Social Influence Flashcards
Conformity - AO1
Asch’s baseline procedure - 123 American male participants judged line lengths - confederates gave wrong answers.
Naïve participants conformed on 36% of trials, 25% never conformed.
Variations - group size - 2 to 16 - Conformity increased up to 3, 31%, then levelled off. Curvilinear relationship. NSI.
Unanimity - Asch placed a dissenter - conformity rate reduced. Majority depends on anonymity. NSI.
Task difficulty - Asch made line lengths more similar - conformity increased. Due to ISI.
Conformity - AO3
- Artificial task and situation - participants may have exhibiting demand characteristics (played along with trivial task.) No reason not to conform. Groups did not resemble real social groups.
- Limited sample - only American men - cant generalise. (women or collectivists may conform differently.) Conformity rates higher in collectivist cultures. Women more concerned about social relationships.
+ Research support - Lucas and task difficulty with maths problems. C.P - he found that conformity was more complex - more confident participants conformed less.
Types and explanations of conformity - AO1
Internalisation - deepest, private and public acceptance of norms. Change even in absence of group members. Normally permanent.
Identification - change behaviour to be a part of group we identify with, may change private beliefs.
Compliance - ‘Going along with’ group - public but not private change in attitude. Superficial. Stops when group pressure stops.
ISI - conform to be right - assumes group knows better. Cognitive process. Occurs more in ambiguous, new situations. Leads to internalisation.
NSI - conform to fit in and be accepted. Emotional process. Occurs more in stressful situations. Leads to compliance and identification.
Types and explanations of conformity - AO3
+ Research support for NSI - when participants could write answers down, conformity dropped to 12.5%(Asch). In an interview, many said they felt group pressure.
+ Research support for ISI - Lucas et al maths problems. C.P - cannot usually separate NSI from ISI - dissenter reduces both. Both are present in real-world situations - is distinction useful?
- Individual differences in NSI - nAffiliators want to be liked more, so conform more. NSI underlies conformity for some more than others. Shows that conformity cannot be explained by one general theory.
Conformity to social roles - AO1
Zimbardo’s research - the Stanford prison experiment (technically an observation). Mock prison with 21 student volunteers, randomly assigned as guards or prisoners. ‘Arrested’ at start of experiment. Conformity to social roles created through uniform (loose smock for prisoners, club, shades and handcuffs for guards) and instructions for behaviour. For example, instead of leaving the study, prisoners had to ‘apply for parole.’
Findings - guards became increasingly brutal, prisoners ripped uniforms and shouted at guards. Guards harassed and bullied prisoners (number counts.) Rebellion put down and prisoners became depressed. Hunger strike - force fed. Study stopped after 6 days.
Conclusions - participants strongly conformed to their social roles.
Conformity to social roles - AO3
+ Control - random assignment to roles increased internal validity. Emotionally stable individuals selected. Improves internal validity.
- Lack of realism - participants play-acted their roles according to media-driven stereotypes. ‘Cool hand Luke.’
C.P - prisoners thought it was real - 90% of conversations about prison. Prisoner 416 believed prison was real.
+ Exaggerates the power of roles - only a third of guards were brutal so conclusions exaggerated. Most guards were sympathetic and resisted situational pressures. Zimbardo minimised participant differences.
+ Real-world support. Zimbardo’s research explains the abusive behaviour of guards at Abu Ghraib prison. Zimbardo noticed similarities and testified in court.
Minority influence - AO1
When a small group of people influence the behaviour of the majority. Leads to internalisation. Successful minority typically displays 3 main features.
Consistency - if the minority is consistent over time this attracts attention of majority. Synchronic consistency - all members of minority saying same thing. Diachronic consistency - same thing over time.
Commitment - personal sacrifices demonstrate commitment and reinforces message. Augmentation principle.
Flexibility - minority more convincing if they accept counterarguments and are willing to compromise. Rigid consistency not enough.
Process of change - three factors make people think deeper (deeper processing) - snowball effect - minority view gathers force.
Minority influence - AO3
+ Research support for consistency - Moscovici blue and green slides. Consistent minority had greater effect 8% agreement compared to 1%.
+ Support for deeper processing - viewpoint study. Participants presented with minority or majority viewpoint, then a conflicting opinion. Less likely to change views if they viewed minority.
C.P - real-world majorities have more power, and minorities are more committed to their cause - missing from research. Poor external validity.
- Artificial tasks - trivial and don’t tell us about real-world influence. Such as Moscovici. Outcomes more important in real-life - jury decision making. External validity.
Social influence and social change - AO1
Lessons from minority influence research - minority influence is a powerful force for innovation and social change.
E.g. civil rights USA: (1) drawing attention (2) consistency (3) deeper processing (4) augmentation (risks) (5) snowball effect (6) social cryptoamnesia.
Lessons from conformity research - dissent breaks power of majority.
NSI draws attention to what majority is doing. Use in litter/smoking, environmental campaigns.
Lessons from obedience research - disobedient role models (Milgram)
Gradual commitment leads to change - proposed by Zimbardo, demonstrated by Milgram.
Social influence and social change - AO3
+ Research support for normative influences - recycling (others do) - most effective way to make people recycle. San Diego study - reduce energy usage.
C.P - normative influence does not always produce change, such as in student drinking adverts. (Foxcroft).
+ Minority influence explains change - Nemeth - minorities stimulate divergent thinking - broad, creative, more options. Leads to better decisions and creative solutions to social issues.
- Role of deeper processing - it is majority views that are processed more deeply than minority views, challenging central feature of minority influence. We want to be in a group that shares our opinion, so when the majority holds a view that contradicts ours, we have to think deeply about it.
Milgram’s research on obedience - AO1
Baseline procedure - American male participants gave fake electric shocks to a ‘Learner’ in response to instructions (prods) from an ‘Experimenter.’
Series of prompts if they asked to stop. “The experiment requires that you continue.”
65% gave highest shock of 450V. 100% gave shocks up to 300V. Many showed signs of anxiety like sweating. 3 had a seizure.
14 psychology students predicted that 3% would conform. All participants were debriefed. Follow-up questionnaire - 84% happy.
German people not ‘different.’
Milgram’s research on obedience - AO3
+ Research support - French TV documentary show found 80% gave maximum shock, plus similar behaviour.
- Low internal validity - participants might have realised shocks were fake and were play-acting. Supported by Perry - tapes of participants showed only 50% believed shocks real. C.P - participant did give real shocks to a puppy when told to condition it. 54% men 100% women.
- Alternative explanation for findings. Participants didn’t obey prod 4 - “you have no other choice, you must go on,” suggesting that they identified with scientific aims - not blind obedience. Social identity theory more valid.
Situational variables for obedience - AO1
Proximity - obedience 40% with T and L in same room, 30% for touch proximity - forcing hand onto plate. Remote instruction variation (researcher over phone) 20%. Psychological distance affects obedience.
Location - obedience 47.5% in run-down office block - university’s prestige gave it authority.
Uniform - obedience 20% when Experimenter was a member of the public. Uniform is a symbol of legitimate authority.
Situational variables for obedience - AO3
+ Research support - Bickman New York study. Jacket and tie, milkman, security guard. People twice as likely to obey security guard. Supports uniform.
+ Cross-cultural research - Dutch participants ordered to say stressful things to interviewee - decreased proximity led to decreased obedience.
C.P - most studies Western - not generalisable. Collectivist countries more obedient.
- Low internal validity - especially uniform - very contrived. Not genuine findings, demand characteristics at play. Low internal validity.
Situational explanations for obedience - AO1
Agentic state - acting as an agent for another person. They experience high moral strain but feel powerless to disobey.
Autonomous state - free to act according to conscience - switching between the two - agentic shift occurs when other person is seen as authority.
Binding factors - allow individuals to ignore the damaging effects of their obedient behaviour, reducing moral strain. Such as when authority takes responsibility.
Legitimacy of authority - created by hierarchical nature of society. Some people entitled to expect obedience. Learned in childhood from parents first then teachers etc.
Destructive authority - problems arise when used destructively - Hitler, teacher in Milgram study.
