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
milgrams finding
All pps went up to 300V +65% went up to 450V. No pps stopped below 300V, only 12.5% stopped at 300V
vast majority of pps prepared to give lethal electric shocks to a confederate.
ethical issues with milgram
deceived + psychological harm: Pps thought allocation of roles Teacher + Learner was random but they were not as Milgram’s confederate was always the learner
Pps believed electric shocks were real
Milgram debriefed pps afterward to ensure they understood the real intentions of the experiment
What are the explanations of obedience
- Agentic state
- Legitimacy of authority
What is the agentic state
Shift from autonomous to agentic state -> responsibility shifts from yourself to authority figure.
What are the 2 levels that miligram says we operate on
- Autonomous level = behaving voluntarily + aware of consequences of actions
- Agentic level -> seeing themselves as agents of others, not responsible for actions
Why did this man obey? (Agentic)
Autonomous->agentic sate (shift) perceives experimenter as figure of authority, experimenter is higher in social hierarchy leading him deferring responsibility
Explain legitimacy of authority
- Social hierachy is accepted in day to day life, grow up with social heirachys
- learn from young age to obey people who are higher up in the social hierarchy
How does a minority influence a majority
- Consistency
- Flexibility
- Commitment
Minority influence majority : consistency
- remain consistent with argument
- majority can’t understand minorities diff view point creating conflict, causing anxiety
- reduce anxiety by examining minorities argument
- more consistent = more carefully argument considered
Minority influence majority: flexibility
- must show some leeway with argument
- minorities powerless against majorities so cannot force their opinion, must negotiate by being flexible
- rigid = dogmatic (narrow minded + arrogant), too flexible = majority won’t pay attention see you as weak
-> so be flexible but not too much
Minority influence majority: commitment
- being committed to cause shows certainty, confidence, courage
- greater cost to join minority then stay with majority, so minority must show more commitment than majority to have effect
Moscovici (1969) : aim
To see if consistent minority can influence majority to give incorrect answer in colour perception task
Moscovici (1969) : method
- 172 female American pps told they were taking part in experiment on colour perception
- 6 pps at a time were asked to estimate colour, out loud, 36 slides (all diff shades of blue)
- 2/6 pps confederates
Moscovici (1969) : 2 conditions
- Consistent = 2 confederates called slides green on all trials
- Inconsistent = 2 confederates called slides green 24 times + blue 12 times
Moscovici (1969) : results
~ pps in consistent condition = influenced by minority called slides green 8.4% of trials
~ pps in inconsistent condition = called slides green 1.3% of trials
Nemeth (1989) : Aim
To investigate whether minority could influence majority to give less compensation to victim of ski lift accident
Nemeth (1989) : Method
- pps placed in groups of 4 + had to agree on amount of compensation they would give to a victim of ski lift acccident
- 1 pps in each group was a confederate
Nemeth (1989) : 2 groups
- Inflexible =Minority argues for low rate of compensation + refused change to its position
- Flexible = minority argued for low rate of compensation, compromised by offering slightly higher
Nemeth (1989) : results
- inflexible condition = minority had little/ no effect on majority
- flexible condition = majority much more likely to compromise + change view
What is conversion and what does it result it
switches from majority to minority position, publicly + privately agreeing
-> results in internalisation
What is social change
= when society adopts a new belief or way of behaving, becoming widely accepted as the norm
What are the 5 stages of social change
- Drawing attention to issue which opposes majority position
- Role of conflict, examine minority position more deeply
- Consistency
- Augmentation principle
- Snowball effect
What is the augmentation principle
If there are risks associated with putting forward point of view, views taken more seriously
What is the snowball effect
process that starts from initial stage of small significance + builds upon itself, becoming large
Social change : evaluation through analysis of suffragettes
- drawing attention -> used educational, political, militant methods
- role of conflict -> advocated changes to voting system creating cognitive conflict
- consistency -> continued for 15 yrs
- augmentation principle -> hunger strike, imprisonment, death
Social change : weaknesses
- minority influence doesn’t always lead to social change
- seen as deviant by majority
- influence may be latent (create potential in future)
What is the perceived norm
~ behaviour based on what ppl think other ppl do, often different to actual norm
What is misperception
Gap between perceived norm + actual norm
Aim of social norms intervention
To reduce gap by telling ppl actual facts about any given behaviour
Study support + against social change
Support = Nolan 2008
Against = DeJong 2009
Nolan 2008 : Aim
Investigated whether social influence processes led to reduction in energy consumption in a community
Nolan 2008 : method
Hung messages on front doors of houses every week for 1 month
Message = most residents were trying to reduce energy wage
Control groups message = asked them to save energy but made no reference to other ppls behaviour
Nolan 2008: findings
Significant decrease in energy wages in 1st group
DeJong 2009: Aim + method
Tested theory in relation to alcohol use among uni students
- surveys conducted at beginning of study + 3yrs after
DeJong 2009 : findings
Despite receiving normative info that corrected misconceptions of drinking norms, students did NOT report lower levels of alcohol consumption as a result of campaign
2 explanations of resisting social influence
- Locus of control
- Social support
Who came up with the locus of control + what did it measure
Rutter 1966, measurement of individuals sense of control over their lives
What are the two ends of the locus of control
Internal and external
Internal locus of control believes…
Behaviour is caused by their own personal decisions + effort
External locus of control believes …
Behaviour is caused by fate/ luck
Why are internals more likely to resist social influence
- more likely to have greater self confidence , more achievement orientated + high intelligence + less social approval -> dispositional traits lead to greater resistance to social influence
- high internals, more likely to be leaders than followers
Evaluation of locus of control
Oliner + Oliner (1998)
Holland (1967)
Evaluation LOC :oliner + oliner method
interviewed non Jewish survivors of WW2 + compared those who had resisted prefers + protected Jewish ppl from Nazis, in comparison to those who had not
Evaluation LOC :oliner + oliner found
406 “rescuers”, resisted orders, more likely to have high internal locus of control in comparison to 126ppl who had simply followed orders
Holland (1967) : method
Replicated milgrams study + measured whether pps were classed as “internals” or “externals”
Holland (1967) : found
37% of internals didn’t continue to 450 volts
23% externals didn’t continue to 450 volts
What is social support
Presence of others who resist pressures to conform/obey can help others do the same -> give confidence to go along with own opinions
These ppl act as “ models” to show others that resistance is possible
Social support + conformity
- Most important role of social support is breaking unanimity of majority
- Raises possibility that there is more than 1 legitimate answer in any given situation
- presence of an ally gives individual more confidence in their decision + allows them to stand up to majority
How did social support affect conformity rates -> Asch’s study
- Conformity dropped from 37% to 5.5%
- If somebody present isn’t conforming then pressure to conform is reduced, even if ally is giving wrong/ different answer, fact they aren’t conforming leads to drop in conformity
Social support + obedience
- disobedient peers act as role models on which individual can model own behaviour
- defiance of a peer provides opportunity for individual to also take stand against authority-> ally gives confidence to individual
How did social support affect obedience rates -> Milgram’s study
- obedience dropped from 65% to 10% when genuine pps was joined by disobedient confederate
What do disobedient confederates act as
A role model/ ally, provides support, allowing individual to be free + act according to own conscience
Social support in the real world study
The rosenstrasse protest
What was the rosenstrasse protest
= a stark illustration of milgrams research irl
- 1943, group of German woman protested in Rossentrasse Berlin, where Gestapo (Nazi secret police) were holding 2000 Jewish men (most married to non Jewish partners / male kids from “mixed marriages”
- despite gestapo threatening to open fire on them, woman’s courage eventually prevailed + Jews were set on fire
Milgram : found presence of disobedient peers gave pps confidence + courage to resist authorities orders. These woman defied authority of gestapo together, given courage by collective action of their peers
Strength of social support
+ Allen and Levine (1971) found conformity decreased when there was social support in an Asch type study. This occurred even if support came from someone who wore thick rimmed glasses + said he had difficulty with vision
Right Wing Authoritarian 3 personality variables
High levels of RWA
1. Conventionalism = an adherence to conventional norms +values
2. Authoritarian aggression = aggressive feelings towards ppl who violate these norms
3. Authoritarian submission = submission to legitimate authorities
Dispositional explanation of obedience
F scale -> Adorno (1950)
What is the F scale
- questionnaire used to determine how likely one is to obey commands of an authority figure
- higher you score on F Scale more likely they are to obey authority + adhere to social norms
- those who score highly tend to have parents who also scored highly, suggesting an element of environmental influence
Weakness of authoritarian personality
- research conducted using questionnaires-> social desirability, lack internal validity
Weakness of dispositional explanation of obedience
- situational factors are more important eg situational factors in milgrams study was uniform, experimenter wore lab coat obedience dropped from 65% to 20%. -> obedience is affected by situation you find yourself in rather than internal factors
Blass + Schmitt (2010)
Showed video of Milgrams study to students + asked who they felt was responsible for harm to learner
-> students blamed “experimenter” rather than pps
Cross cultural differences
- Kilmam + Mann(1947) replicated Milgrams study + found in Australia, there’s a tradition of challenging authority, only 16% of pps went to 450 V on shock generator
On other hand - Mantell (1971) found 85% when doing same study in Germany
Weakness of explanations of obedience
- members of German Reserve Police Battalion 101 murdered civilians without being ordered to had reasons for behaving like this
- no agentic shift -> did not see themselves as acting as agents of higher authority
- given a choice, acted autonomously out of hatred, prejudice, racism + greed
Aschs variation: difficulty of task
conformity increases when task is difficult, asch altered line length making them similar and harder to tell apart, ISI plays a bigger role -> uncertain of answers so look to others for answer more difficult = greater conformity THEREFORE: task difficulty + individual differences are important in determining conformity
Aschs variation: Unanimity of the majority
When naïve pps given support of confederate who gave right answer or real pps, conformity DROPPED significantly, from 33% - 5.5%, When a dissenter was present (rebel who gave different answer to the correct one) conformity rates DROPPED to 9% - act as a role model THEREFORE: breaking group’s unanimous position led to conformity reduction
Aschs variation: group size
Group Size: majority consisted of 1 or 2 confederates – conformity was LOW, When there’s 3 in the majority conformity jumped to 30% (more pressure) Further increases to majority didn’t increase conformity substantially THEREFORE: size of majority is important BUT up to a point - optimum 3
