Social Influence Flashcards
conformity- Asch (1951) baseline procedure
aim- measure extent to which people conformed to the opinions of others, even knowing they were wrong.
findings-naive pps conformed 36.8% of time. Individual differences meant 25% never conformed. 75% conformed at least once.
Conformity by Asch- Variable 1 (group size)
procedure- varied number of confeds between 1-15.
findings- With 2 confeds, conformity to wrong answer was 13.6% and with 3 it was 31.8%, anymore than this levelled off.
explanation- people very sensitive to opinions of others.
Conformity by Asch- Variable 2 (unanimity)
procedure- Asch introduces a dissenter who always disagreed with the majority
findings- conformity was reduced to less than a quarter, whether dissenter gave right or wrong answer.
explanation- dissenter enables pps to behave independently.
Conformity by Asch- Variable 3 (task difficulty)
procedure- Asch made task harder by making lines more similar in length
findings- conformity increased
explanation- situation became more ambiguous, so more likely to look to others for guidance, this is ISI.
Types of conformity- internalisation
A person genuinely accepts group norms, results in public and private change. Change is usually permanent and persists in absence of group members e.g. a person who is vegetarian
Types of conformity- identification
When we identify with a group we value, we want to become a part of it. So we publicly change opinions and behaviour even if we privately disagree e.g. supporting a football team when moving to a new city
Types of conformity- compliance
Involves ‘going along with it’ in public but disagreeing in private. This only results in a superficial change and opinion stops when group pressure ceases e.g laughing at a joke you don’t find funny.
Explanations for conformity- informational social influence
-About information and a desire to be right
-a cognitive process which generally leads to internalisation
-likely to occur in situations which are new or where there is ambiguity
-when decisions have to be made quickly, we assume group is right
Explanations for conformity- normative social influence
-About norms, a desire to behave like others and not look foolish
-NSI is emotional rather than cognitive
-people want social approval and not to be rejected, leads to compliance
-may be in stressful situations where we look for social support
Conformity to social roles- Zimabrdo (1973)- procedure
-mock prison in basement of stanford uni
-21 ‘emotionally stable’ male students randomly allocated role
-social roles encouraged by uniform (prisoners strip searched and given number and guards uniform glasses and handcuffs)
-Instructions (guards told they had complete control, prisoners told they had to ask for parole to leave)
Conformity to social roles- Zimbardo (1973)- findings
-guards were enthusiastic and ALL guards were aggressive
-prisoners rebelled in 2 days
-guards retaliated with fire extinguishers and harassed prisoners
-after rebellion was put down prisoners became subdued, anxious and depressed
-3 prisoners released early due to psychological disturbance
-hunger strike prisoner put in the hole
-lasted 6/14 days
-guards (brutal) prisoners (submissive)
Obedience- Milgram (1963) baseline- procedure
-40 american males
-All assigned role of teacher
-Teacher gave increasing shocks to learner up to 450V, fake but labelled to look severe
-experimenter gave verbal prods if teacher wanted to stop
‘prods’ by experimenter in milgrams study on obedience
1- ‘please continue’
2- ‘the experiment requires that you continue’
3- ‘it is absolutely essential that you continue’
4- ‘you have no other choice you must go on’
Obedience- Milgram 91963) baseline- findings
-12.5% stopped at 300V
-65% continued to 450V
-3 pps had ‘full-blown uncontrollable seizures’
-14 psychology students predicted no more than 3% would continue to 450
– we obey legit authority even if it causes others harm
Obedience situational variables- proximity
-closeness of teacher and learner
-65%>40% in same room
-touch proximity > 30%
In remote instruction variation, experimenter given instructions by phone> 20.5%, pps even pretended to give shock
-decreased proximity allows people to psychologically distance themselves from consequences
Obedience situational variables- location
-prestige of setting
-run down building> 47.5%
-obedience higher in uni as setting was legit and had authority
Obedience situational variables- uniform
-communicates authority
-baseline wore grey lab coat
-ordinary member of public >20% (lowest of the variations)
-uniform is a strong symbol of legit authority, someone without uniform has less right to expect obedience
Obedience: situational explanations- Agentic state
- Agentic state= acting on behalf of another person and therefore feeling no responsibility for actions
- Autonomous state= person acts independently and feels responsible
-Agentic shift occurs when we perceive someone as an authority figure
Bindings factors such as shifting responsibility to victim, reduce moral strain
Obedience: situational explanations- legitimacy of authority
-we obey people further up the social hierarchy
-the power they wield is legit because it is agreed by society
-we learn to accept that they have control and give up some independence to them during childhood
-history has proven some abuse this authority
Obedience: dispositional explanation- the authoritarian personality theory
- adorno et al (1950) believe that unquestioning obedience is a psychological disorder
-These people have exaggerated respect for authority and are submissive to it, they also express contempt for inferiors
-learnt in childhood through severe criticism
-conditional love
-Hostile feelings displaced on to social inferiors (psychodynamic explanation)
Obedience: dispositional explanation- the authoritarian personality- baseline
procedure- investigated attitudes towards other ethnic groups of more than 2000 middle class white Americans
-F scale 1-6 where 6 is strongly agree
findings- authoritarians who scored highly identified with ‘strong’ people and were contemptuous of ‘weak’
-excessive defence of high status people
-fixed and distinctive stereotypes (cognitive style)
Resistance to social influence- explanation 1 social support
- pressure to conform is reduced if others do not conform, dissenter doesn’t have to be right
-dissenter shows the majority is no longer unanimous
-pressure to obey reduced if someone disobeys
Milgrams research showed obedience dropped from 65 to 10 in disobedient peer condition
-disobedient peer challenges legitimacy of authority
Resistance to social influence - explanation 2 locus of control
-Rotter (1966)
-there is a continuum/scale
-internals (more likely to resist social pressures, they believe they control their lives, more confident and achievement oriented)
-externals (place control outside of themselves, more likely to conform)
Minority influence
- leads to internalisation through 3 processes
1. consistency- makes others rethink their own views by always doing same thing. Can be synchronic (minority all say same) or diachronic (say same thing for long time)
2. commitment- showing deep involvement, possibly through extreme activities. Augmentation principle makes majority pay more attention.
3. flexibility- willingness to listen to others . Nameth (1986) said being consistent is rigid and off putting.
Lessons from minority influence research- drawing attention
-segregation in 1950s America, civil rights marches drew attention to places exclusive to whites by providing social proof of the issue
Lessons from minority influence research- consistency
-Even though it was a minority taking part in marches, they displayed consistency of message and intent
Lessons from minority influence research- deeper processing
-Activism meant many who had accepted the status quo began thinking deeply about the unjustness of it
Lessons from minority influence research- augmentation principle
- ‘freedom riders’ were both white as well as black people who boarded buses in the south to challenge seperate seating for black, many were beaten
- The risk augmented (strengthened) their message
Lessons from minority influence research- snowball effect
- Civil rights activists (e.g. Martin Luther King) gradually got the attention of the US government
-In 1964 the civil rights act was passed
-change happens bit by bit like rolling a snowball
Lessons from minority influence research- social cryptomnesia
- social change came about but people have no memory of the events leading to the change
Lessons from conformity research- dissenter
-dissenters make social change more likely, proven by Asch’s research
-breaks power of majority encouraging others, demonstrating potential for social change
Lessons from conformity research- NSI
-environmental and health campaigns exploit conformity by appealing to NSI
-They provide info about what others are doing (‘bin it- others do’)
Lessons from obedience research- disobedient models make change more likely
- Milgrams research: disobedient models in the variation where confed refused to give shock
- rate of obedience in genuine pps plummeted
Lessons from obedience research- gradual commitment leads to drift
-Zimbardo (2007), once a small instruction is obeyed, it becomes harder to resist a bigger one. People ‘drift’ in to new kinds of behaviour.
