Social influence Flashcards
Social influence
How individuals effect others and how others are effected
Conformity
-also known as majority influence
-conformity is yielding to group
pressure
-our behaviours and beliefs are influenced by larger groups of people
3 types of conformity
-compliance
- identification
-internalisation
COMPLIANCE
- a person goes along with others peoples attitudes and beliefs but does not believe them to correct
-comply publicly but there private opinion does not change
-they go along with beliefs to keep peace and gain approval
-temporary when in the presence of the group
-
IDENTIFICATION
-individuals adjust their behaviour and opinions of the group as membership of the group is desirable
-both private and public - but often temporary
INTERNALISATION
- The individual accepts the group view and believes the view to be correct
-conforming to other peoples views both publicly and privately in the genuine view they are correct
- permanent
What are the two reasons people conform
-Informational social influence
-normative social influence
Informational Social influence
- humans have a need for certainty (need to be right)
-When uncertain they look for others
-happens in unfamiliar and ambiguous situations
Normative social influence
- humans have a need to be liked / be in certain social groups
-agreeing with the majority group view because we want to be liked ,accepted and gain social approval
-occurs when you fear rejection from the group/strangers
What was the original theory of conformity ?
psychologists said people conform because of either NSI OR ISI not both
Research support for ISI
Lucas et al
what did Lucas et al find - does this support or oppose ISI
Lucas et al asked students to give answers to mathematical problems that were easy or more difficult .
There was greater conformity to incorrect answers when they were difficult rather than when they were the easier ones . This was most true for students who rated there mathematic al ability as poor .
This study shows people conform in situations where they feel like they don’t know the answer
which is exactly the outcome predicted by the ISI explanation . We look to other people and assume they know better than us and must be right .
What is a nAffilator ? How does it link to NSI?
nAffiliator is the character description for people who are more concerned about being liked and therefore more effected by NSI than those who care less about being liked . These people have a greater need for affiliation - a need for being in a relationship with others.
For example McGee and Teevan (1967)found that students high in need of affiliation were more likely to conform . This shows the desire to be liked underlies conformity for some people more than others .
Therefore there are individual differences in the way people respond . Not everyone effected by NSI equally
Research support for NSI
Asch’s study
Research support - Ash study
-One strength of NSI is that evidence supports it as an explanation of conformity
-For example when Asch interviewed participants some said they conformed because they felt self-conscious giving the correct answer and they were afraid of disapproval
when participants wrote their answers down conformity fell to 12.5%
-This is because giving answers privately meant there was no normative group pressure
-This shows that at least some conformity is due to a desire to no be rejected by the group for disagreeing with them
Asch baseline procedure
Asch devised a procedure to assess to what extent people will conform to the opinion of others , even in a situation where the answer is certain
Asch’s sample consisted of 50 male students from Swarthmore College in America, who believed they were taking part in a vision test.
Asch used a line judgement task, where he placed areal participant in a room with seven confederates (actors), who had agreed their answers in advance.
The real participant wasdeceivedand was led to believe that the other seven people were also real participants. The real participant always sat second to last.
In turn, each person had to say out loud which line (A, B or C) was most like the target line in length.
Asch Baseline findings
-On average the genuine participants agreed with confederates incorrect answers 36.8% of the time (i.e they conformed about 1/3 of the time )
-There were individual differences - 25% of the participants neve gave the wrong answer - (i.e never conformed)
Variables investigated by Asch
-group size
-unanimity
-task difficulty
What was Asch investigating with these variables
Ach extended his baseline study to investigate variables that might lead to an increase or decrease in conformity
group size
what did Asch want to test
Asch wanted to know whether the size of the group would be more important than the agreement of the group
How did Ach test group size
-varied the number of confederates from 1-15
-Asch found a curvilinear relationship between group size and conformity rate
-conformity increased with group size -but only up to a certain point
-with three confederates - conformity to the wrong answer rose to 31.8%
-the presence of more confederates made little difference - the conformity rate soon levelled off
This suggests most people are very sensitve towards the views of others bevuase just one or two confederates was enough to wsay opinons
unanimity
What did Asch want to test
Asch wondered if the presence of a non-conforming person would effect the naïve persons conformity
How did Asch test unanimity and what were the conclusions ?
- he introduced a confederate who disagreed with the other confederates
-In one variation of the study this person this person gave the correct answer and in another variation he gave a different wrong one
-The genuine participant conformed less often in the presence of a dissenter
-The rate decreased to less than a quarter of the level it was when the majority was unanimous
-the presence of a dissenter appeared to free the naiive participant to behave more independently
-This suggests that the influence of majority depends to a large extent on being unanimous
-and non-conformity is more likely when cracks are perceived in the majorities unanimous view
task difficulty
What did Asch want to test
Asch wanted to know whether making the task harder would effect the degree of conformity
How did Asch test Task difficulty and what were the conclusions
-He increased the difficulty of the line judging task by making the stimulus line and comparison lines more similar to each other in length
-This meant it became harder for genuine participants to see differences between lines
-Asch found that conformity increased
-It may be that the situation is more ambiguous when the task becomes harder - it is unclear to participants what the right answer is
- In these circumstances it is natural to look toother people for guidance and to assume they are right and you are wrong
Limitation - ethical issues
-Deception - participants are being lied to by confederates and by researchers
-lack of informed consent - they didn’t know the real aims
-protection from harm - participants may leave feeling embarrassed /upset
Limitation - ecological validity
-highly controlled lab study - not a real life lab situation i.e they wouldn’t normally be in this room with strangers comparing lines or anything like that in real life
-the use of strangers as confederates could be an unrepresentative way of studying conformity because we are most likely to be in a group of people similar to us such as friends and family and not strangers . So this could effect conformity differently
Limitation - not reprasentive of different cultures
A limitation of Asch’s research is that it may not be representative of different cultures . The study was conducted in the US which is an individualistic culture , meaning there is more pressure to think independently and less pressure to get along with the group . These findings therefore do not represent what conformity may be like in collectivist cultures (like China) whose more importance is based on being part of a group . Research has suggested that conformity rates are higher in these collectivist cultures . Therefore Asch’s study lacks cultural validity and the findings cannot be applied to everyone globally , limiting the value of research.2
What three variables did Asch not consider
-mood
-gender
-culture
Mood
- Human conform more when in
a good mood - When happy more amendable to agreeing with others . We also conform more when moving from a fearful to relaxed mood
-Tong et al 2008 - participants conform to wrong answers on math questions given by confederates when in a positive rather than neutral mood
Culture
-individualistic (western e.g UK and US)
-places value on personal success/happiness
Collectivist (Eastern e.g China )
-places value on the groups happiness /
Difference between collectivist and individualistic cultures
-Perrin and Spencer (1980)-conformity level of 0.25% in Yorkshire science students suggesting low conformity in Britain . However scientists should be independent thinkers
-Smith and Bond (1993) - average conformity rate in collective cultures of 25-58% . In individualistic cultures only 14-29%
Gender
-women conform more readily
-socialised into more submissive roles
-Eagly Et Al (1981)- females focus on the quality of relationship - more normative social influence
-possibly evolutionary - women more nurturing
-Jenness (1932) -women conformed more than men
-population validity
What is a social role
The parts people play as members of social groups and the expectations that come with this .
E.G a parent is expected to be caring nurturing and look after their children . A student is expected to be obedient and respect authority
Abu Ghraib
-military prison in Iraq
-torture in 2003 and 2004 by US soldiers
-prisoners were tortured ,physically and sexually abused , humiliated , some were murdered
-Zimbardo noticed similarities between the behaviour of guards at Abu ghraib and the guards in the Stanford prison experiment
Zimbardo Prison Experiment - AIMS
His aim was to examine whether people would conform to the social roles of a prison guard or prisoner, when placed in a mock prison environment.
Furthermore, he also wanted to examine whether the behaviour displayed in prisons was due to internal dispositional factors, the people themselves, or external situational factors, the environment and conditions of the prison.
Prison guards - was it because of their sadistic personalities or was it their social role
The Stanford Prison Experiment - Procedure
-Zimbardo et al set up a mock prison in the basement of the psychology department in Sandford university
-they selected 21 male student volunteers who tested as ‘emotionally stable ‘
-Students were randomly assigned to play the role of prison guard or prisoner
-prisoners and guards were encouraged to conform to social roles both through uniforms they wore and instructions about behaviour
How did Zimbardo make the experiment as realistic as possible
- the ‘prisoners’ were arrested by real local police and fingerprinted, stripped and given a numbered smocked to wear, with chains placed around their ankles.
The guards were given uniforms, dark reflective sunglasses, handcuffs and a truncheon.
The guards were instructed to run the prison without using physical violence. The experiment was set to run for two weeks.
How did the uniforms mean they were more likely to conform to the perceived social role
The uniforms created a loss of personal identity (de-individualisation )
Zimbardo - Findings
Zimbardo found that both the prisoners and guards quickly identified with their social roles.
Within days the prisoners rebelled, but this was quickly crushed by the guards, who then grew increasingly abusive towards the prisoners.
The guards dehumanised he prisoners, waking them during the night and forcing them to clean toilets with their bare hands; the prisoners became increasingly submissive, identifying further with their subordinate role.
Five of the prisoners were released from the experiment early, because of their adverse reactions to the physical and mental torment, for example, crying and extreme anxiety.
Although the experiment was set to run for two weeks, it was terminated after just six days, when fellow postgraduate student Christina Maslach convinced Zimbardo that conditions in his experiment were inhumane.
Zimbardo - Conclusions related to social roles
Zimbardo concluded that people quickly conform to social roles, even when the role goes against their moral principles.
Furthermore, he concluded that situational factors were largely responsible for the behaviour found, as none of the participants had ever demonstrated these behaviours previously.
Zimbardo STRENGTH
CONTROL
Zimbardo had high control over key variables, such as the selection of participants.
-emotionally stable individuals were selected to take part in the experiment and they were randomly assigned to either a prisoner or guard
- This random allocation controlled participant variables
- The control of individual characteristics increases the internal validity of the study because the personalities aren’t effecting the results
Zimbardo LIMITATION
LACK Of REALISM
A limitation of the experiment is that it lacks realism and authentic behaviour
For example, Banuazizi and Movahedi (1975) have argued that many of the participants in the Stanford Prison Experiment were play-acting rather than actually conforming to a role. They were performing based on stereotypes of what guards and prisoners should be, for example one of the guards claimed he based his character from a film and one of the prisoners said he saw the experiment as an ‘’improv’ exercise.
- It doesn’t consider demand characteristics as it ignores the fact the participants are changing their behaviours to fit their role
- This effects the results as you can’t tell if the behaviour is genuine or not
Zimbardo -LIMITATION
EXAGGERATES THE POWER OF ROLES
-Zimbardo exaggerated the power of social roles to influence behaviour
-for example only 1/3 of guards actually behaved in a brutal manner
-another third tried to apply the rules fairly
-The rest actively tried to help and support the prisoners
-This means most guards were able to resist situational pressures to conform to a brutal role
-This means that Zimbardo overstated his view that participants were conforming to social roles and minimised the influence of dispositional factors like personality.
What is obedience ?
Obedience is a type of social influence which causes a person to act in response to an order given by another person.
The person who gives you the order usually has power or authority
Milgram’s Research - AIM
to discover why such high proportion of German people supported Hitlers regime and why many of the Nazi party committed atrocities in the name of ‘following orders’
Milgrams Research - PROCEUDRE
-40 American men volunteered to take part in a study at Yale university on supposedly memory .
-When each participant arrived at Milgram’s lab he was introduced to another participant (who was actually a confederate of Milgram’s). They drew lots to see who would be the teacher and who would be the learner .
-The draw was fixed so the participant was always the teacher . An experimenter was also involved (he was also a confederate dressed in a grey lab coat .
The baseline procedure was arranged so The teacher could not see the learner but could hear him .
The teacher had to give the learner an electric shock every time the learner made a mistake on a memory task.
The shocks increased with each mistake in 15 volt steps up to 450 volts .
A sound track was played to make the participant think the confederate was in distress IN FACT SHOCKS WERE FAKE BUT LABELLED TO SUGGGEST THEY WERE INCREASINGLY DANGEROUS .
Milgram’s Research -BASELINE FINDINGS
-Every participant delivered all the shocks up to 300 volts
-12.5%(5 participants ) stopped at 300 volts (intense shock )
-65% continued to the highest level of 450 volts (they were fully obedient)
-Milgram also collected qualitive data including observations such as the participants showed signs of extreme tension ; many of them were seen to sweat , tremble , stutter , bite their lips , groan and dig their fingernails into their hands
-Three even had ‘full blown uncontrollable’ seizures .
Milgram’s Research -Conclusions
Milgram conducted that German people are not different .
The American people in this study are willing to obey orders even when they might harm another person .
He suspected there were certain factors in the situation that encouraged obedience , so decided to conduct further studies to investigate these
Milgrams original research -STRENGTH
RESEARCH SUPPORT
Milgrams original research - LIMITATON
LOW INTERNAL VALIDITY
Milgrams original research - LIMITATION
ETHICAL ISSUES
Why did Milgram do variations of his study
To discover if features of the situation would make obedience more or less likely
-So he investigated situational variables
In his repeated experiment which situational variables did he change
.proximity
.location
.uniform
Location
- In another variation, Milgram changes the location of the study to a run-down office block rather than Yale University. Assuming that this gave the experimenter less authority.
Obedience fell to 47.5%
uniform
proximity
STRENGTH -CONTROL
STRENGTH - CROSS CULTURAL VARIATIONS
Milgram - Strength - Research support
Bickman(1974)
In NYC, Bickman had 3 confederates dress in 3 different outfits –
* Jacket and tie
* A milkman outfit
* Security guard uniform
The confederates stood in the st and asked ppts to perform tasks like picking up litter or giving the confederate a coin for parking. People were twice as likely to obey the confederate in the security uniform than the jacket and tie. Supports Milgram’s conclusion that uniform conveys the authority of the wearer and affects obedience.
Two explanations of Obedience
Agentic state
Legitimacy of authority
Agentic state
-from his research Milgram proposed the agentic theory
-By this he meant : when we act as the agent (representative ) of someone in authority we find it easy to deny personal responsibility for our actions - it’s just doing our job or following orders
people have two ways acting
-autonomous state
-agentic state
Autonomous state
individuals direct their own behaviour and take responsibility for consequences
Agentic state
individuals allow someone else to direct their behaviour - they pass responsibility to them
what is the agentic shift
.people move from the autonomous state into the agentic state when confronted with authority figure .
what is moral strain
If we obey an order which goes against our conscience , we are likely to experience moral strain , which happens when we have to do something we think is immoral in order to function as an agent of authority
What are binding factors
aspects of the situation that allow a person to minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour
Legitimacy of authority
This is an explanation for obedience which suggests that we are more likely to obey people who we perceive to have authority over us
This authority is justified (legitimate ) by the individuals position of power within a social hierarchy
What is destructive authority
-History has shown all too often that powerful leaders (such as Hitler) can use legitimate powers for destructive purposes
-Destructive authority was shown in milligrams studies when the experimenter used prods to order the ppts to behave in ways that went against their consciences
Agentic state - Strength - Milgram’s research support
Milligram’s own 1963 experiment supports the role of agentic state in obedience .
most of Milgram’s participants resisted giving shocks at some point
and often asked the experimenter questions about the procedure one of these was ‘ who is responsible if Mr Wallace the learner is harmed
when the experimenter replied ‘I’m responsible’ the participants often went through with the procedure quickly with no further objections
This shows that when the participant perceived they were no longer responsible for thier own behaviour the acted more easily as the experimenters agent , as Milgram suggested
legitimacy of authority - strength - explains cultural differences
legitimacy of authority limitation - cannot explain all disobedience
One limitation is that legitimacy cannot explain instances of disobedience in a hierarchy where the legitimacy of authority is clear and accepted .
This includes the nurses in Rank and Jacobs study . Most of them were disobedient despite working in a rigidly hierarchal authority structure .
Also a significant minority of milgrams participants disobeyed despite recognising the experimenters scientific authority.
This suggests that some people may just be more(or less ) obedient than others
agentic state - limitation - A limited explanation
dispositional explanation
not all psychologists accept that obedience can be explained by factors of the situation or social structure
they reason that there must be some importance of the personality of the individual as to whether they will obey
What was Adorno interested in investigating
He was interested in investigating why Nazi soldiers were so willing to persecute and kill members of minority groups , such as jews during WWW II ;could it be blamed on a personality trait
What did Adorno Believe
He believed that a high level of obedience was basically a psychological disorder
They believed that the causes of this disorder lie in the personality of the individual rather than the situation (i.e dispositional explanation)
Adorno’s procedure
Adorno et al (1950) investigated the causes of an obedient personality in a study of more than 2000 middle-class white Americans and their unconscious attitudes towards other racial groups
They developed an F scale to measure the relationship between a person’s personality type and prejudiced beliefs
F=fascists
Someone who believes in a totalitarian state rule by a supreme leader (dictator) who controls everything possible and treats people harshly
Adornos findings
Those who scored highly on the F scale identified with the strong people and were generally contemptuous of the weak
They were conscious of their own and others status
Higher scores had a particular cognitive style :
-there were no grey Areas between categories of people
-they had fixed and distinctive stereotypes and other groups ]
-there was a strong positive correlation between authoritarianism , and prejudice
Authoritarian personality
A type of personality that Adorno argued was especially susceptible to obeying people in authority
such individuals are also thought to be submissive to those of higher status and dismissive of inferiors
Traits of the Authoritarian personality
-submits to the authority of those in a higher position
-is authoritative towards people of lower status
-shows excessive and blind obedience to authority
-conventional and conformist (in terms of 1950s traditional values )
-suspicious and hostile of strangers
-rigid thinkers , strict obedience to social rules and hierarchies
-High scores on the test = high authoritarian personality = more likely to obey orders
Low score on test =low authoritarian personality =less likely to obey orders
What causes the authoritarian personality
-A very strict upbringing by critical and harsh parents
-The individual in question is not able to express hostility towards their parents (for being strict and critical )
-The person would then transfer this aggression /hostility onto safer targets , mainly those who are weaker
Adorno - Strength - Research support
Adorno - politically bias - limitation
Adorno - limitation - limited explanation
resistance to social influence
refers to the ability of people to withstand the social pressure to conform to the majority or obey authority
What is the ability to withstand social pressure influenced by
both situational and dispositional factors
What is Locus of Control
Locus of control refers to a person’s perception of personal control over their own behaviour . It is a personality explanation
Measured on a scale of high internal to high external
internal locus of control
an individual who believes their life is determined by their own decisions and efforts
External locus of control
an individual who believes there life is determined by fate luck and external factors
Who proposed the Locus of control
Julian Rotter (1966)
Internal locus - how does this relate to social influence
High internals actively seek out information which will help them personally and are less likely to rely on others .
They are more achievement orientated
They can resist pressure from others
External locus - how does this relate to social influence
High externals are more likely to be influenced by others as they don’t believe they exercise perosnal control over their lives
Social support
The presence of people who resist pressures to conform or obey can help others to do the same
These people act as models to show others that resistance to social influence is possible
social support - strength - resistance to conformity
social support strength - real world aplications
locus of control - strength - research support
locus of control - limitation -contradictory research
minority influence
A form of social influence in which a minority of people (sometimes just one person ) persuades others to adopt their beliefs attitudes or behaviours
leads to internalisation , in which private attitudes are changed as well as public behaviours
difference between minority and majority influence
With majority influence (conformity ) people identify with the majority and try to fit in with their opinions -perhaps without scrutinising the message
Minority influence creates a conversation whereby people consider the message itself and people want to understand why the minority hold this position
As a result minority influence is more likely to lead to internalisation
Real life examples of minority influence
-suffragettes
-civil rights movement - Rosa parks and Mandella
What are the 3 things needed in order to be successful in changing the beliefs of others
-consistency
-commitment
-flexibility
commitment
Minority influence is more powerful if the minority demonstrates dedication to their position , for example by making personal sacrifices
Consistency
Minority influence is most effective if the minority keeps the same beliefs , both over time and between all the individuals that form the minority
Consistency is effective because it draws attention to the minority view
flexibility
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 the possibility of a compromise
Snow Ball Effect
Over time, increasing numbers of people switch from a majority position to the minority position. They have become ‘converted’. The more that this happens, the faster the rate of conversion.
Moscovichi - Aim
To investigate the effects of a consistent minority on a majority. Moscovici (1969) conducted a re-run of Asch’s experiment, but in reverse.
Moscovichi - Procedure
Moscovici et al(1969) explored minority influence in a study for a group of 6 people with asked to view a set of 36 blue coloured slides which varied in intensity. They then had to state whether the slides were blue or green.
.
Participants were given eye tests to check whether they were colour blind .
Then they were placed in a group consisting of four participants and two confederates .
They were shown 36 slides which were clearly different shades of blue and asked to state the colour of each slide out loud .
In the first part of the experiment there were two confederates who answered green for each of the 36 slides .
They were totally consistent in their responses .
In the second part of the experiment , they answered green 24 times and blue 12 times . In this case they were inconsistent with their answers
Moscovichi - Results
When the accomplices were consistent the other 4 participants conformed and called the slides green on 8.4% of the trials , with 32% of the participants calling a slide green at least once
. When accomplices were inconsistent , conformity reduced to 1.25%
Moscovichi - Conclusion
Minorities are able to influence a majority but not all the time and only if they show consistent behaviour
Moscovichi - evaluation
Only 1/3 of the people conformed , at best therefore 2/3 did not conform to the minority view at any time . The significant difference lies in the comparison of those who did change their mind , but as this was just a small proportion of those who took part in the study , we must be careful not to extrapolate too much from this study and try and general use to the public at large
Moscovici only used women in his study therefore we can not generalise
limitation
strength
How does minority influence create social change - STEPS
- drawing attention
-consistency
-deeper processing of the issue
-augmentation principle
-snowball effect
-social cryptomnesia
Drawing attention
consistency
Civil rights activists represented a minority of the American population
But their position remained consistent . Millions of people took part
In many marches over several years , always representing the same non-aggressive messages
deeper processing of the issue
The activism meant that many people who had simply accepted the status
Quo began to think deeply about the unjustness of it
argumentation principle
Individuals risked their lives numerous times . For example the freedom
Riders were mixed racial groups who boarded buses in the south ,
Challenging racial segregation of transport . Many freedom riders were
Beaten . This personal risk indicates a strong belief and reinforces their message
Snow-Ball effect
Activists (e.g. Martin Luther King ) gradually got the attention of the US government . More and More people backed the minority position . In
1964 the US civil rights Act prohibited discrimination , making a change from minority to majority support for civil rights
Social cryptomnesia
People have a memory that change has occurred but don’t remember how it happened - Social change clearly did not come about so the South is quite a different place now . But some people have no memory of the events that lead toc change
Evidence that the people who initiated the change had an internal locus of control
Rosa parks had an internal locus of control as she disobeyed authority figures and social norms for example the police told her to move and she refused to
Evidence of Consistency
There were many marches and many people taking part . Even though they were the minority of the American population , the civil rights activists displayed consistency of message and intent
Evidence of flexibility
They stopped the boycott after they were allowed to sit where they wanted . They could have pressed for bigger change but they just settled for this
Evidence of the argumentation principle
There were a number of incidents where individuals risked their lives . For example ‘freedom riders’ were mixed racial groups who got on buses in the South to challenge the fact that black people still had to sit separately on buses . Many freedom riders were beaten and there were incidents of mob violence
Evidence of the snow ball effect
Civil rights activists such as martin Luther King continued to press for changes that gradually got the attention of the us government . In 1964 the US civil rights act was passed , which prohibited discrimination . This represented a change from minority to majority to support civil rights
What did Asch research tell is about social change
Social support - the power of dissent - when one confederate dissented ,conformity dropped . This shows how the dissenter broke the power of majority and this is what could lead to social change
Environmental and health campaigns often exploit normative social influence by including information about what other people are doing
-social change is encouraged by drawing attention to what others are doing
What did Milgram’s research tell us about social change
-It demonstrated the importance of a disobedient role model in the variation where a confederate and teacher refuses to shock leaner and the obedience of the genuine participants plummeted
What did Zimbardos research
-Zimbardo (2007) suggested how obedience can be used to create social change via gradual commitment
What is gradual commitment
-small harmless change in society that builds to a big change that people obey
