Social influence Flashcards
define conformity
the tendency to change what we do, think or say in response to the influence of real or pressure from a majority group
what are the two explanations for conformity
-Normative social influence –> we agree with the opinion of the majority because we want to be accepted, gain social approval and be liked. This may lead to compliance
-Informational social influence –> we agree with the opinion of the majority because we believe it is correct. We accept it because we want to be correct as well (may lead to internalisation)
what are the three types of conformity
Compliance –> When an individual changes their behaviour in response to an explicit or implicit request made by another person (the most shallow)
Internalisation –> When a person changes both their public behaviour and private beliefs (deepest level)
Identification –> When a person changes their public behaviour and private beliefs but only in the presence of the group they are identifying with
what was the aim of sherifs experiment
demonstrating that people conform to group norms when they are put in an ambigious situation
what was the method of sherifs experiment
Sherif used a lab experiment to study conformity. He used the autokinetic effect where a small spot of light was projected in a dark room that appears to be moving even though it is still. Participants were falsely told the experimenter would move the light. There were 3 phases. In the first phase participants were by themself and estimates were varied widely. In the second phase participants were in a group where estimates tended to converge and be more alike. In the final phase participants were alone but their estimate was similar to their previous group estimate.
Conclusion of sherif’s experiment
When in an ambiguous situation a person is more likely to turn to others for guidance as they want to do the right thing.
define majority influence
refers to the process by which the majority alters the attitudes and behaviour of the minority. This may be due to normative social influence but can also be due to informational social influence, where the minority yields to group pressure because they perceive the majority as having more knowledge or information
Aim of Asch’s line study (1951)
investigate conformity and majority influence
what was the procedure of Asch’s line study
- Participants and confederates were presented with 4 lines; 3 comparison lines and 1 standard line
- They asked to state which of three lines was the same length as a stimulus line
- The real participant always answered last or second to last
- Confederates would give the same incorrect answer for 12 out of 18 trials
- Asch observed how often the participant would give the same incorrect answer as the confederates versus the correct answer
Findings of Asch’s line study
36.8% conformed
25% never conformed
75% conformed at least once In a control trial,
only 1% of responses given by participants were incorrect (which eliminates eyesight/perception as an extraneous variable, thus increasing the validity of the conclusions drawn)
what are the variables affecting conformity
group size
unanimity of conformity
difficulty of task
how does group size affect conformity
An individual is more likely to conform in a larger group. There was low conformity with group size of confederates were less than 3 - any more than 3 and the conformity rose by 30%. A person is more likely to conform if all members of the group are in agreement and give the same answer, because it will increase their confidence in correctness of the group, and decrease their confidence in their own answer. Conformity does not seem to increase in groups larger than four so this is considered the optimal group size. This shows that the majority must be at least 3 to exert an influence, but an overwhelming majority is not needed in all instances to bring about conformity
how does unanimity of majority affect conformity
An individual is more likely to conform when the group is unanimous i.e. all give the same answer, as opposed to them all giving different answer. When joined by another participant or disaffected confederate who gave the correct answer, conformity fell from 32% to 5.5%. If different answers are given, it falls from 32% to 9%. . The more unanimous the group is, the more confidence the participant will have that they are all correct, and therefore the participant’s answer is more likely to be incorrect. Unanimity is vital in establishing a consistent majority view, which is particularly important by providing normative social influence.
how does difficulty of task affect conformity
An individual is more likely to conform when the task is difficult. For example, Asch altered the (comparison) lines (e.g. A, B, C) making them more similar in length. Since it was harder to judge the correct answer conformity increased. When the task is difficult, we are more uncertain of our answer so we look to others for confirmation. The more difficult the task the greater the conformity. This suggests that informational social influence is a major mechanism for conformity when the situation is ambiguous and the individual does not have enough of their own knowledge or information to make an informed decision independently, and so has to look towards others.
conclusion of Asch’s line experiment
In a group situation there is a tendency to conform to the judgements of others, even when these judgements are quite clearly incorrect. However, there are considerable individual differences in whether people or not conform.
Strength’s of Asch’s line experiment
-High internal validity - There was strict control over extraneous variables, such as timing of assessment and the type of task used. The participants did the experiment before without confederates to see if they actually knew the correct answer, thus removing the confounding variable of a lack of knowledge. This suggests that valid and reliable ‘cause and effect’ relationships can be established, as well as valid conclusions. Lab experiment
- Extraneous and confounding variables are strictly controlled, meaning that replication of the experiment is easy. Successful replication increases the reliability of the findings because it reduces the likelihood that the observed findings were a ‘one-off’
weaknesses of Asch’s line experiment
-Lacks ecological validity - it was based on peoples’ perception of lines and so the findings cannot be generalised to real life as it does not reflect the complexity of real life conformity i.e. where there are many other confounding variables and majorities exert influence irrespective of being a large group.
-Lacks population validity due to sampling issues - For example, the participants were only American male undergraduates, and so the study was subject to gender bias, where it is assumed that findings from male participants can be generalised to females (i.e. beta bias).
-Ethical issues: - there was deception as participants were tricked into thinking the study was about perception rather than compliance so they could not give informed consent. - There could have been psychological harm as the participants could have been embarrassed after realising the true aims of the study. - Such issues simply mean that a cost-benefit analysis is required to evaluate whether the ethical costs are smaller than the benefits of increased knowledge of the field. They do not affect the validity or reliability of findings.
-Lacked temporal validity - The social context of the 1950s may have affected results. For example, Perrin and Spencer criticised the study by stating that the period that the experiment was conducted in influenced the results because it was an anti-Communist period in America when people were more scared to be different i.e. McCarthyism. Thus, the study can be said to lack temporal validity because the findings cannot be generalised across all time periods.
what type of conformity goes with which explanation
internalisation –> informational social influence
compliance –> normative social influence
What are the difficulties in distinguishing between NSI and ISI
The original two process theory stated that people either conform due to ISI or NSI. For example Asch’s non conforming confederate condition conformity levels reduced. This may have been due to NSI in having social support from someone else of reduced ISI due to another source of information. This shows that it is not always possible to be sure which is the influencing factor. This therefore reduces the validity of the theory
Support for normative social influence
Asch’s line study
-Unanimity in a group increases conformity
Support for informational social influence
Asch’s made comparison lines more similar so task was more difficult. Participants conformed as they wanted to be correct.
Jenness jelly bean experiment
what was Jeness’ experiment (1932)
Aim: investigate how humans conform based on the behaviour of others surrounding them
Procedure: gathered 101 psychology students who had to estimate how many beans were in a jar. Then they were split into groups to communicate guesses. They then had to estimate again.
Results: Males changed answer by 256 beans and females by 382 beans
Conclusion: Demonstrates informational social influence especially in an ambiguous situation
what are the strengths and limitations of Jeness’s experiment
Strengths –> ethical study (no psychological harm etc)
-ambigious question
Limitations –> Experiment had no controls so extraneous variables were not accounted for
—> ambigious so does not inform us about conformity in non-ambigious situations
–> included both normative and informational social influence
define social roles
parts people play as members of various social groups
define social norms
unwritten beliefs and rules that are considered acceptable
define a non-conforming confederate
person who encourages other people not to conform in an experiment
why are different social groups adapted for different social roles
Different social roles are adopted for different social situations as social roles help structure interactions within groups that provides the framework for understanding what is expected of individuals
how were the prisoners dehumanised in Zimbardo’s study
prisoners were blindfolded, strip searched etc
define obedience
a form of social influence in which an individual follows a direct order. The person issuing the order is usually a figure of authority who has the power to punish when obedient behaviour is not forthcoming
what was the aim of Milgram’s study
To observe whether people would obey a figure of authority when told to harm another person i.e. evaluating the influence of a destructive authority figure.
procedure of milgram’s study
A participant given the role of ‘teacher’ and a confederate given the role of ‘learner’. This was decided through a random allocation. Participant had to ask the confederate a series of questions. Whenever the confederate got the answer wrong, the participant had to give him an electric shock, even when no answer was given. The electric shocks incremented by 15 volts at a time, ranging from 300V to 450V, where 330V was marked as ‘lethal’. Participants thought the shocks were real when in fact there were no real shocks administered, and the confederate was acting. The shocks were falsely demonstrated to be real prior to the start of the study. Participants were assessed on how many volts they were willing to shock the confederate with. The experimenter’s role was to give a series of orders / prods when the participant refused to administer a shock, which increased in terms of demandingness for every time the participant refused to administer a shock. The same 4 prods were used each time when participants refused to administer the shocks. The first 3 demanded obedience to science, whereas the final prod demanded obedience specifically to the confederate.
Prod 1: please continue or please go on
Prod 2: The experiment requires that you continue
Prod 3: it is absolutely essential that you continue
Prod 4: You have no other choice you must go on
Before the study, Milgram asked psychiatrists, college students and colleagues to predict how long participants would go before refusing to continue.
Findings of Milgrams study
All participants went up to 300V and 65% went up to 450V. No participants stopped below 300V, And 100% went to 300V, showing that the vast majority of participants were prepared to give lethal electric shocks to a confederate.
what is the germans are different hypothesis
Germans have a basic character deficit which means they have the readiness to obey people in authority regardless of the act they are committing
what type of sample, experiment was used for milgrams study
lab experiment
volunteer sample
participants were paid 4 dollars to be part of the study
how many participants were used for Milgram’s study and how realistic was the study
40 male participants from Yale university
Milgram made the experiment as realistic as possible as the confederates slammed their hands on the table when “shocked”
3 factors affecting obedience
proximity, uniform, location
Proximity
Participants obeyed more when the experimenter was in the same room i.e. 62.5%. This was reduced to 40% when the experimenter and participant were in separate rooms, and reduced to a further 30% in the touch proximity condition i.e. where the experimenter forcibly placed the participant’s hand on the electric plate.
Location
Participants obeyed more when the study was conducted at a prestigious university i.e. Stanford. This is because the prestige of such a location demands obedience and also may increase the trust that the participant places in the integrity of the researchers and their experiments.
Uniform
Participants obeyed more when the experimenter wore a lab coat. A person is more likely to obey someone wearing a uniform as it gives them a higher status and a greater sense of legitimacy. It was found that obedience was much higher when the experimenter wore a lab coat as opposed to normal clothes. However, demand characteristics were particularly evident in this condition, with even Milgram admitting that many participants could see through this deception.
strengths of milgrams experiment
-Debriefing - The participants were thoroughly and carefully debriefed on the real aims of the study, in an attempt to deal with the ethical breach of the guideline of protection from deception and the possibility to give informed consent. In a follow up study conducted a year later, 84% of participants were glad they were part of the study and 74% felt as if they learned something. This suggests that the study left little or no permanent or long-term psychological harm on participants.
Real life applications — This research opened our eyes to the problem of obedience and so may reduce future obedience in response to destructive authority figures e.g. obedience has resulted in negative social change - the Nazis obeyed orders and as a result, Hitler managed to get what he wanted and what he wanted was not what the majority of people wanted. Such research also gives an insight into why people were so willing to kill innocent Jews simply when told to, and so highlights how we can all easily be victims to such pressures. A general awareness of the power of such influences is useful in establishing social order and moral behaviours.
High in internal validity — Gina Perry reviewed the interview tapes and found that a significant number of participants raised questions about the legitimacy of the electric shocks. However, quantitative data gathered by Milgram directly suggested that 70% of participants believed that the shocks were real - these findings appear plausible when considering that 100% of the females used in Sheridan and King’s study administered real electric shocks to puppies. This suggests that although the findings were certainly surprising, they were also likely to be accurate.
Highly replicable – The procedure has been repeated all over the world, where consistent and similar obedience levels have been found. For example, in a replication of Milgram’s study using the TV pseudonym of Le Jeu de la Mort, researchers found that 85% of participants were willing to give lethal electric shocks to an unconscious man (confederate), whilst being cheered on by a presenter and a TV audience. Such replication increases the reliability of the findings.
limitations of milgrams experiment
was justified by the aim of avoiding demand characteristics/ the ‘Please-U’ effect/ participant reactivity (where participants change their behaviour in response to knowing that they are being observed). -
There was psychological harm inflicted upon the participants - They showed signs of psychological and physiological distress such as trembling, sweating and nervous laughter. Such findings were also replicated in the Jeu de la Mort study, showing that these results were not simps due to participant variables/differences.
- It raises a socially sensitive issue – Milgram’s findings suggest that those who are responsible for killing innocent people can be excused because it is not their personality that made them do this, but it is because of the situation that they were in and the fact that it is difficult to disobey – some may strongly disagree with this, and especially the judicial system, where (except in viable cases of diminished responsibility), individuals are expected to take moral responsibility for their actions.
- Lack of internal validity – The experiment may have been about trust rather than about obedience because the experiment was held at Stanford University. Therefore, the participants may have trusted that nothing serious would happen to the confederate, especially considering the immense prestige of the location. Also when the experiment was replicated in a run-down office, obedience decreased to a mere 20.5%. This suggests that the original study did not investigate what it aimed to investigate.
- Lack of ecological validity – The tasks given to participants are not like those we would encounter in real life e.g. shooting somebody in the face is different from flicking a switch, meaning that the methodology lacks mundane realism, producing results which are low in ecological validity.
Where did Zimbardo’s study take place and how were participants chosen
-Study took place in Stanford University
-Volunteer sample where participants who volunteered were screened for psychological health
-Participants were randomly assigned to their roles of either guard or prisoner
what were the social roles within Zimbardo’s study
Authority, hierarchy, dehumanisation
what was Zimbardo’s role in his study
-prison superintendent
-lead psychologist
Aim of Zimbardo’s experiment
To investigate how readily people would conform to the social roles in a simulated environment, and specifically, to investigate why ‘good people do bad things’.
Procedure of Zimbardo’s experiment
-The basement of the Stanford University psychology building was converted into a simulated prison. American student volunteers were paid to take part in the study.
-They were randomly issued one of two roles; guard or prisoner. Both prisoners and guards had to wear uniforms.
- Prisoners were only referred to by their assigned number.
-Guards were given props like handcuffs and sunglasses (to make eye contact with prisoners impossible and to reinforce the boundaries between the two social roles within the established social hierarchy). No one was allowed to leave the simulated prison.
-Guards worked eight hour shifts, while the others remained on call. Prisoners were only allowed in the hallway which acted as their yard, and to the toilet.
-The guards were allowed to control such behaviour, in order to emphasise their complete power over the prisoners! No physical violence was permitted, in line with ethical guidelines and to prevent complete overruling. The behaviour of the participants was observed
Results of Zimbardo’s experiment
-Identification occurred very fast, as both the prisoners and guards adopted their new roles and played their part in a short amount of time, despite the apparent disparity between the two social roles.
- Guards began to harass and torment prisoners in harsh and aggressive ways – they later reported to have enjoyed doing so and relished in their new-found power and control.
-Prisoners would only talk about prison issues (forgetting about their previous real life), and snitch on other prisoners to the guards to please them. This is significant evidence to suggest that the prisoners believed that the prison was real, and were not acting simply due to demand characteristics.
-They would even defend the guards when other prisoners broke the rules, reinforcing their social roles as prisoner and guard, despite it not being real.
-The guards became more demanding of obedience and assertiveness towards the prisoners while the prisoners become more submissive. This suggests that the respective social roles became increasingly internalised.
Conclusions of Zimbardo’s experiment
-people quickly conform to social roles even when the role goes against moral principles
-situational factors were largely responsible for the behaviour found
strengths of Zimbardo’s experiment
–> Real life applications – This research changed the way US prisons are run e.g. young prisoners are no longer kept with adult prisoners to prevent the bad behaviour perpetuating. Beehive-style prisons, where all cells are under constant surveillance from a central monitoring unit, are also not used in modern times, due to such setups increasing the effects of institutionalisation and over exaggerating the differences in social roles between prisoners and guards.
–> Debriefing – participants were fully and completely debriefed about the aims and results of the study. This is particularly important when considering that the BPS ethical guidelines of deception and informed consent had been breached. Dealing with ethical issues in this way simply makes the study more ethically acceptable, but does not change the quality (in terms of validity and reliability) of the findings.
Random allocation of participants –> reduces the impact of participant variables
