Social Influence Flashcards
Types of conformity
Internalisation - going with majority, publicly and privately (ISI)
Compliance - going with majority publicly, doesn’t changed private views (NSI)
Identification - doing what’s expected for fulfil a role, doesn’t change views
Explanations for conformity
Informational social influence - conforming to appear correct, fear of being wrong (uses others for information)
Normative social influence - conforming to be normal, fear of rejection
Outline Asch (and results)
See if participants would conform to the majority on an unambiguous task
Judged which line was closest length to the target line
12 of 18 trails, confederates all gave same wrong answer
- 123 US male participants
- lab experiment
- independent groups
- 1 real participant, 7 confederates
Results:
33% conformity rate
5% every time
75% at least once
Asch evaluation
+ lab experiment, reduces extraneous variables, can be repeated
- lacks ecological validity
- unethical deception
Ash variables and results (situational factors)
Group size:
2 confederate - conformed on 14% of critical
3 confederates - conformed on 32% of trials
Social support:
Broke unanimity, gave supporter
Conformity dropped to 5.5%
Task difficulty:
Increased, less confidence
Dispositional factors effecting conformity
Gender
Confidence
Outline Zimbardo
- 21 male student sample
- controlled observation
Participants given role of guard or prisoner
They adopted their social roles
Guards became aggressive and prisoners obeyed
encouraged to conform through instructions and uniforms
Shows people’s behaviour can be influenced by their social roles (situational)
Zimbardo evaluation
+ controlled observation, good control of variables
- lacks ecological validly, can’t be generalised to real life
- observer bias, Zimbardo too involved
- unethical, distressing, told they can’t leave
- lacks population validity
+ Orlando, mock psychiatric ward, doctors given role of patients, changed behaviour
Shows effects if social roles in real life
Outline Milgram (+ results)
- lab experiment
- volunteer, male sample
Tested to see if people would obey to orders to shock someone
Participant was the teacher to a confederate learner
When learner answered incorrectly, experimenter told them to shock the learner with increasing levels of voltage
All went to 300V
65% went to full 450V
Shows that ordinary people will obey orders, even if it means hurting someone
Milgram evaluation
+ lab experiment, good control
- lacks internal validity, didn’t believe shock was real (Milgram says stress showed they did)
- demand characteristics as just following experimenter
- lacks ecological validity
- unethical deception
- small sample
- lacks population validity
Situational factors affecting obedience
- proximity of victim/ authority
- uniform
- location
- presence of allies
- legitimacy of authority
- agentic state
- doesn’t explain the 35% who didn’t obey to 450V
legitimacy of authority
situational explanation
someone recognises own and others position in social hierarchy
supported by an institutional framework
legitimacy increased by:
- visible symbols eg uniform
- legitimacy of setting eg location
(link to milgram variations)
agentic state
situational explanation
when someone acts on behalf of authority figure
doesn’t feel responsible for their actions
uses binding factors to reduce moral strain
autonomous state - act according to own principles (opposite)
Milgrams variations results
Presence of allies
- less obeyed, easier to resist with 3 teachers - 10%
Proximity of victim
- 65 -> 40 % obeyed with learner in same room
Location
- when done in offices not Yale, 65 -> 48%
Proximity of authority
- 65 -> 23% when given over phone
Uniform
- 65 -> 20%
Evaluation of situational explanations
+ Milgrams variations
- issues with Milgram - internal validity etc
- can’t account for 35% who didn’t obey
- may be dispositional eg authoritarian personality
