Social Influence Flashcards
What is conformity?
Conformity is defined as ‘yielding to group pressures’. It is a form of social influence that leads to compliance to the majority position.
What is compliance?
Compliance is a type of conformity.
This is when an individual changes their beliefs publicly to fit in with the majority, however, there is no change to privately held beliefs.
Compliance is the weakest form of conformity, as it is temporary and superficial.
What is internalisation?
Internalisation is a type of conformity.
This is when an individual changes their beliefs publicly to fit in with the majority as well as holding the same beliefs privately.
Internalisation is the strongest form of conformity, as it is deeper and more permanent.
What is identification?
Identification is a type of conformity.
This is when an individual changes their beliefs publicly and privately only when within a group, for example, acting professional when arriving to a place of work.
Identification is a moderate form of conformity.
What is Informational Social Influence?
Informational Social Influence (ISI) is an explanation for conformity. It can be described as the desire to be right.
ISI states that a person will conform when they are unsure on what to say/do, so they look to others for the correct information.
ISI is likely to lead to internalisation.
What is Normative Social Influence?
Normative Social Influence (NSI) is an explanation for conformity. It can be described as the desire to be liked.
NSI states that a person will conform as an attempt to copy the behaviours of others in order to ‘fit in’.
NSI is likely to lead to compliance.
What research evidence supports Informational Social Influence (ISI)?
Lucas et al (2006) asked students to give answers to mathematical problems.
He found that conformity occured more to incorrect answers when the question was difficult, especially true for students who felt they had poor mathematical capabilities.
This supports ISI, as it states that conformity is likely to occur during an ambiguous or difficult situation.
What research evidence supports Normative Social Influence (NSI)?
Asch (1951) found that participants went along with a clearly incorrect answer because other people did, as the participants feared rejection.
What are the weaknesses of the research evidence which supports Informational Social Influence (ISI) and Normative Social Influence (NSI)?
Research on ISI and NSI are typically carried out in a laboratory setting, therefore lacking in ecological validity, as we cannot be sure that behaviour in the lab will mirror the same behaviour in the real world.
How may Informative Social Influence (ISI) and Normative Social Influence (NSI) work together in explaining conformity rather than separately?
In Asch’s experiments, conformity was reduced when there was one other dissenting participant. This reduces the power of both NSI (as he is providing social support) and ISI (as the participant has an alternative source of information), therefore showing that it is not always clear whether NSI or ISI is at work in conformity situations.,
What was the aim of Solomon Asch’s (1951) conformity experiment?
Asch (1951) conducted an experiment to investigate the extent to which social pressure from a majority group could affect a person to conform. He investigated the degree to which individuals would conform to a majority who gave obviously wrong answers in a non-ambiguous situation.
What was the procedure of Solomon Asch’s (1951) conformity experiment?
Asch used a lab experiment to study conformity, in which 123 male US undergraduates particpated in a vision test. A participant would be placed alongside a number of confederates.
A test line would be displayed alongside a number of other lines, where each person would be tasked with stating aloud which of the other lines were of the same length as the test line - a simple task with an obvious answer.
The confederates agreed in advance what their responses would be. In 12 of the 18 trials, the confederates intentionally gave the wrong answer (a.k.a the critical trials)
What were the results of Solomon Asch’s (1951) conformity experiment?
What was he able to conclude?
Asch found that in the trials where the confederates intentionally gave the wrong answer, around 35% of participants conformed on average. In these trials, 75% of participants conformed at least once, and 25% of participants never conformed.
Asch interviewed his participants and found that they conformed out of fear they would be ridiculed. Therefore, Asch concluded that the participants complied due to normative social influence (NSI).
How did changing the group size in Asch’s study affect the results?
What does this suggest?
Asch found that there was little conformity if there were 1 or 2 confederates in the majority.
When there were a majority of 3 confederates, conformity rates went to 30%.
This suggests that an individual is more likely to conform when placed in a large group.
How did adjusting the unanimity of the majority in Asch’s study affect the results?
What does this suggest?
Asch found that if all of the confederates agreed with the same answer (even if it was wrong), conformity rates were 33%.
However, if one confederate gave the correct answer, conformity levels dropped to 5.5%.
If a confederate gave an incorrect answer different to the majority, conformity levels became 9%.
This suggests that only one break in the unanimous decision is required for conformity levels to drop.
How did adjusting the task difficulty in Asch’s study affect the results?
What does this suggest?
Asch found that when the differences between line lengths were smaller, the correct answer would be less obvious, and therefore, conformity levels would increase.
This suggests that an individual is more likely to conform when the task is more difficult.
What research evidence suggests that Asch’s study lacks temporal validity?
Perrin and Spencer (1980) repeated Asch’s study with engineering students in the UK. They discovered that 1 student conformed out of 396 trials, showing that conformity does not always occur.
This could be due to the time period in which Asch’s study took place (the 1950s), therefore the study lacks temporal validity, as it cannot be generalised to other time periods.
Why might Asch’s study on conformity lack ecological validity?
The task of identifying the matching line is unrealistic and artificial, not something that would be done commonly everyday. This may also cause demand characteristics, as the participants may have known that they were in a study.
Because the findings of this study cannot be generalised to everyday life, it lacks ecological validity.
Why might Asch’s study on conformity lack population validity?
Asch’s study was performed on only men, therefore the study cannot be generalised to women, as research has suggested that women may be more conformist.
Additionally, the study was only performed on US citizens, who are a part of an individualistic culture, as opposed to collectivist cultures, where conformity rates were higher.
Therefore, Asch’s study lacks population validity, as it can only be generalised to men from the US.
What are the ethical issues associated with Asch’s study on conformity?
Asch’s study was built on deception, as the participant was unaware of the presence of confederates, who gave intentionally incorrect answers. This deception could lead to psychological harm for the participant, as they could end up being confused or possibly stressed.
What was the aim of Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment (1974)?
The aim of Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment was to see whether people would conform to new social roles in a role-playing exercise that simulated prison life.
What was the procedure of Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment (1974)?
Zimbardo assigned participants randomly to the roles of either prisoner or guard in a simulated prison environment. It was kept as realistic as possible.
Prisoners were treated like any other criminal, being arrested at their own homes, and taken to Stanford University’s psychology department (which was set out as a prison).
Prisoners were given ID numbers and guards were dressed identically.
Zimbardo observed the behaviour of the prisoners and guards, acting as the superintendent of the prison.
What were the results of Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment (1974)?
Zimbardo found that both prisoners and guards quickly identified with their social roles. Guards harrassed and tormented the prisoners, and prisoners snitched on other prisoners in order to please the guards.
The social roles had become increasingly internalised, as the guards had become more demanding of obedience and dominant, whereas the prisoners had become more dehumanised and submissive.
How did Zimbardo’s prison experiment have good control over variables?
Zimbardo intentionally chose the most emotionally stable men, and roles were randomly assigned which removed experimenter bias, therefore showing that Zimbardo had a good level of control over variables.
How did Zimbardo’s prison experiment lack population validity?
Zimbardo’s prison experiment was conducted solely on American men, therefore the findings cannot be generalised to other cultures, as collectivist cultures may be more conformist, due to their need to prioritise the group over the individual.
What were the major ethical issues associated with Zimbardo’s prison experiment?
Zimbardo’s prison experiment lacked fully informed consent due to the deception required to avoid demand characteristics, as the participants were unaware they would be arrested in their own homes.
Furthermore, Zimbardo’s role as the prison superintendent took priority over his role as a researcher, as he viewed a someone wanting to leave as a prisoner wishing to be released rather than a student wishing to withdraw from the experiment.
What is obedience?
Obedience is a form of social influence in which an individual follows a direct order, usually by an authority figure with the right to punish the individual.
