Social Influence Flashcards
What is conformity?
A change in the Parsons behaviour or opinions as a result of real or imagined pressure from a person or group of people
Asher’s baseline procedure
Solomon asked 1951) devise a procedure to assess to what extent people to opinions of others, even the situation where the answer is certain (on ambiguous). The procedure office study is briefly described below left – this is called the base button and study because it is one against which all the latest studies are compared.
Note that the specification focuses on the final conclusions from Ashes research. Therefore we have not described the procedure and filing text.
Variable investigated by Asch
(1955) extended is based on study to investigate the variables that might lead to increase or decrease in conformity.
Got group size
Increase the slides of the group, but I do more confederates, that increasing the size of the majority. Conformity increase with group size, but only up to point levelling off the majority greater than three.
Group size (2) findings
As found a curvilinear relationship between group size and conformity (applied on facing page for graph).
Conformity increase with group sites, but only up to a point. With three confederates, conformity to the wrong answer 31.8%.
But the presence of a more confederate made little difference – the conformity rates and level of,
This suggest the most people are very sensitive to the views of others because just a one or two confederates was enough to swear opinion.
2 unanimity
Extent to which all the members of our group agreed. I’m aschs studies , the majority was unanimous when all the confederated selected the same comparison line . This produces the greatest degree of conformity in the naive participants.
Unanimity part two
Just wondered if the presence of a non-forming person would affect the night participants conformity.
He introduced a confederate, who disagreed with the other confederates. In one variational study, this person gave the correct answer, and another variation gave a wrong one.
The general participant performed less often the person of the centre.
The rate decreased to less than quarter of the level was when the majority was anonymous.
The presence of the centre appeared to free the naive participant to behave more independently.
This is true, even when the descent to squid with the general participant.
This is Jess of the influence of the majority depends to a large extent on Big on an anonymous, and that non-conformity is more likely when cracks are received in the majority on anonymous view
Task difficulty
Ashes line, judging task is more difficult when it becomes harder to work out the correct answer. Conformity increased because naive participants, assume that the majority is more likely to be right.
Task difficulty (2)
I just wanted to know whether the making the task card would affect the degree of conformity.
Increase the difficulty of the line, judging task by making the stimulus line and the comparison lines more similar to each other in length.
This means it became harder for the general Potamus to see the differences between the lines.
As found the conformity increase. It may be that the situation is more ambiguous when the task becomes harder – it is includes the pot what the right answer is. In the circumstances, it is natural to look to other people gardeners, assume that they are writing and you’re wrong. (this is called informational social influence (ISI), which discussed on the next spread.
Evaluating that artificial situation and task
One limitation of ashes research is that that the task situation were artificial
Participants knew they were in a research study, and may simply have gone along with what was expected (demand characteristics).
The task of identifying lines was relatively trivial, and therefore there was no reason not to conform.
Also, according to Susan Fiske office, office group were not very groups , did not really resemble groups that week experience
This is the finding to generalise for real world situations, especially though where the consequences of conformity might be important.
Evaluation – limited application
Another limitation is that as participants were American men. Other research suggest that women may be more conformist, possibly because they are concerned about social relationships and being accepted (Netto, 1995).
Furthermore, the USA is an individualist, culture, (are just tier, where the social group is more important than the individuals) yeah that conformity rate higherl Smith 1996).
This means that Ashes film rings tell us a little about conforming women and people from some cultures.
Evaluation – research support
One stroke of ashes research, it’s support from other studies for the effects of task difficulty.
For example, Todd Lucas at all (2006 participants solve eating hard mass problems.
Participants were given an answer from easy and hard math problems.
Participants conformed more often agreed with the wrong answers when the problems were harder.
This chose us was correct, including that task of difficulties are variable, that affect conformity.
Evaluation – research support – counterpoint
However, Lucas found that conformity is more complex than as suggested.
Participants with high confidence in their mass abilities, can form less and hard tasks than those with low confidence.
This shows that an individual level factor can influence conformity by interacting with situational variables (dottask difficulty).
But I did not recite the roles of individual factors.
Evaluation extra – ethical issues
Ashes research increased our knowledge of why people confirm, which may help avoid minor destructive conformity.
The naive participants were deceived, because they thought that other people involved in the procedure (confederate) also genuine participants like themselves.
However, it is worth very mind that this is ethical cost will be weighed up against the benefits gained from the study.
Consider: on balance, do you think the benefits are where the cost?
There are three types of conformity, what are they?
Internalisation, identification and compliance
What is compliance?
A superficial and temporary type of conformity, where we outwardly go along with the majority view, but privately disagree with it. The changing of behaviour only lasts as long as the group is monitoring us.
What is identification?
Modern type of conformity where we act in the same way as the group because we value it and we want to be part of it. But we don’t necessarily agree with everything that the group/mature majority, believes
What is internalisation?
A deep type of conformity where we take on the majority of view, because we accepted as correct. At least to a far reaching and permanent behaviour, even when the group is absent.
Evaluation – research support for NSI
One strength of anarchy is that evidence supports it as an explanation of conformity.
For example, when ash (9051), interviewed as participants, Sam said they can form because they felt self-conscious giving the correct answer, and they were afraid of disapproval. When participants wrote their answers down, conformity 12.5% this is because giving us his private means that there was no normative group. This shows that at least some conform is due to desire not to be rejected by the group disagreeing with them.
Evaluation – research support for ISI
Another word is that there is research evidence to support ISI from the study by Todd Lucas.
Lucas found a participants conform more often to incorrect artist because they were given where the map difficult. This is because when the problems are easy to participants through their own minds, when the problems were hard, the situation came ambiguous (unclear).
The participants did not want to be wrong, so they relied on the answer they were given.
This shows that ISI is a valid explanation of conformity because the results are what ISI would predict.
Evaluation – research support for ISSI
Counterpoint, however, it is often unclear whether it is NSI or ISI at work in reset studies (in real life).
For example, as a conformity is reduced when there is one other dissenting participant (previous red).
The dissenter may reduce the power of NSI (because they provide social support), or they may reduce the power of ISI (because they provide alternative source of social information). Both interpretations are possible.
Therefore, it is hard to separate NSI and ISI and both processes probably operate together in real wild conformity situations
Evaluation – individual differences in NSI
One limitation is the NSI does not predict conformity in every case.
Some people are greatly concerned with being liked by others.
Such people are called Naffilators – they have a strong need for affiliation (they want to relate to other people). Paul McGee and Richard Teven, found as students who are this most likely to conform .
This shows the NSI underlies conformity for some people more than it does for others.
There are individual differences in conformity that cannot be fully explained by one general theory of situational pressures.
Evaluation extra – is the NSI/ISI distinction useful?
The counterpoint above useful because it is impossible to work out which is operating. Lucas is fighting could be due to NSI, ISI or both.
However, ashes research from the previous spread clearly demonstrates both NSI and ISI as reasons for conformity.
For instance, in terms of group, unanimity, unanimous group is a powerful source of disapproval.
The possibility of rejection is a strong reason for conforming (NSI).
But it is also true that a unanimous group convey the impression that everyone is in the no apart from you (ISI).
Consider: using ashes research, is the suit between ISI and NSI useful?
Informational social influence (ISI)
An explanation of conformity that says we agree with opinion of the majority, because we believe it is correct.
We accept it because they want to be correct as well. It may lead to internalisation.
Normative social influence (NSI)
An explanation of conformity that says we agree with the opinion of the majority because we want to gain social approved and be liked. This may need to compliance.
Meaning of Social Roles
The ‘parts ‘ people play as members of various social groups .
Everyday examples include parent , child , student passenger and so on ,
These are accompanied by expectations we and others have of what is appropriate behaviour in each role ,f or example caring , obedient and industrious .
Zimbardo’s research
In the 1970s Philip Zimbardo and colleagues conducted one of the most memorable studies in psychology .
-There had been many prison riots n America and Zimbardo wanted to know why -prison guards behaved brutally or was it there sadistic personalities or was it their social role
Stanford Prision Experiment SPE
Zimbardo in 1973 set up a mock prison in the basemen of the psychology department at Stanford University .
They selected 21 male student volunteers who tested as emotionally stable .
-They were assigned randomly the role of a prison guard or prisoner .
-prisoners and guards were encouraged to conform social roles both through the uniform they wore and also instructions about their behaviour .
…
UNIFORMS
the prisoners were given a loose smock to wear and a cap to cover their hair , and they were identified by number , their names were never used .
-Guards were given their own uniform reflecting the status of their role , with wooden club handcuffs and mirror shades .
-The uniforms created a loss of personal identity (called de-individuation ) , and meant they would be more likely to conform to the perceived social role .
Instructions about behaviour
The prisoners were further encouraged to identify with heir role by several procedures .
-For example , rather than leaving the study early , prisoners could apply for the parole .
-The guards were encouraged to play with heir role by being reminded that they had complete power over the prisoners .
Findings related to social roles
-Guards took up their roles with enthusiasms , treating the prisoners harshly .
-Within two days the prisoners rebelled , They ripped their uniforms shouted and swore at then guard ,who retaliated with fire extinguishers.
-the guards used divide and rule tactics , by playing the prisoners off against each other .
-the harassed the prisoners constantly , to remind them the powerlessness .
For example they conducted frequent headcount even at night , guards highlighting the differences in social roles by creating opportunities to enforce he rules and administered punishments .
Findings related to social roles (2)
After the rebellion was put don , the prisoners became subdued , depressed an anxious , One was released because he showed symptoms of psychological disturbance.
-two more were released on the fourth day . One prisoner went on hunger strike , the guars tried to force feed him , an they punished him by putting him in he hole of a dark tiny closet .
-the guards started identifying more and more wit their role , an their behaviours becoming increasingly brutal and aggressive . Zimbardo has ro wand he day on day 6 instar do 14 .
Social Roles
The ‘parts’ people play as members of various social groups . Everyday examples include parent , child , student , passenger and so on .
-Athena’s are accompanied by expectations we and others have of what is appropriate behaviour in each role , for example , caring , obedient , industrious .
Conclusions related to social roles
Social roles appear to have a strong influence on individual’s behaviour . The guards became brutal and prisoners became submissive .
-Such roles were very easily taken on by all participants . Even volunteers who came in to perform specific functions (such as the ‘prison chaplain’) found themselves behaving as if they were in a prison rather than in a psychological study .
bvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvEVALUATION - control
One strength of the SPE is that Zimbardo and his colleagues had control over key variables .
-the most obvious example of this was the selection of participants .
-emotionally stable individuals were chosen and randomly assigned the roles of guard and prisoner .
-this was one way in which the researchers ruled out individual personality differences as an explanation of the findings .
Evaluation control - 2
-if guards and prisoners behaved very differently , but were in those roles only by chance , then their behaviour must have been due to the role itself .
-This degree of control over variables increased the interns validity of the study , so we cans be much more confident in drawing conclusions about the infleunce of roles on conformity .
Lack of realism
One limitation of the SPE is that it did not have the realism of a true prison. .
-Ali Banjazizi and Siamak Movahedi (1975) argued the participants were merely play-acting rather than genuinely conforming to a role .
-Participants roles were based on their STEREOTYPES of how prisoners and guards are supposed to behave .
Lack of realism (example )
One of the guards claimed he had based his role on a brutal character from the film Cool Hand Luke .
-This would also explain why the prisoners rioted - they thought that was what real prisoners did .
-This suggests that the findings of the SPE tell us little about conformity to social roles in actual prisons .
EVALUATION - Lack of realism -Counterpoint
However , McDermott (2019) argues that the participants did behave as if the prison was real for whom .
For example , 90% of the prisoners conversations were about prison life .
-Amongst themselves they discussed how it was impossible to leave the SPE before their ‘sentences’ were over .
-Prisoner 416 , later explained how he believed the prison was a real one , bit run by psychologists rather than the government .
-This suggests that the SPE did replicate the social roles of prisoners and guards in a real prison , giving the study a high degree of internal validity
EVALUATION- exaggerates the power of roles
-Another limitation is that Zimbaddo may ahve exaggerated the power of social roles to influence behaviour .
-For example , one one-third of the guards actually behaved in a brutal Ajmer .
-Another third , tried to apply the rules fairly .The rest activity tried to help and support the prisoners .
-Thay sympathised , offered cigarettes and reinstated privileges .Most guards weee able to resists situational pressures to conform to a brutal role .
THIS SUGGESTS , that Zimbaddo overstated his view that SPE participants were confronting to social roles and minimised the infleunce of disproportional factors .
EVALUATION EXTRA
Alternative explanation
-Zimbaddo explanation for the guadds (and prisoners) behaviour was that conforming to a social role comes ‘’naturally’ and easily .
-Being given the role of guard means that these participants will behave inevitability brutally because that is the behaviour expected of someone with that role .
Evaluation extra - Alternative Explanation 2
However , Steve Reicher and Alex Haslam criticise Zimbardo’/ explanation because it does not account for the behaviour of non-brutal guards .
-they used social identity theory (SIT) instead to argue that the ‘guards’ had to actively identify with their social roles to act as they did .
CONSDIER : explain how SIT may have been a better explanation of the pursuing guards behaviour .
What is 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 forth coming .
Milgram’s research
Stanley Milgram designed a baseline procedure that could be used to assess obedience levels .
This procedure was adapted in later variations by Milgram snd the baseline findings were used to make comparisons .
base line procedure
40 American men volunteered to take part in a study at Yale university in the USA. supposedly on memory . When each volunteer arrived at Milgram’s lab , how was introduced to another participant (who was actually a confederate ) .
-drew lots to to see who would be the teacher and who would be the learner . The draw was fixed so that the participant was always the teacher . there was an experiment weaning lab coat (confederate )
-baseline procedure was arranged , teacher could hear learner and whenever he learner made a mistake on the memory task , learner was given electric shock by t .
-Each mistake was 15 volts steps up to 40 , shocks were fake but labelled to suggest extremely dangerous.
base line findings
every participant delivered shocks up to 300 volts . (12.5%) 5 participants stopped at 300 vaults .
(intense shocks )
-65% continued up to450 fully obedient .
-Milgram also collected quantitative and qualitative data , including observations such as the participants showing signs of extreme tension , like stutter tremble .
Other data
Before the study, Malcolm asked 14 psychology students to predict the participate his behaviour. The students estimated that no more than 3% of the participants would continue to 450 V. This shows that the findings were unexpected – the students underestimated how obedient people actually are.
– Participants in the baseline study were debrief and assure that their behaviour was entirely normal. They were also sent a follow-up questionnaire 84% said they were glad of participated.
Conclusions
Milgram concluded that German people are not different.
– The American participants in his study, were willing to buy orders, even when they might harm another person. He suspected that there were certain factors in the situation that encouraged obedient, so decided to conduct further studies to investigate these.
Evaluation – research support
One strength is that Milam’s findings were replicated in the French documentary that was made about reality TV.
– This documentary focused on a gameshow made, especially for the program. The part was in the game, believe that they were contestants in a pilot episode for a new show called the game of death.
– They were paid to give fake electric shocks all by the presenter to other participants (who were actually out) in front of the studio audience.
– 80% of the particles live the maximum sock of 464 two, apparently unconscious man.
– The behaviour was almost identical to that of milk participants – nervous laughter, nailbiting and other signs of anxiety.
– This supports Milgram original findings about audience of authority, and demonstrates that the findings were not just due to special circumstances.
