social influence Flashcards
types of conformity: internalisation
long lasting -
when you accept the group norms
private and public change of opinions / behaviour
persists even in the absence of the group
types of conformity: identification
short term change of behaviour ONLY in the PRESENCE of a group eg acting more professional at work
types of conformity: compliance
(what level of conformity and why is it likely to occur)
temporary - go along with the group to gain their approval. you publicly agree but privately disagree (lowest level of conformity)
likely to occur as a result of normative social influence
explanation of social influence: informational social influence
cognitive - they want to be right, they look to others to have the right answer in a situation
usually leads to internalisation and occurs when we don’t have the knowledge or expertise to make our own decisions.
explanation of social influence: normative social influence
the emotional need to be accepted from a group drives compliance, wants to avoid embarrassment of disagreeing with the majority
someone conforms because they want to be liked and part of a group
variables for affecting conformity: group size
little conformity where majority is 1 or 2 people
majority of 3 people increased conformity by 30%
further increases didn’t increase conformity
variables for affecting conformity: unanimity
breaking the groups consensus by one confederate dropped conformity fast
variables for affecting conformity: task difficulty
conformity increased as task difficulty increases (supports ISI)
conformity study - Jenness
101 psychology students estimated number of beans in a glass jar (ambiguous situation)
- split into groups of 3 for answering, but given another chance to individually estimate
- nearly all Ps changed their answer
females had a larger average change than males - gender bias
evaluating conformity
- naffiliators (type of personality) want to relate to other people so are more likely to conform so NSI may not explain conformity in everyone
- difficult to distinguish between NSI and ISI, unanimous majority makes conformity more likely, is it because we want to fit in or we believe everyone knows something we don’t
+ real life application - better behaviours can be encouraged by implying other people do it eg signs saying hotel guests use fewer towels shows reduction in towel use
evaluating Asch’s study using Perrin and Spencer’s study
- Perrin and Spencer’s study shows <1% conformity rate, Asch lacks temporal validity (america in the 50s, communism, mccarthyism so everyone conformed due to fear) his results are no longer true, the culture is different
> however PandS study Ps were science and engineering students - already smart and one type of person, more involved in difficult tasks so may have more self efficacy (confidence) and be less likely to conform
> in general conformity rates are low unless there is a cost to the person (P on probation with probation officers)
evaluating Asch’s study
- ethical issues, deception, stress (protection from harm)
+ real life application eg juries in court (give people self efficacy) - cultural bias, Smith and Bond found collectivist cultures show higher conformity than individualist like Asch’s study, may lack generalisability
Asch’s study of conformity
123 american men in groups of 6, 1 participant, 5 confederates
- presented with 4 lines, 1 standard line and 3 comparison lines
- asked to state which was the same length as the standard line
- real P always answered last or second to last
- confederates give the same incorrect answer, see if P would agree
found: 36.8% conformed, 75% conformed at least once (in a control, only 1% gave incorrect answers. this eliminates eyesight/perception as an EV, increasing validity)
Zimbardo prison study aim and method
aim: investigate to what extent people conform to social roles
- mock prison experiment (so you don’t get people who are already in that job, otherwise there’s no conformity)
- 24 male volunteers - students (gender bias, Z sees world through male perspective, however more reflective of prison)
- assessed for emotional stability (trying to be ethical)
- randomly allocated as guard or prisoner (reduces bias)
- given guard uniform/loose smock and prisoner number (clear distinction between roles)
Zimbardo prison study findings
- guards conformed to role quickly - treating prisoners harshly, enforcing rules, punishments, humiliation, isolation
- prisoners rebelled, ripped off their numbers
- prisoners became subdued, depressed
- one prisoner released after psychological concerns
- two more released on day 4
- one prisoner went on hunger strike
- study had to be stopped after 6 days instead of intended 14
Zimbardo prison study conclusion
social roles have a strong influence
this can explain problematic behaviours - soldiers in the holocaust and abu ghraib
evaluating Zimbardo
- lack of ecological validity - not a real prison
- Zimbardo may have overstated conformity - 2/3rds of the guards were fair
+ good internal validity - random allocation to roles - sample - gender bias and culture bias (individualist americans)
- investigator effects - Zimbardo was the prison warden