacket - uniform is strong visual authority and situational factor
- lacks internal validity - orne and holland - pps likely to realise procedure was fake because of variables - when experimenter was replaced by member of public pp may have worked it out so unclear whether results due to obedience or cuz pp acted it out
Explanations of obedience based on social psychological factors AO1
Agentic State - Person becomes agent when they act on behalf of another person, autonomous state is the opposite - responsible for own actions, own principles, Agentic shift when we see someone as an authority figure due to their power in social hierarchy, binding factors - make people ignore the effects of their behaviour and reduces moral strain maybe by denying the damage theyre doing to victims
Legitimacy of Authority - Authority figure when someone has power in Social hierarchy - legitimate authority - agreed by society - allows society to run smoothly - power to punish appropriately to people we trust - BUT some use legitimate authority in destructive ways (Hitler)
Explanations of obedience based on social psychological factors AO3
+research support for agentic state- Blass and Schmidt showed students a film of milgrams study and asked who has responsibility over damage to learmer they said experimenter as they was a scientist - legitimate authority - top of hierarchy - recognises legitimate authority as a cause
-agentic shift doesnt explain many of research findings - some pps didnt obey humans are social animals in hierarchy so should obey, in hofling et als study nurses didnt show anxiety when giving responsibility to doctor so agentic shift only accounts for some situations
-agentic state cannot account for behaviour of nazis - mandel described german reserve police who shot civilians during ww2 even tho they werent ordered to so challenges agentic state as they were not powerless to disobey
+legitimacy of authority has real life applications - kelman and hamilton suggest vietnam war explained by power hierarchy -soldiers assume orders given by hierarchy to be legal even to rape - legitimacy of authority explains why destructive obedience used
Obedience - dispositional explanations AO1
Adorno et al (1950) - Authoritarian Personality - over strict parenting - child socialised to obey authority without question - prejudice - child feels constrained - aggression - but child shows this to those weaker than them as they are afraid they will be disciplined if they show it to parents - traits such aggression, blind obedience, conformist formed authoritarian personality
-The F-scale - Adorno et al (1950) developed scale to measure how strongly people express authoritarian traits - those who scored high identified with strong ppl and were scornful of the weak
