Social Influence Flashcards
Conformity: Types of conformity - Kelman (1958)
Suggested there are 3 types:
1. Compliance: agree in public to gain approval or avoid disapproval. Doesn’t change personal personal beliefs.
2. Identification: individual begins to identify with group and take on beliefs. Still, not necessarily changing personal beliefs.
3. Internalisation: agree with group & accept groups POV. Permanent change & changes private beliefs.
Conformity: Explanations for conformity - Deutsch & Gerald (1955)
2 main reasons people conform:
- informational social influence (ISI) - uncertain of what beliefs are correct so you assume majority is correct. Cognitive process. Leads to internalisation.
- normative social influence (NSI) - confirms to gain approval & social support to avoid embarrassment & ‘fit in’. Emotional process. Compliance.
Strength of NSI: Asch (1951)
When Asch interviewed his ppts some said they conformed as they felt self conscious giving correct answer & were afraid of disapproval. When ppts wrote answers, conformity fell to 12.5% as there was no normative group pressure. NSI.
Shows some conformity is due to fear of rejection by group.
Strength of ISI: Lucas et al (2006)
Found ppts conformed often to incorrect answers when maths questions were more difficult as they didn’t know the answer. This was most true for students with ‘poor mathematical ability’.
Shows ISI is valid as ppts believed others were correct.
Counterpoint: hard to differentiate ISI & NSI as Asch found conformity reduces when there is another dissenting participant. Could be because they feel more confident (less NSI) or because there’s an alternative source of info (ISI).
Limitation of NSI: McGhee & Teevan
NSI doesn’t predict conformity in each cases. Some people are greatly concerned with getting approval of others. They’re called nAffiliators.
-They found those people were more likely to conform.
-Shows NSI underlies conformity for some people more than others & there’s individual differences that can’t be explained by simply situational pressures.
Strength of NSI: Schultz (2008)
Found they were able to change behaviour of hotel guests. They presented door hanger saying the benefits of reusing towels & writing “75% of guests reuse towels each day” in experimental condition.
In control group guests reduced need for towels by 25%.
Counterpoint: unclear whether this is NSI or ISI.
Conformity: Asch’s research (1951)
Showing 2 cards. 1 with standard line & other had 3 comparison lines. 1/3 liens was same as standard and other 2 were clearly different.
-123 students, naive ppts in group with 7 confederates.
-ppt went last while confederates gave wrong answers.
-ppt gave 12/18 times incorrect answer & confirmed to majority.
32% conformed to majority.
5% conformed all 12 times.
75% conformed at least once.
Less than 1% in control group face wrong answer.
Asch’s variations
-group size
-unanimity
-task difficulty
Asch’s variations: Group size
Varied no. of confederates from 1-15.
With 3 confederates, 32% confirmed showing conformity reaches highest just with 3 confederates.
When he used 15 confederates, rate of conformity dropped & possibly ppts were suspicious of experiment.
Asch’s variations: Unanimity
Introduced confederate who disagreed with the rest.
When other person said correct answer, conformity drops to 5%. When they said incorrect different answer, conformity drops to 9%.
Non conformity is more likely if unanimous view is cracked.
Asch’s variations: Task difficulty
When difference between line lengths was smaller, rate of conformity increased because of ISI, as they looked at others for guidance.
Limitation of Asch: Artificiality Fiske (2014)
Task was artificial and unusual.
Demand characteristics could occur as recognising lines is trivial so they simply conformed.
Fiske says the groups didn’t resemble real life.
Findings are not generalisable.
Limitation of Asch: Neto (1995)
Said research was athnocentric & only reflective of white middle class men who are more individualistic.
Compared to countries like China where social group is more prioritised - collectivism and women are likelier to conform so rates are higher.
Asch’s findings tell us little about conformity & is culturally bias.
Strength of Asch: Lucas et al (2006)
Participants confirmed with incorrect answers when questions were more difficult. Proves Asch’s task difficulty theory as a variable impacting conformity.
Counterpoint: complex study - ppts with high confidence in maths conformed less on harder tasks. Shows individual factors influence conformity.
Limitation of Asch: Perrin & Spencer (1980)
Suggested Asch’s research was a ‘child of its time’. They recreated experiment using engineering & maths students and only 1/396 trials did observer join majority.
Lack of historical validity, lack of reliability as it’s not replicated, conformity changed over time.
Conformity: Social roles
Social roles are parts people play as members of social groups. They follow expectations of what people consider appropriate behaviour for that role.
Conformity to social roles is when individual adapts behaviour & belief when in particular situation.
Social roles: Zimbardo et al (1973)
Set up mock prison in basement of Stanford university.
-selected 21 healthy volunteers and randomly assigned role of prisoner of guard.
-prisoners were stripped & handcuffed.
-guards given uniform, wooden cub, handcuffs etc.
Uniforms created loss of personal identity - de individualisation.
Zimbardo findings
Guards treated prisoners harshly to the point prisoners rebelled by ripping their uniforms and swearing.
-guards harassed prisoners to show they dominated by; headcount’s at night.
-prisoners became depressed & one was released because he showed signs of psychological disturbance.
-one went on hunger strike.
-Zimbardo ended study by day 6, rather than 14.
Guards were very brutal & prisoners submissive. Social roles taken seriously.
Strength of Zimbardo: Abu Ghraib (2003-2004)
US army officers committed human right violations against Iraqi prisoners at prison.
-tortured mentally, physically, done murdered.
-similarities between behaviours at prison and in his experiment.
Strength of Zimbardo: Control
E.g. selection of healthy emotionally stable ppts ruled out individual personality differences as explanations of findings.
- increased internal validity more confidence in drawing conclusions about influence of social roles in conformity.
Limitation of Zimbardo: Reicher & Haslam (2006)
-Replicated his study however the men didn’t conform.
-Guards didn’t identify with status or impose authority & instead prisoners challenged guards authority.
-Showed shift in power & collapse of system.
Limitation of Zimbardo: Exaggeration
Only 1/3rd of guards were brutal and another third tried to apply to rules fairly. The rest were sympathetic & would offer cigarettes & resisted situational pressures.
Over exaggeration of external situational factors & minimisation of internal dispositional factors.
Limitation of Zimbardo: Banuazizi & Movahedi (1975)
-Argued ppts merely mimicked role of film ‘Cool hand Luke’ & other stereotypes they had seen.
-Merely play acting rather than conforming genuinely.
-Encouraged demand characteristics.
Counterpoint: McDermott (2019) argues 90% of ppts conversations were of prison life. & A prisoner explained how he believed the prison was real but ran by psychologists. High internal validity.
Social identity theory
The groups people belong to act as an important source towards their pride, self-esteem & identity.
2 types of groups (Tajfel 1981):
1. In groups (group you identify with).
2. Out groups (group you don’t identify with).
To be socially accepted, people adopt in group behaviours & high levels of social identity motivates people to view their in group as better.
- Criticism for R&H research.
Obedience: Authority - Milgram (1963)
Obedience: form of social influence in which an individual follows a direct order from an authority figure who has power to punish when behaviour is not obedient.
-direct form of social influence.
-faced with choice to comply or defy direct order from person with higher status.
Milgram’s procedure
Wanted to study the extent of obedience on authority(inspired by why Germans were obedient to Hitler):
-recruited 40 male ppts between 20-50 for a study of the effects of punishment on learning.
-assigned teacher role through rigged draw and confederate ‘Mr Wallace’ assigned learner
-teacher told to administer increasing shocks(fake) from 15 to 450v for every wrong answer
-given 4 prods that increased in assertiveness.
Milgram’s findings
-all ppts went to 300v and 65% continued to 450v.
-ppts debriefed and 84% were happy to take part according to questionnaire.
-concluded that ordinary people are obedient to individuals with legit authority figures.
Strength of Milgram: Burger (2008)
Suggested his study has historical validity and it was successfully replicated.
-made some ethical changes like reducing shock rate & letting ppts know they could withdraw 3 times.
-obedience rate of 70%.
Rates are similar.
Strength of Milgram: Hoffling (1966)
-conducted study for doctor to order 22 nurses to give above maximum dosage of unknown drug to patients.
-21/22 nurses obeyed.
-with known drug, none obeyed.
-high validity (real life example).
Social norm for nurses to accept orders from higher authority without questioning judgement.
Limitation of Milgram: Orne & Holland (1968)
Milgram reported 75% thought shocks were genuine.
-However they argue ppts behaved how they did as they guessed it was a set up.
-Perry (2013) confirmed this and stated only 1/2 believed they were real based on tapes of ppts.
-Trying to fulfil demand characteristics.
Counterpoint: in Sheridan & King’s (1972) study they administered real shocks to puppy’s. 54% of men & 100% women gave what they believed to be a fatal shock.
Limitation of Milgram: Ethical issues - Baumrind (1964)
Participants were deceived & thought allocation of teacher & student was random & shocks were real.
She believed deception can have fatal consequences.
As well as this ppts we’re encouraged to continue therefore they may not have known they can withdraw.
Counterpoint: Milgram debriefed at the end & 84% we’re happy to partake.
Internal & External validity
Internal: extent to which a study establishes a trustworthy cause & effect.
External: applying conclusions of a scientific study outside the context of study.
Obedience: Situational variables
Milgram carried out variations to consider the situational variables - features of immediate physical & social environment that influence behaviour. He wanted to see if they lead to more or less obedience.
3 factors:
-proximity
-location
-uniform
Milgram’s variations: Proximity
In original study, teacher could hear but not see learner.
-In proximity variation, they were in the same room which dropped obedience rate from 65% to 40%.
-In touch proximity where teacher would put learners hand on shock plate, obedience dropped to 30%.
-When experimenter left room & instructed teacher by telephone, obedience dropped to 20.5% & pretended to give shocks.
Decreased proximity allows people to psychologically distance themselves from consequences of their actions.
Milgram’s variations: Location
Experiment conducted in run down office block, rather than Yale.
-Obedience fell to 47.5%.
Prestigious set up of uni gave Milgram’s study legitimacy & authority. Ppts perceived experimenter shared this legitimacy.
Milgram’s variations: Uniform
In original, experimenter wore sophisticated grey lab coat.
-in 1 variation, experimenter ‘called out’ & replaced by ‘ordinary member of public’ in no uniform.
-obedience rate dropped to 20%.
Uniform encourages authority as it’s a widely recognised symbol of authority. & entitlement to respect.
