Social influence Flashcards
Conformity
A change in a person’s behaviour or opinions as a result of real or imagined pressure from a person
Ashch’s baseline procedure aim
-To what extent people will confrom to the opinion of others even where the anwer is unambiguous
Variables investigated by Asch
1.Group size
2.Unaminity
3.Task difficulty
Group size in Asch’s variables findings
-Number of confederates from 1 to 15 (group size 2 to 16)
-Found a curvilinear relationship between group size and conformity rate
-Conformity increased only up to a point
-With 3 confederates conformity rose to 31.8% and levelled off
-Suggests people are sensitive to views of others because one or two confederates were enough to sway opinion
Unaminity in Asch’s variables findings original
-Added presence of dissenter who either gave a correct answer or a different but still wrong answer
-Partcipant conformed less in presence of a dissenter
-Conformity rate decreased to less than a quarter when majority was unanimous (no dissenter)
-Suggests the influence of the majority depends to a large extent on unaminity
-Non conformity more likely when cracks perceieved
Task difficulty in Asch’s variables findings original
-Made lines comparison more ambigous, more difficult
-Conformity increased with difficulty
-ISI
Asch’s baseline procedure enact
-123 American men tested
- 2 cards of white lines . 1st line and second card only 1 matches
-Tested of groups 6-8
-Participant seated last or next to last
-Confederates all gave the wrong answer
-Genuine participants on average conformed 36.8% of the time
-25% didnt conform
Types of conformity
Internalisation , Identification & Complicance by Kelman
Internalisation
-Genuinely accepts group norms
-Private and public change of opinions and behaviour
-Permanent because of internalised attitudes
-Persists in absence of other group members
Identification
-Conformity because we value aspects of the group
-Want to be a pet if the group
-Publicly change opinions and behaviour to be accepted by the group even if don’t privately agree
Compliance
-Superficial and temporary conformity
-Privately not changing opinions or behaviour
-Particular behaviour or opinion stops as soon as group pressure stops
Explanations for conformity
Informational social influence & Normative social influence
ISI
-Need to be right
-Cognitive process
-Leads to internalisation
-Occurs in new situations or ambiguity or crisis situations (quick decisions)
NSI
-Need to be liked
-Emotional process
-Leads to compliance
-Situations with strangers with concern for rejection and friends for social approval
-Stressful situations with greater need for social support
Zimbardo’s research execute for conformity to social roles
-Mock prison in Stanford university’s basement
- 21 Student volunteer samples who tested as emotionally stable
-Coin flipped to Randomly assign to prisoner or guard
-Prisoners arrested at 2AM from their home
-Finger printed and strip searched
-Deloused
-Encouraged to conform to social roles;
- Prisoners could “apply for parole” and guard reminded that they had complete power over prisoners
-6/14 days
-$15 a day
Zimbaro’s research Uniform
-Deindividualistion
-Guards
Guard uniform, wooden club, handcuffs and mirror shades
-Prisoners
Loose smock, cap to cover hair, number for a name
Zimbardos research findings
-Guards were harsh
-Within 2 days, prisoners rebelled
-Prisoners ripped uniforms and shouted and swore at guards
-Guards retaliated with fire extinguishers
-Guards used “divide and rule’ tactics by making prisoners fight eachother
-Prisoners harassed to remind their powerlessness
-Frequent head counts at night to shout their number
-Prisoners can write letters home
-Made prisoners jumping jacks and push-ups
-After rebellion was put down prisoners showed regret depression and anxiety
-Even prison chaplains conformed to roles as if a real prison
Zimbardo prisoners specifics
-#8612 Mental break down, threatened to harm himself and call a lawyer . Was let go
-#819 Hunger strike, let go
-#416 Hunger strike , but thrown in to “the hole”. Believed it was real prison was ran by psychologists instead of government
Milgram’s baseline study for obedience
-40 American men aged 20-50 volunteered for a memory study through newspaper advert or mail shot
-From New Haven USA
-$4.50
-They drew lots that were fixed to be Teacher of Learner
-Always got Teacher
-Experimenter , confederate wore grey lab coat
-Learner called Mr Wallace strapped to chair wired with electrodes in another room
-Teacher given small real shock to show real shock
-Leaner had to learn pair of words and everytime got wrong, got acelleration of shocks by teacher pressing switches on fake shock machine up to 450 V (15 steps)
-Labelled ‘slight shock’, ‘intense shock’, to ‘danger-severe shock’
-At 300V, learner pounded on the wall and have no response to next question
-At 315v, learner pounded but silent for rest or procedure
-
Prods for Milgram baseline
-Please continue / please go on
-The experient requires that you continue
-It is absolutely essential that you continue
-You have no other choice, you must go on
Findings of Milgram’s research baseline
-100% gave shocks up to 300V
-12.5% (5) stopped at 300V (Intense shock)
-65% gave up to 450V , fully obedient
-Milgram gave qualitative data of observations of teacher: Many had Extreme tension, sweat,tremble, stutter, groan and dig fingernails into hands
-3 Had ‘full blown uncontllable seizures’
Other data of Milgram’s research baseline
-Before experiment Milgram asked psychology students to predict
-They predicted no more than 3% would continue to 450V
-Students underestimated obdedience of people
-Participants were debriefed and assured their behaviour was normal
-Followup questionnaire, 84% were glad to have participated
Aim of Milgram baseline
-Wondered if German people wre different as they were more obedient
-Why German population obeyed Hitler’s command to murder 6 million Jews, 5 million Romanis, homosexuals, black germans, poles and others during WW2
Milgram conclusions baseline
German people are not ‘different’
-Americans were willing to obey despite of harm
-Though he suspected other factors encouraged obedience
Nurse disobedience
-Hofling arranged for an unknown doctor to telephone 22 nurses individually to administer an overdose of a Astroten , not on their ward list.
-95% (21/22) obeyed but were stopped
-Rank and Jacobson replicated Hofling’s study with some alters that the original had to that maximised obedience
-Made a known doctor in real life order an overdose of a known drug of Valium
-2/18 obeyed then were stopped
Situational variables of obedience
Proximity, Location, Uniform
Proximity in obedience
-From 65% in different rooms to 40% in same room
-Touch proximity: 30% When teacher had to place learners hand onto electroshock plate if learner refused
-Remote instruction: Experimenter left room and ordered through telephone 20.5% and often pretended to give shocks
-
Proximity explanation
Decreased proximity allows people to psychologically distnce themselves from consequences of their actions