Social Influence Flashcards
What is conformity?
A change in a persons behaviour/opinion as a result of real or imagined pressure from a group of ppl in order to fit in
3 types of conformity according to Kelman
Compliance
Internalisation
Identification
What is compliance
Going along with group, publicly agree (in order to be accepted, fit into + gain approval from the group) but privately disagree
Shallowest/ weakest level of conformity usually occurs as a result of NSI + is temporary
E.G laughing at a joke that you don’t find funny
What is internalisation
Publicly + privately agree, make the groups behaviours and opinions your own
Deepest form of conformity ,often occurs due to ISI (is permanent)
E.G. You might become a vegetarian based on the people you live with who are animal right activists.
What is identification
conform publicly + privately because they have identified with the group and they feel a sense of group membership (acceptance). change of belief /behaviour often temporary, only lasts as long as the group is present. When group no longer present, conformity decease
E.G.Moving to a new town + supporting local football team. But if you move, may stop supporting the team
Why do ppl conform
Informational social influence
Normative social influence
What is informational social influence
Conforming due to desire to be right, look at others who we believe are correct, give info about how to behave in new/ ambiguous situations (uncertain of what is accepted from us so we look to others for info), cognitive process -> leads to internalisation
E.g. new school, want to impress so copy ppl next to you as believe they are right/smarter
What is Normative Social influence?
Conform due to desire to be liked/accepted as part of group. Gain approval/avoid disproval peer pressure. NSI most likely occurs in situations with strangers (new situations) individual has fear of being rejected, is trying to gain social approval.(emotional process) -> leads to compliance
E.g. person smoking as they’re surrounded by other ppl smoking
Evaluation of ISI
Lucas et al (2006) asked students to give answers to maths problems that were easy or difficult. Greater conformity giving incorrect answers on more difficult maths problems than easier ones. Conformity was greater for PPS who rated own math’s ability as poor. ppl conform in situations where they feel they don’t know the answer & assume others know better. + ambiguous situations so look to others who habe more knowledge, supporting ISI. provides Internal Validity to ISI.
BUT is age bias + lacks generalisability
Asch’s variation: changed task difficulty making lines smaller led to greater conformity suggesting ISI plays greater role when task becomes harder as situation is more ambiguous so more likely to look for others for guidance – provides ISI with high validity
Evaluation of NSI
Linken Buch + Perkins - found that when adolescents were told that majority of peers didn’t smoke, they themselves were less likely to smoke (conform to norm of group in order to be accepted + fit in.)
Asch’s study - some PPs said they felt self-conscious giving their answers & afraid of disapproval. replicated experiment & PPs wrote answers in private, conformity fell to 12.5% .conformity was lower when answers were in private (12.5%) compared to 75% in original, indicates PPS were conforming for need of approval (NSI) giving internal validity to NSI
Contradictory Evidence: McGhee & Teevan found some people have greater need to be liked (naffiliator) more likely to conform. Ppl who’re less concerned with being liked are less affected by NSI, implying NSI cannot be generalized to everyone due to individual differences, doesn’t affect everyone’s behaviour in the same way
What are the 3 variables affecting conformity?
Group size
Task difficulty
Unanimity
Outline Aschs study
told it was a visual perception task
Lab experiment; Swarthmore College in the USA
123 American male undergraduates
1 naive pps in a room with 5 confederates.Each person in the room had to state which comparison line (A, B or C) was most like stimulus line.answers always unambiguous. Confederate gave same incorrect answer 12/18 trials. naïve pps sat second to last of the row & gave his answer last.
Outline Aschs findings
75% conformed at least once
25% didn’t conform at all
35% conformed all of the time 12/12
Aschs 3 variations
-Difficulty of task
- Unanimity of the majority
- Group Size
Aschs study evaluation
•Lacks mundane realism
•lab based study - artificial, demand characteristics
•aren’t generalisable (age, gender,culture bias)
• deception -> debrief
•small sample size
Outline 2 strengths of Aschs study
~high internal validity, control of extraneous variables
~supported by other studies:
Lucas et al (2006) asked pps to solve easy + hard maths problems, found pps conformed to wrong answer more often when problems were hard - supports Asch’s claim, task difficulty is one variable that effects conformity
HOWEVER, Lucas et al (2006) also found that conformity is more complex than suggested by Asch, found individual-level factors influence conformity + those who were confident in their maths skills less likely to conform Asch did not research the roles of individual factors
Conformity to social roles - ZIMBARDOs 1973 - aim?
investigate how readily ppl would conform to assigned social roles of guard and prisoner in a role-playing exercise that simulated prison life.
Outline sample of zimbardo
~24 American male undergraduates (3 dropped out)
~$15 a day
~ pps tested and found to be ‘emotionally stable’ were selected
Outline the procedure of the Stanford prison experiment
*Arrested at own homes without warning, taken to local police station
*Pps randomly assigned role of prisoner or guard
*Prisoners and guards were encouraged to conform to their social roles both through instructions + uniforms worn
*converted basement of the Stanford University psychology building into a mock prison
* Guards worked 8h shifts
What did the guards wear?
khaki uniform, whistles, wooden club, handcuffs and mirror shades to make eye contact with prisoners’ difficult
What did the prisoners wear?
loose smock to wear, a cap to cover their hair + identified by an assigned number only
What did the uniforms create in the Stanford prison experiment?
uniforms created a loss of the individual’s personal identity (de-individuation), meaning they would be more likely to conform to their perceived social role
What are the findings of zimbardo?
~guards adopted social role quickly, easily and with enthusiasm
~Within hours of beginning the experiment some guards began to harass prisoners + treat them harshly
~Within 2 days the prisoners rebelled; ripped their uniforms, shouted + swore at guards
~colleague of Zimbardo’s visited the study and was horrified at the abuse and exploitation she saw
Zimbardo ended the experiment after six days instead of the 14 originally planned
~1 prisoner released 36h in due to uncontrollable bursts of screaming, crying and anger, diagnosed with early stages of deep depression
How did the prisoners behave
~adopted prisoner-like behaviour too e.g. they became subdued; they ‘snitched’ to the guards about other prisoners; they took prison rules seriously; they increasingly became docile and obedient
~prisoners became more submissive,
How did the guards behave
~guards became more aggressive and assertive taking on their social roles easily(enjoyed it)
~Made prisoners clean the toilets with bare hands
~guards used fire extinguishers to retaliate, using ‘divide-and-rule’ tactics, playing the prisoners off against each other and completing headcounts, sometimes at night
How long did the Stanford prison experiment last
6 days was meant to last 2 weeks
Conclusion of zimbardo
Social roles appeared to have a strong influence on individuals’ behaviour in this study
Power may corrupt those who wield it i.e. the guards over the prisoners
Institutions may brutalise people and result in deindividuation (for both guards and prisoners)
A prison exerts psychological damage upon those who work and are incarcerated there
It felt “real” to them
Didn’t know that side of them, behaving brutally/submissibely
Strengths of zimbardos study
- Prisoners and guards randomly assigned to their roles, increasing the control over internal validity (whether the study actually measured what it intended to) of the study
- Study meant that practices were changed in US prisons to protect the vulnerable and make prisons safer, and a lot of this was due to the study e.g young are not kept with adult prisoners to prevent bad behaviour perpetuating
- Debriefed fully
Weaknesses of zimbardos study
~Individual differences and personality determines the extent person conforms to social roles, the guards’ behaviour differed: Not all guards were so harsh or cruel
~Pps acting in a stereotypical way e.g. 1 guard said he based his behaviour on a brutal character he’d seen in a film
~lack of realism and many argued that it did not have the realism of a real prison
~ gender bias
~lacks population validity, not generalisable
ETHICAL
~psychological harm, could have been long-lasting,
~right to withdraw was made difficult, Zimbardo himself was playing the role of superintendent
~lack of consent due to deception(avoided demand characteristics)
Obedience meaning…
Complying with demands/following orders of someone you see as an authority figure who has power
2 explanations of obedience
*agentic shift
*legitimacy of authority
What is the agentic shift
autonomous individuals behaving voluntarily, aware of the consequences of their actions. Shift to agentic level, seeing themselves at the agents of others and not responsible for their actions.
When a person perceives someone else as a figure of authority, they defer responsibility to that person as they believe they are acting as an agent for that authority figure.
What is legitimacy of authority
We obey people who’s role is defined by society as powerful or as an authority figure.
The authority they yield is legitimate as it is agreed by society, They are granted the power to punish
More likely to obey ppl who we perceive to have authority over us due to position of power that they hold within the social hierarchy
what is the agentic shift
shift form autonomous ->agentic state. responsibility shifts from yourself to authority figure
agency theory
ppl are more likely to obey when in agentic state, they don’t believe they’ll suffer the
consequences of those actions. This is because they believe that they are acting on behalf of their agent.
Milgram claimed that obedience occurs due to 2 opposing sets of demands..
The external authority: Authority of the authority figure
The internal authority: Authority of our own conscience
agentic state explanation is supported by Blass and Schmitt (2001)
showed video of Milgram’s study to students + asked them who they felt was responsible for harm to the learner. students blamed the “experimenter”
legitimacy of authority is supported by cultural differences
Kilham + Mann (1974) replicated milgrams study + found that countries where obedience and deference to authority are less valued (Australia), obedience rates are much lower (16%)
Mantell than in countries that value legitimate authority figures (Germany) (85%)
situational variables
features of immediate physical+ social environment which may influence persons behaviour (proximity, uniform, location)
dispositional variables
exp of behaviour that highlghts importance of individuals personalty
milgrams aim
why such a high proportion of the German population obeyed Hitler’s commands to murder during the Second World War
Milgrams sample
40 American men volunteers, for a “memory” test at Yale university
milgrams procedure
introduced to another “pps” (who was a confederate) The two pps drew to see who would be the ‘Teacher’ + ‘Learner’ (draw was fixed, so genuine pps was always the teacher + confederate the learner. An Experimenter (confederate) dressed in a grey lab coat.
Pps had to ask the L a series of questions, if answer is wrong, the pps had to give him an electric shock, even when no answer was given. electric shocks incremented by 15 volts at a time, (330V was marked as ‘lethal’.)
Pps thought shocks were real but no real shocks administered + confederate was acting. shocks were falsely demonstrated to be real prior to the start of the
study
When the teacher displayed a reluctance to injure the learner, they were encouraged to continue the procedure
