Social Influence Flashcards
Conformity, Obediene
1
Q
Conformity
A
When individuals choose a course of action that is favoured by other group members or is socially acceptable
2
Q
Type of Conformity- Compliance
A
- When you go along with the majority to gain their approval or to avoid their disapproval.
- Public compliance does not lead to private attitude change.
- Short term change
3
Q
Type of Conformity- Internalisation
A
- When you actually change your private attitudes (own thoughts).
- Long- term change
- Persists even when the group is not present
4
Q
Type of Conformity- Identification
A
- When you go along with others because you have accepted their point of view but only because of a desire to be like them.
- We privately and publicly accepted their view point BUT only while the group is present
- Short term change
5
Q
What are the 2 main reasons that people conform?
A
- Need to be right
- Need to be liked
6
Q
Normative Social Influence (NSI) (7)
A
- Need to be liked
- Explains compliance
- Conform to a group because we want to fit in
*- Fear of rejection makes us publicly express the majority’s point of view - Privately we have not really accepted this point of view*
- Aware of ‘group norms’- we have a desire to be accepted rather than rejected
- EMOTIONAL process
7
Q
Evaluation of NSI and How do the studies provide evidence for NSI?
A
- Linkenbach + Perkins- Adolescents were exposed to the message that the majority of their age peers did not smoke were less likely to take up smoking
- Schultz- hotel guests were exposed to the message that 75% of guests that reused their towels each day reduced their own towel use by 25%
- (Change our behaviour to fit in with the majority- follow what everyone is using/ doing)
8
Q
Informational Social Influence (ISI) (7)
A
- Need to be right
- Explains Internalisation
- Go along with others because we believe them to be right
- More pronounced if we think the group has better information than us
- Change both private and public attitudes
- COGNITIVE process
- More likely in: - ambiguous situations, crisis situations, when we believe others to be experts
9
Q
Evaluation of ISI
A
- Lucas found that when students were asked answers to mathematical problems, there was greater conformity to incorrect answers when the problems were more difficult. (Think everyone knows more than you- go along with what everyone else is saying)
- Jenness found that individuals’ private estimates of how many jellybeans were in a jar moved towards the group estimate after a group discussion
10
Q
Conformity Key Study: Asch (7)
A
- Vision test
- Groups of participants were shown 3 lines of different lengths
- All but one of the participants were confederates of Asch
- On 12 of the 18 trials the confederates all gave the wrong answer
- Real participant always gave his answer last- see how he would react
- 36.8% of the responses made by the true participants were incorrect (they conformed to the incorrect responses made by the confederates
- ¼ of the participants never conformed
11
Q
What are the variations in the Asch study?
A
- Difficulty of the task
- Size of the majority
- Unanimity of the majority
12
Q
Difficulty of the task
A
- Task is made more difficult
- Conformity increases
- ISI Pressure increases
- Participants not sure so think group knows more
13
Q
Size of the majority
A
- Little conformity when the majority consisted of one or two individuals
- Conformity levels jumped to 30% with a majority of 3 (doesn’t increase further than this)
- NSI pressure of group and fitting in with the group
14
Q
Unanimity of the majority
A
- When real participant was given the support of another real participants conformity levels dropped to 5.5%
- Drop in conformity was also present if one confederate gave an answer that was different to the majority but also different to the real/ correct answer
- NSI reduced- if you have social support- less likely to conform
15
Q
Weakness of Asch (Artificial situation and task) (5)
A
- Task and situation were artificial
- Participants knew they were in a research study and may have gone along with the demand characteristics
- Task of identifying lines was relatively trivial and there was no reason to conform
- E.g Susan Fiske said ‘Asch’s groups were not very groupy’- i.e they did not really resemble groups that we experience in everyday life.
- Means the findings do not generalise to real- world situations
16
Q
Weakness of Asch (Cultural differences in conformity) (5)
A
- Participants were American men
- Other research suggests women may be more conformist- concerned about social relationships + being accepted
- US is an individualist culture (people are more concerned about themselves rather than the social group)
- Conformity studies conducted in collectivist culture e.g China have found that conformity rates are higher
- Means Asch’s findings tell us little about conformity in women and people from some cultures.
17
Q
Procedure of Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment (4)
A
- Set up in a mock prison at Stanford University- 21 men- who tested as ‘emotionally stable’
- Students = randomly allocated to play the role of prisoner/ prison guard- encouraged to conform to social roles- uniforms (reflective glasses), behaviour
- Prisoners wore loose smock and cap- identified by a number- loss of personal identity called DE- INDIVIDUATION- more likely to conform to perceived roles.
- Prisoners and Guards encouraged to identify with and play their role
18
Q
Findings of Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment (4)
A
- Harrased prisoners to show them they were powerless- e.g conducted frequent headcounts
- Guards highlighted differences in social roles by creating opportunities to enforce rules + administer punishments
- After the rebellion (barricaded themselves in prison)- prisoners are subdued, depressed, anxious. 1 was released (psychological disturbance. 1 went on hunger strike)
- Guard behaviour became brutal and aggressive (used fire extinguishers on them). Zimbardo ended the study after 6 days instead of the intended 14 days
19
Q
Conclusions of Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment
A
- Social roles appear to have strong influence on individuals’ behaviour. **Guards became brutal, prisoners were submissive **
- Social roles were easily taken on. Volunteers who became to perform specific functions found themselves behaving as if they were in a prison rather than a psychological study
20
Q
Weakness of Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment (right to withdraw?)
A
- Didn’t have right to withdraw during the study
- E.g During brutal conditions of guards harassing the prisoners they weren’t allowed to leave
- Show although the guards were conforming to their social role they behaved harshly towards the prisoners
21
Q
Strength of Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment (how ethical was it?)
A
- Aspects of it were ethical- participants signed a consent form
- E.g Zimbardo asked the ASA to conduct an ethics evaluation and the association concluded that all of the existing ethical guildlines had been followed
- Made sure all participants were aware of what this psychological study would consist of
ASA- American Standard Association
22
Q
Strength of Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment (control over key variables?)
A
- Control over key variables
- E.g Zimbardo was able to choose a random selection of people
- Meant that those who were emotionally stable were picked to be either prisoners or guards
- Amount of control Zimbardo had over the variables increased the internal validity
23
Q
Weakness of Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment (researchers argued that the participants did behave as if the prison was real to them)
A
- Researchers argued that the participants did behave as if the prison was real to them
- E.g Prisoners were always talking about prison life
- SPE did replicate the social roles of prisoners and guards IRL giving it a high amount of internal validity
SPE- Stanford Prison Experiment
24
Q
***
Conformity to social roles: Zimbardo’s Prison study (4)
A
- Roles we play as members of different social groups
- Include expectations how we are expected to behave in that role
- As a society we have agreed standards of behaviour that we expect from different social roles- conform to these expectations
- SPE tested how powerful this type of social influence is- looked at guards and prisoners
25
Q
Obedience
A
- Giving up our responsibility to make decisions and allowing others to decide how we should behave.
- Choice of whether to comply with a direct order from a person of higher status or to defy the order
26
Q
Self- preservation
A
Undesirable consequences if we don’t obey. Conditioned to obey from an early age. Rewarded for obedience, punished for defiance
27
Q
Milgram’s Procedure (5)
A
- When volunteer arrived they were introduced to another participants (confederate of Milgram. Drew lots of Teacher and Learner- it was fixed as the participants was always the teacher)
- Aim was to assess obedience in a situation where an authority figure (Experimenter) ordered the participants (Teacher) to give an increasingly strong shock (fake) to learner
- Learner was strapped into chair and wired up to electrodes, teacher was given a small shock (only genuine shock)
- Learner had to remember pair of words every time he made an error, the teacher delivered a stronger fake shock
- Teacher got to 300V, learner didn’t respond and there was a silence at 315V
28
Q
Findings of Milgram’s study
A
- 12.5% (5 participants) stopped at 300V (intense shock)
- 65% continued to highest level of 450V (fully obedient)
- He collected qualitative data including observations- signs of extreme tension, sweat, stutter, bite lips
29
Q
Quantitative data
A
- To do with numbers
- Easier to analyse- compare, graphs, mean, median, mode
- Lacks reasons- doesn’t give reasons for participants’ behaviour
30
Q
Qualitative data
A
- To do with word/ descriptions
- Didn’t do it easily- were struggling
