Social Influence Flashcards
What is internalisation and where might it happen
Internalisation is going along with the majority and believing in their views - you’ve accepted and internalised them so they’re now your own too
This might happen if you’re in an unfamiliar situation, where you don’t know what the ‘ correct ‘ way to behave is
In this situation, you’d look to others for information about how to behave
This type of influence is called informational social influence
What is compliance and where might this be used
Where you go along with the majority, even if you don’t share the views
This can be done to appear ‘ normal ‘ - going against the majority might lead to exclusion or rejection from the group
This type of influence is called normative social influence
What is identification and where might it be used
Identification is conforming to what’s expected of you to fulfil a social role
This means changing your behaviour because you want to fit a specific role in society (e.g. a nurse), or trying to imitate the behaviour of a role model
Method of Sherif’s experiment
Laboratory experiment where a visual illusion called the autokinetic effect was used
Stationary spot of light, viewed in a dark room, appeared to move (participants were told the spot of light was moving)
They had to estimate how far it had moved
First tested individually, then in groups of three, then retested individually
Results of Sherif’s experiment
When alone participants developed their own estimates (personal norms), which varied widely between participants
When participants were in a group, the estimates converged and become alike
When the participants were then retested on their own, their estimates were more like the group estimates than their original guesses
Conclusions of Sherif’s experiment
Participants were influenced by the estimates of other people, and a group norm developed
estimates converged because the ppts used information from others to help - they were affected by informative social influence
Evaluations of Sherif’s experiment
Laboratory experiment, strict control of the variables
Meant that the results were unlikely to have been affected by a third variable, so it should be possible to establish cause and effect
Also means the method could be replicated
Repeated measures designed meant that the participant variables that could have affected the results were kept constant
However, the method is flawed, the ppts were being asked to judge the movement of a light that wasn’t moving - this rarely happens in real life
Because it created an artificial situation, the study can be criticised for lacking ecological validity
Sample used was quite limited - all of the ppts were male, so results can’t be generalised to everyone
An ethical problem with this study was deception - the ppts were told the light was moving when it wasn’t
Method for Asch’s experiment
Laboratory experiment with an independent groups design
in groups of 8 ppts judged line lengths by saying out loud which comparison line (1, 2 or 3) matched the standard line
Each group contained only one real ppt - others were confederates
The real ppt always went last or last but one, so that they heard the other’s answers before giving theirs
Each ppt did 18 trials
On 12 of these (critical trials) the confederates all gave the same wrong answer
There was also a control group, where the ppts judged the line lengths in isolation
Results for Asch’s experiment
In control trials, ppts gave wrong answer 0.7% of the time
In critical trials, ppts conformed to the majority (gave the same wrong answer) 37% of the time
75% conformed at least once
Afterwards, some ppts said they didn’t really believe their answers, but want to look different
Conclusion for Asch’s experiment
The control showed that the task was easy to get right
However 37% were wrong on the critical - they conformed to the majority due to normative social influence
Evaluation for Asch’s experiment
Laboratory experiment - good control of variables
Minimises the effects of extraneous variables
Strict control of variables also means that you could easily repeat study to see if you get same results
However, because participants weren’t in a natural situation, study lacks ecological validity
What are situational factors caused by
Situational factors are due to the social situation a person is in
What are dispositional factors caused by
Dispositional factors are due to the person’s internal characteristics
How did Asch investigate group size affecting conformity
Asch conducted his conformity experiment with different numbers of confederates
With 2 confederates, the real ppt conformed 14%
With 3 conformity rose to 32%
There was little change in rates after that - no matter how big the majority group got
This means that smaller majorities are easier to resist than larger ones but influence doesn’t keep increasing with the size of the majority
How did Asch investigate unanimity/ social support
Rather than the confederates forming a unanimous majority, one agreed with the ppt
Having a fellow dissenter ( someone that disagrees with majority ) broke the unanimity of the group, which made it easier to resist pressure to conform - rate fell to 5.5%
How did Asch investigate how task difficultly affected conformity
When the task was made more difficult, the conformity levels increased
People are more likely to confirm if they’re less confident that they’re correct
How does confidence and expertise affect conformity
If someone felt confident in their answer, they were less likely to conform
Wiesenthal found that if people felt competent in a task, they were less likely to conform
Perrin and Spencer replicated Asch’s study with engineering students and conformity levels were much lower
This may have been because the engineers had confidence in their skills
How might gender be a factor in conformity
Eagly and Carli re analysed data from studies
They did find some sex differences in conformity, but these were inconsistent
Clearest difference in men and women was in Asch type studies were there was group pressure from an audience
Eagly argued men and women’s different social roles explain the difference in conformity - women are more concerned in group harmony so conform more
Assertiveness and independence are valued male attributes, so maintaining your own opinion under pressure fits with perceived male social roles
How do social roles affect us
People hold different positions in society e.g. grandparent, manager, priest
Most people occupy several at once e.g. student, brother, son
Social roles are the sets of behaviours and expectations that come with holding these positions
E.g. a women who as a baby might be expected to care for and love it - these behaviours fit the social role of mother
The expectations of a role are held by society, when we accept a role, we internalise these expectations so they shape our behaviour
Method for Zimbardo’s prison experiment
Male students recruited to act as either guards or prisoners in mock prison
Randomly given roles and behaviour was observed
Prisoners were arrested as they about their day, taken to prison and given uniform and numbers
Guards also wore uniforms and mirrored sub glasses
Results for Zimbardo’s prison experiment
Initially guards tried to assert their authority and prisoners resisted by sticking together
Prisoner became more passive and obedient while guards invented nastier punishment
Experiment abandoned early because some prisoners became distressed
Conclusions for Zimbardo’s prison experiment
Guards and prisoners adapted their social roles quickly
Zimbardo claims this shows that our social role can influence our behaviour - seemingly well-balanced men became unpleasant and aggressive in the role of guard
Evaluation for Zimbardo’s prison experiment
Controlled observation so there was good control of variables
However, it was an artificial environment so results can’t be generalised to real life situations
Not good ethics as some ppts found situation distressing
Observer bias as Zimbardo ran prison himself, and later admitted he became too personally involved in the situation
Conclusion reached doesn’t explain why only some of the ppts acted according to their assigned roles
How did Orlando’s experiment give an insight into assigned roles
Orlando set up a mock psychiatric ward for 3 days in a hospital
29 staff members of the hospital volunteered to be patients and were held in a ward
Another 22 staff members were involved, but they carried out their normal daily roles
Patients starting behaving like real patients of the hospital within a short time
They were conforming to the roles that had been assigned to them
Many showed signs of depression and withdrawal and six tried to escape
After the experiment, the mock patients reported they had felt frustrated, anxious and despairing
Some felt they had lost their identity and felt they weren’t being treated as people
What were the theories by psychologists on the Holocaust
Some thought they may be evil
Others thought they were norm al people who’d committed atrocities because of their social role
Behaviour was situational rather than dispositional
Method of Reicher and Haslam’s BBC prison study
Controlled observation in mock prison filmed for TV
ppts were 15 male volunteers and were randomly assigned to 2 groups
5 were guards and 10 were prisoners
Had daily tests to measure for depressions, compliance with rules and stress
Prisoners knew that one of them would randomly become a guard in 3 days
Independent ethics committee could stop study to protect ppts
Results of Reicher and Haslam’s BBC prison study
The guards failed to form united group and identify with their role
Didn’t always exercise their power and felt uncomfortable with the inequality of the situation
In first 3 days, prisoners acted in ways to get them promoted to guard
After the promotion, they became a stronger group since there were no more chance of promotion
System collapsed due to unwillingness of guards and strength of prisoner group
Day 6, prisoner’s rebelled and ppts decided to live in democracy which collapsed due tom tensions
Former prisoners wanted to set up stricter regime with them as leaders but study stopped due to ethics concerns
Conclusions of Reicher and Haslam’s BBC prison study
Ppts didn’t fit their expected roles which suggested the roles were flexible
Evaluations of Reicher and Haslam’s BBC prison study
Contrasting Z’s findings, R and H’s prisoners were a strong group with weaker guards
This is due to guards not being encouraged to maintain order unlike Z’s
Criticised for being on TV - people argued elements were staged and ppts acted for cameras
Artificial situation so results can’t be generalised to real life
Ethics were good - ppts were not deceived - were able to give informed consent
Ppts were protected by ethics committee and study was abandoned as soon as they became stressed
Were also debriefed and offered counselling after
Method for Milgram’s experiment
Laboratory experiments to test factors thought to affect obedience
this tested whether people would obey orders to shock someone in a separate room
took place at prestigious Yale university
40 men, responded to newspaper advert seeking volunteers for a study on learning and memory
received payment for attending - didn’t depend on them proceeding on the experiment
Experimenter wore grey technician’s coat
Each ppt was introduced to confederate (acting like ppt but was part of experiment)
drew lots to see who would act as teacher and learner - was fixed so ppt always became teacher
The ppt witnessed confederate being strapped into chair and connected to a shock generator
generator didn’t give shocks but ppt thought it was real
Switches ranged from 15V (labelled slight shock) to 450V (labelled XXX)
The ppt taught learner word pairs over intercom and when learner got answer wrong, they were shock with the volts increasing each time
After 300V, learner pounded on wall and gave no more responses
If ppt hesitated then experimenter told them to continue
Debriefing included an interview, questionnaires and being reunited with the learner
Results for for Milgram’s experiment
26 ppts (65%) administered 450V and none stopped before giving 300V
Most ppts showed signs of stress like sweating , groaning and tembling
Conclusion for Milgram’s experiment
Ordinary people will obey orders to hurt someone else, even if it means acting against their conscience
What was the negative evaluation for the internal validity for Milgram’s experiment?
What specifically did the participants believe?
Possible that ppts didn’t believe they were giving electric shocks - they were just going along with the experimenter’s expectations (showing demands characteristics)
Milgram claimed ppts’ stressed reactions showed they believed it was real
What was the ecological validity for Milgram’s experiment
Ppts did a task that they were unlikely to encounter in real life
Study lacks ecological validity
But because it was a laboratory experiment there was good control of variables, so it’s possible to establish cause and effect
what were the ethical issues for Milgram’s experiment
Ppts were deceived as to the true nature of the study
They couldn’t give informed consent
They were informed of the right to withdrawal from the experiment but were prompted to to continue when they wanted to stop
The ppts showed sign of stress during experiment so they weren’t p[protected
They were extensively debriefed and 84% said they were pleased to have taken part
Milgram didn’t breach any ethical guidelines since they weren’t in place yet
How did presence of allies affect the results for Milgram’s experiment
When there were 3 teachers (1 ppt and 2 confederates), the ppt were less likely to obey if the others refused
Having allied makes it easier to resist orders
How did the proximity of the victim affect the results for Milgram’s experiment
Milgram’s results suggested an important factor was the proximity of the learner
In normal condition, 65% gave the maximum shock
This dropped to 40% with the learner in the same room
Dropped to 30% when ppt had to put learners hand onto shock plate
Proximity made the learner’s suffering harder to ignore
How did proximity of the authority affect the results for Milgram’s experiment
When the authority gave prompts by phone from another room, obedience dropped rates dropped to 23%
When the authority wasn’t close by, orders were easier to resist
How did location of the experiment affect the results for Milgram’s experiment
When ppts were being told study was being run by private company and experiment was moved to run-down offices, amount of people giving maximum shock fell to 48%
When the association with a prestigious university was removed, the authority of the experimenter seemed less legitimate so ppts were more likely to question it
Difference between acting agentically and autonomously
When people behave on behalf of external authority (do as they’re told), They said to be in an agentic state
This means the active someone’s agent, rather than taking personal responsibility for their actions
This is the opposite of behaving autonomously – not following orders 
How does Milgram’s agency theory explain obedience
This theory stated that when we feel we are acting out the wishes of another person, we feel less responsible for actions
This effect is seen in Milgram studies:
Some participants were concerned for the welfare of the learner and asked who would take responsibility for learner was harmed.
When the experimenter took responsibility, often the participant would continue
This agentic state was also encouraged by the experiment set up.
The participants voluntarily entered a social contract with the experimenter to take part and follow the procedure of the study