Social Influence Flashcards
Asch’s baseline procedure:
Standard and comparison lines
123 American men were tested, each one in a group with other apparent participants. Each participant saw two large white cards on each trial. The line X on the left-hand card is the standard line. The lines A, Band Care the three comparison lines. One of the comparison lines is always clearly the same length as X, the other two are substantially different (i.e. clearly wrong). On each trial the participants had to say (out loud) which of the comparison lines was the same length as the standard line X.
Baseline Findings
On average, the genuine participants agreed with confederates’ incorrect answers 36.8% of the time (i.e. they conformed about a third of the time).
There were individual differences, 25% of the participants never gave a wrong answer (i.e. never conformed).
Variable investigated by Asch:
Group Size
Asch wanted to know whether the size of the group would be more important than the agreement of the group. To test this he varied the number of confederates from one to 15 (so the total group size was from two to 16).
Asch found a curvilinear relationship between group size and conformity rate (see Apply it on facing page for graph). Conformity increased with group size, but only up to a point. With three confederates, conformity to the wrong answer rose to 31.8%. But the presence of more confederates made little difference - the conformity rate soon levelled off.
This suggests that most people are very sensitive to the views of others because just one or two confederates was enough to sway opinion.
Variable investigated by Asch:
Unanimity
Asch wondered if the presence of a non-conforming person would affect the naïve participant’s conformity. He introduced a confederate who disagreed with the other confederates. In one variation of the study this person gave the correct answer and in another variation he gave a (different) wrong one.
The genuine participant conformed less often in the presence of a dissenter.
The rate decreased to less than a quarter of the level it was when the majority was unanimous. The presence of a dissenter appeared to free the naive participant to behave more independently. This was true even when the dissenter disagreed with the genuine participant.
This suggests that the influence of the majority depends to a large extent on it being unanimous. And that non-conformity is more likely when cracks are perceived in the majority’s unanimous view.
Variable investigated by Asch:
Task Difficulty
Asch wanted to know whether making the task harder would affect the degree of conformity. He increased the difficulty of the line-judging task by making the stimulus line and the comparison lines more similar to each other in length. This meant it became harder for the genuine participants to see the differences between the lines.
Asch found that conformity increased. It may be that the situation is more ambiguous when the task becomes harder - it is unclear to the participants what the right answer is. In these circumstances, it is natural to look to other people for guidance and to assume that they are right and you are wrong (this is called informational social influence (ISI, which is discussed on the next spread).
Conformity Evaluation
Strengths:
Research support
One strength of Asch’s research is support from other studies for the effects of task difficulty.
For example, Todd Lucas et al. (2006) asked their participants to solve easy’ and ‘hard’ maths problems. Participants were given answers from three other students (not actually real). The participants conformed more often (i.e. agreed with the wrong answers) when the problems were harder.
This shows Asch was correct in claiming that task difficulty is one variable that affects conformity.
Counterpoint
However, Lucas et al’s study found that conformity is more complex than Asch suggested. Participants with high confidence in their maths abilities conformed less on hard tasks than those with low confidence.
This shows that an individual-level factor can influence conformity by interacting with situational variables (e.g. task difficulty). But Asch did not research the roles of individual factors.
Conformity Evaluation
Limitations:
Artificial situation and task
One limitation of Asch’s research is that the task and 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 really no reason not to conform. Also, according to Susan Fiske
(2014), ‘Asch’s groups were not very groupy, i.e. they did not really resemble groups that we experience in everyday life.
This means the findings do not generalise to real-world situations, especially those where the consequences of conformity might be important.
Limited application
Another limitation is that Asch’s participants were American men.
Other research suggests that women may be more conformist, possibly because they are concerned about social relationships and being accepted (Neto 1995). Furthermore, the US is an individualist culture (I.e. where people are more concerned about themselves rather than their social group). Similar conformity studies conducted in collectivist cultures (such as China where the social group is more important than the individual) have found that conformity rates are higher Bond and Smith 1996, see page 123 for a discussion of individualist/collectivist).
This means that Asch’s findings tell us little about conformity in women and people from some cultures.
Types Of Conformity:
Internalisation
Internalisation occurs when a person genuinely accepts the group norms. This results in a private as well as a public change of opinions/behaviour. This change is usually permanent because attitudes have been internalised, ie. become part of the way the person thinks. The change in opinions/behaviour persists even in the absence of other group members.
Types Of Conformity:
Identification
Sometimes we conform to the opinions/behaviour of a group because there is something about that group we value. We identify with the group, so we want to be part of it. This identification may mean we publicly change our opinions behaviour to be accepted by the group, even if we don’t privately agree with everything the group stands for.
Types Of Conformity:
Compliance
This type of conformity involves simply ‘going along with others’ in public, but privately not changing personal opinions and/or behaviour. Compliance results in only a superficial change. It also means that a particular behaviour or opinion stops as soon as group pressure stops.
Explanations Of Conformity:
Informational Social Influence (ISI)
Informational social influence (SI) is about who has the better information - you or the rest of the group.
Often we are uncertain about what behaviours or beliefs are right or wrong. For example, you may not know the answer to a question in class. But if most of your class gives one answer, you accept it because you feel they are likely to be right. We follow the benaviour of the group (the majority) because we want to be right. IS is a cognitive process because it is to do with what you think. It leads to a permanent change in opinion/behaviour (internalisation).-
IS is most likely to happen in situations that are new to a person (so you don’t know what is right) or where there is some ambiguity (so it isn’t clear what is right). It also occurs in crisis situations where decisions have to be made quickly and we assume that the group is more likely to be right.
Explanations Of Conformity:
Normative Social Influence (NSI)
social influence (NSI) is about norms, i.e. what is ‘normal’ or typical behaviour for a social group.
Norms regulate the behaviour of groups and individuals so it is not surprising that we pay attention to them.
People do not like to appear foolish and prefer to gain social approval rather than be rejected. So NST is an emotional rather than a cognitive process. It leads to a temporary change in opinions/behaviour (compliance).
NSI is likely to occur in situations with strangers where you may feel concerned about rejection. It may also
Ocur itpened you kess because we are most concerned about the social approval of our friends. It may be more pronounced in stressful situations (than non-stressful situations) where people have a greater need for social support.
Explanations for Conformity Evaluation
Strengths:
Research support for NSI
One strength of NSI is that evidence supports it as an explanation of conformity.
For example, when Asch (1951, see previous spread) interviewed his participants, some said they conformed because they felt self-conscious giving the correct answer and they were afraid of disapproval. When participants wrote their answers down, conformity fell to 12.5%.
This is because giving answers privately meant there was no normative group pressure.
This shows that at least some conformity is due to a desire not to be rejected by the group for disagreeing with them (i.e. NSI).
Research support for ISI
Another strength is that there is research evidence to support ISI from the study by Todd Lucas et al. (2006, see previous spread).
Lucas et al. found that participants conformed more often to incorrect answers they were given when the maths problems were difficult. This is because when the problems were easy the participants ‘knew their own minds’ but when the problems were hard the situation became ambiguous (unclear). The participants did not want to be wrong, so they relied on the answers they were given.
This shows that ISI is a valid explanation of conformity because the results are what IST would predict.
Explanations for Conformity Evaluation
Limitations:
Individual differences in NSI
One limitation is that NSI does not predict conformity in every case.
Some people are greatly concerned with being liked by others. Such people are called Affiliators - they have a strong need for ‘affiliation’ (i.e. they want to relate to other people). Paul McGhee and Richard Teevan 1967) found that students who were nAffiliators were more likely to conform.
This shows that 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.
Conformity to Social Roles:
The Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE)
Zimbardo et al. (1973) set up a mock prison in the basement of the psychology department at Stanford University. They selected 21 men (student volunteers) who tested as ‘emotionally stable. The students were randomly assigned to play the role of prison guard or prisoner.
Prisoners and guards were encouraged to conform to social roles both through the uniforms 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). The guards had their own uniform reflecting the status of their role, with wooden club, handcuffs and mirror shades.
These uniforms created a loss of personal identity (called de-individuation), and meant they would be more likely to conform to the perceived social role.
Conformity to Social Roles:
Findings related to Social Roles
The guards took up their roles with enthusiasm, treating the prisoners harshly. Within two days, the prisoners rebelled. They ripped their uniforms and shouted and swore at the guards, who retaliated with fire extinguishers.
The guards used ‘divide-and-rule’ tactics by playing the prisoners off against each other.
They harassed the prisoners constantly, to remind them of the powerlessness of their role. For example they conducted frequent headcounts, sometimes at night, when the prisoners would stand in line and call out their numbers. The guards highlighted the differences in social roles by creating opportunities to enforce the rules and administer punishments.
After their rebellion was put down, the prisoners became subdued, depressed and anxious.
One was released because he showed symptoms of psychological disturbance. Two more were released on the fourth day. One prisoner went on a hunger strike. The guards tried to force-feed him and then punished him by putting him in ‘the hole, a tiny dark closet.
The guards identified more and more closely with their role. Their behaviour became increasingly brutal and aggressive, with some of them appearing to enjoy the power they had over the prisoners. Zimbardo ended the study after six days instead of the intended 14.
