Social Influence Flashcards
Define conformity
The tendency to what we do, say or think, in response to the influence of real or imaginary pressure from others.
3 types of conformity
Compliance: When a person ‘goes along with others’ in public but their private views disagree. The change in behaviour only occurs when specific people are around
Identification: When we identify with a group that we value and want to be part of so publicly change but personally don’t agree completely
Internalisation: Completely changing their beliefs, in both public and private - more likely to be permanent
Informational Social Influence (ISI)
The desire to be correct -
When people are new to a situation or unaware of what is right, so they internalise the group’s info.
Normative social influence (NSI)
The desire to be liked -
Based on “normal” or “typical” behaviour, often those who are most vulnerable to rejections
Asch’s lines study**
12 trials, 123 male American ppts 36.8% of their responses were wrong. They conformed to the incorrect answers given by confederates. Prior to the study, he took a small test and there were only mistakes 1% of the time.
Why - distortion of: perception, judgment and action
Conformity: Zimbardo’s Research
Stanford ‘prison’ experiment - 24 emotionally stable students allocated to prison or prison guard.
Prisoners rebelled & guards continuously harassed them. Study stopped after 6 days
Zimbardo A03
+ researchers had control over variables, mentally stable and randomly allocated
(control increased the internal validity)
- Banuazizi & Mohavedi suggested ppts were just play acting and following stereotypes (+ but Z had data to prove prisoner conversations)
- Major ethical issues: Z led the experiment as a superintendent and researcher and forgot to distinguish between his roles when a ppt asked to withdraw, limited his ability to protect them from harm
Abu Ghraib prison
Prison in Iraq made famous by revelation of photos taken by US Army Reserves in the acts of humiliating and torturing prisoners
Obedience: Milgram’s study
40 male ppts recruited for a ‘memory study’ & given $4.50.
Mr Wallace (confederate) was in the next room and attached to electrodes. The teacher was instructed to shock the learner with each mistake, increasing the voltage.
Milgram’s findings
prior to the experiment, he had asked 14 psych students for predictions, they said no more than 3% would continue to 450
No ppt stopped below 300 volts
5 ppts (12.5%) stopped at 300 volts
65% continued to 450 volts
Milgram A03
- Low internal validity: Orne and Holland believed that ppts behaved that way because they didn’t believe set up. Perry’s research confirmed this whereby she listened to audio recordings in which many discussed their doubts about the shocks being real
+ Good external validity: central feature of this situation was the rs of ppt and authority figure. Hoffling and nurses so it can be generalsied
+supporting replication: A French documentary included a replication of Milgram’s study and 80% delivered maximum shocks
Situational Variables
Proximity: 3 variations
> proximity v: teacher & learner in same room from 65% to 40%
> touch pv: teacher had to force learner’s hand onto shock plate OR: 30%
>remote-instruction pv: exp gave instuctions via telephone OR fell to 20.5%
Location: When conducted in a run-down building, instead of Yale University OR fell to 47.5%
Uniform: The experimenter in a lab coat left and a man in casual clothes replaced him OR dropped to 20%
Obedience: Social-psychological factors - agentic state
When we act on behalf of another person. Individual feels no personal responsibility.
Milgram suggested that when we see someone else as an authority figure, we shift from being autonomous to ‘agent’, acting for, or on behalf of someone else
Binding factors reduces the ‘moral strain’ that we feel.
Obedience: social-psychological factors - legitimacy of authority
Hierarchy structure in society. We obey those at the top of the hierarchy. Most of us agree that they hold social powers over others. This power can lead them to behaving in neg ways
Evaluation of Obedience
+ Agentic state has research support: In a study, students blamed the experimenter for the harm in Milgram’s study.
- Agentic shift doesn’t explain research findings (nurses and doctors)
+ LoA can explain real life obedience
- LoA shows cultural differences in obedience
Obedience: Dispositional explanations
Authoritarian personality: A collection of traits that are developed from strict parenting, whereby they end up extremly obedient to authority figures - Adorno
> view society as ‘going to dogs’, very fixed b/w views
>2000 middle class American-White males took a survey for the F-Scale
Tiger-parenting
Resistance to Social Influence
Social Support: conformity is reduced by a dissenting peer
Locus of Control: Internals - Believe that things go wrong due to their own actions (Failed test for not studying)
Externals - Things happen because of factors outside of their control. (Having a bad teacher/Bad luck)
Resistance to Social Influence - Evaluation
+Allen and Levine found independence increased with one dissenter, you feel free of pressure
+ Gamson et al found higher levels of rebellion (88%)
- Role of LOC in resisting obedience may be exaggerated: LOC is only useful in new situations
- Not all research shows the link between LOC and resistance: we should become more internal
Minority influence
A form of social influence, in which a minority (sometimes one person) persuades others to adopt their beliefs, attitudes or behaviours
Moscovici et al (1969) - blue green study
172 female ppts, in groups of 6
Ppts asked the colour of 36 slides.
A: confederates were consistent - all slides green
B: confederates were inconsistent - 24 green, 12 blue
In a control group (no confederates) only 0.25% ppts green
Consistent group - ppts answered green in 8.42%, at least once
Inconsistent group - ppts answered green in 1.25% of trials
3 conditions for minority influence
commitment, consistency, flexibility
Minority influence: consistency
Over time, the consistency will increase the interest of other individuals. consistency can make people rethink their own views
synchronic: consistency between people in the minority
diachronic: consistency over time
Minority influence: commitment
Minorities may engage in extreme activities to draw attention to their views - the augmentation principle
Minority Influence: flexibility
Nemeth (1986) argued that relentless consistency could be counter-productive if it is seen by the majority as unbending and unreasonable. Therefore minority influence is more effective if the minority show flexibility by accepting possibility of compromise.
Minority influence: AO3 evaluation
+Research support for consistency - wood et al
+ Research support for depth of thought - Martin et al
+ Research support for Internalisation - Moscovici et al
- Artificial tasks
- Limited real life explanations
Role of social influence in the process of social change
-Drawing attention: Must draw attention through social proof, being exposed to the issue will cause conflict
-Consistency: M’s are most influential when they’re consistent, they’re taken more seriously for truly believing in their cause
-Deeper processing: Minorities must inspire people to re-consider their views and look further into the minority’s
- Augmentation Principle: Must be willing to take risks for their cause and appear as willing to suffer (gains media attention)
- Snowball effect: Relatively slow impact and then reaches the tipping point, gradual change will become rapider and wider
-Social cryptomnesia: M’s view has become the norm. Society doesn’t remember a time before this change
Social change evaluation
-Research supports NSI in social change as people have the desire-Social change is often quite slow, the influence of minority often creates potential for change instead of direct change
-Minority groups have the issue of looking deviant and majority will avoid them
-Social norms don’t always work, DeJong et al (reducing alcohol consumption in college students) proved that not all SN interventions are able to produce SC
