Social Influence Flashcards
Asch’s researchers
123 men tested to see if they would conform
Asked to state which line was longer
Confederates would say the wrong answer
Participants agreed with the confederates 36.8% of the time
Asch- Group size
Varied number of confederates from one to fifteen
Conformity increased with group size but only up to a point
Three confederates was 31.8%
Presence of more confederates made little difference
Suggests that people are very sensitive to the views of others
Asch- Unanimity
Confederates who disagreed with each other
Participants conformed less in the presence of a dissenter
Rate decreased to less than 25% when the majority unanimous
Suggests that influence of the majority depends to a large extent on it being unanimous
Asch- Task difficulty
Made the stimulus line and the comparison lines more similar
Harder for participants to see the differences between the lines
Found conformity increased
Natural to look to other people for guidance and to assume that they are right and you are wrong
Asch’s Ao3
Limitation- artificial situation and task
- Demand characteristics
Limitation- limited application
- Only studied American men
Strength- research support
- Lucas et al- conformed when maths problems were harder
Types of conformity
Internalisation
Person genuinely accepts the group norms
Private and public change
Types of conformity
Identification
Conform to opinions of a group because we value something about the group
Public change but not private change
Types of conformity
Compliance
Simply going along with others in public
Not changing personal opinions
Explanations of conformity
Informational social influence
We follow the behaviour of the group because we want to be right
Leads to permanent change in opinions
Explanations of conformity
Normative social influence
What is normal or typical behaviour for a social group
Gain social approval
Temporary change in opinions
Explanations of conformity
Ao3
Strength- research support for NSI
- Asch; participants said they conformed because they felt self conscious about giving correct answer
Strength- research support for ISI
- Lucas; participants relied on answers given so they weren’t wrong
Limitation- individual differences in NSI
- does not predict conformity in every case
Zimbardo procedure
Mock prison
21 ‘emotionally stable’ men
Randomly assigned guard or prisoner
Encouraged to conform to social roles through uniform and instructions about behaviour
Guards given guard uniform
Prisoners given prison uniform
Zimbardo findings
Guards treated prisoners harshly
Prisoners rebelled in two days
Guards used divide and rule tactics
Harassed prisoners
A prisoner went on hunger strike
Study ended after 6 days rather than 14 days
Zimbardo evaluation
Strength- control
- control over key variables
Limitation- lack of realism
- did not have realism of a true prison
Limitation- exaggerates the power of rules
- Zimbardo may have exaggerated the power of social roles to influence behaviour
Milgram
Baseline procedure
40 men volunteered to take part
Learner was strapped to a chair and wired up with electrodes
Each time an error was made the participant deliver a stronger shock to the learner
If participant asked to stop, experiment gave 4 prods
Participants were debriefed at the end
Milgram
Baseline findings
100% went to 300 volts
65% continued to 450 volts
Participants sweated, stuttered, three had seizures
Milgram
Baseline Ao3
Strength- Research support
- Le Jeu de la Mort
Limitation- low internal validity
- 75% said they believed shocks were genuine
Limitation- alternative interpretation of findings
- conclusions about blind obedience may not be justified
Milgram
Proximity
Participant and learner were in the same room
Dropped from 65% to 40%
Touch proximity- 30%
Remote instruction- 20%
Milgram
Location
Run down office block
Dropped 47.5%
Milgram
Uniform
Confederate in everyday clothes as experiment
Dropped to 20%
Situational variables- Milgram
Ao3
Strength- Research support
- Bickman- more likely to pick up little from security guard than suit and tie
Strength- Cross-cultural replications
- Dutch replication with 90% obedience
Limitation- Low internal validity
- Participants may have been aware the procedure was faked