Social Influence Flashcards
What are the 3 types of conformity
- compliance
- identification
- internalisation
What are the 2 explaintuons for conformity
- normative social influence - need to be accepted in social setting, seeking validation from others
- informational social influence- unsure seeking validation for right answers thinking other ppl know more than u wanting to fit in
Evidence for NSI
Aschs study
What happened in Aschs study
- 123 American male students asked to take part in “visual perception task”
• asked ppts if line A,B,C is closest to line x
• deception took place
• naive ppts sat in room w confederages and asked to identify length of line
• confederates told to answer wrongly
What are some of the outcomes of Aschs study
• 99% gave right answers when alone showing they trusted their own judgement
•36.8% of ppts gave wrong answers in trials
• 75% conformed in at least one trial
•25% never conformed
• conformity decreased when theee were 2 ppts together
A03 points ab Aschs study
•high internal validity, replicable
• lab experiment so variables were controlled there were no extraneous variables
• outcomes were scientific evidence
Limitations for Asch A03
• cannot be generalised due to lack of ecological validity + low mundane realism
• in a strictly controlled environment so outcomes doesng relate to real life settings
•only American men used doesng tell us ab other cultures
• ethical issues as ppts were deceived
Evidence for information social influence
• Lucas et al
• gave participants maths questions
• some participants labelled their maths ability as “poor”
Outcomes of Lucas et sl
• conformity rose when maths questions got harder as ppts didn’t want to seem wrong
• lucas et al supports achs study
Limitations to Lucas ey al A03
• often difficult to establish differences between NSI and ISI in real life
• doesn’t take into account individuals differences
• cannot explain why some ppl resist conformity
What was the aim of zimbardos study
• he wanted to see how people obeyed to social roles tosay
What happened in zimbardos experiment
• Stanford prison experiment
• posters put up to choose ppl randomly allocated as “prisoners” or “guards”
• both given uniform to differentiate between their social roles
• prisoners given prisoner clothes
• guards given khaki uniform w glasses to avoid eye contact w prisoners
•pots were given psychological test prior to experiment
Zimbardo A03 strength
Ppts allocated roles randomly increasing internal validity
Zimbardo A03 weaknesses
• lacks mundane realism wasnt realistic
• doesn’t take into acc individual diff as not all guards acted cruelly
•many ethical codes were broken
•ppts subjectsd to psychological harm
•right to withdraw became hard as Zimbardo was playing role of superintendent and got carried away
Example for explanation for obedience
Agentic shift- when we become agents to authority
When orders come from an authoritarian figure we deny personal responsibly as we think other person will take responsibility
What are the 2 opposing sets of demands milgrwm links to agentic shift that MILGRAM stated
- external authority; authority of authoritarian figure
- internal authority; authority of our own conscience
What is agentic shift
When a fully obedient person undergoes a psychological shift + see themselves as agents of authority
What is autonomous state
• opposite to agentic state
• individual has control over their own actions and can act according to their own principles
• has autonomy over own actions
A01 milgrams
• 40 American men at Yale asked to take part in experiment
• told it was a “memory test”
• 2 confederates to manipulate expedient
• one confederate was experimenter who posed at the legitimate authoritarian figure wearing a “white lab coat” to differentiate
• other confederate played the “learner” who was shocked
• electric shock machine intended to be used on learner if answered any questions wrong
• shock went up to 450 volts labelled “severe”
• experimenter would encourage the ppts to press the shock button
What was milgrwm aim
To see if ppl would obey a legitimate authoritarian figure even if task given was morally wrong
Milgrams findings A03
• 65% of ppl obeyed and shcoked all the way to 450 volts .. showing discomfort through body Lang however ppl would go to those lengths to obey
• only 12.5% of ppl stopped when confederate was in pain
Evaluate milgrams A03
• lab experiment variables highly controlled so it lacks ECOLOGICAL VALIDITY as it doesn’t relate to real life
• GENDER BIAS confederates and researchers both male and American if women used obedience levels may have dropped as sympathy
• breaks ethical codes as ppts deceived in multiple ways - allocation of roles by milgram was not random as milgrams confederates was always the learner
- milgram send dished ppts after
More on milgram A03
• milgrams experimenter displayed destructive obedience when encouraging teacher to continue shocks
• ppts displayed destructive obedience as they were uncomfortable via body language so they acted against their conscience
• the legitimacy of authority is supported by cultural differences
In countries such as Australia where obedience to authoritarian figures is lower obedience rates are also lower
Some variations to milgrams study and do they support his findings?
• milgrams variation where experiment was not wearing a lab coat- obedience levels dropped so supported experiment
• slater et al replicated experiment with a virtual learner on film - ppl still obeyed but heart rate rose indicating stress - destructive obedience shown again
Evaluation for milgram- agentic state
Agentic shift couldn’t explain y some ppts ( 12.5% ) didn’t obey as in theory they all should’ve been in agentic state
Cannot be used to explain all obedience
What did holland say about milgrams study
Ppts knew experiment wasn’t realistic as Yale was a prestigious uni wouldnt subject ppl to harm and said it was a “pact of ignorance”