Social Influence Flashcards
Conformity, Obediene
Conformity
When individuals choose a course of action that is favoured by other group members or is socially acceptable
Type of Conformity- Compliance
- 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
Type of Conformity- Internalisation
- When you actually change your private attitudes (own thoughts).
- Long- term change
- Persists even when the group is not present
Type of Conformity- Identification
- 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
What are the 2 main reasons that people conform?
- Need to be right
- Need to be liked
Normative Social Influence (NSI) (7)
- 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
Evaluation of NSI and How do the studies provide evidence for NSI?
- 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)
Informational Social Influence (ISI) (7)
- 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
Evaluation of ISI
- 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
Conformity Key Study: Asch (7)
- 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
What are the variations in the Asch study?
- Difficulty of the task
- Size of the majority
- Unanimity of the majority
Difficulty of the task
- Task is made more difficult
- Conformity increases
- ISI Pressure increases
- Participants not sure so think group knows more
Size of the majority
- 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
Unanimity of the majority
- 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
Weakness of Asch (Artificial situation and task) (5)
- 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
Weakness of Asch (Cultural differences in conformity) (5)
- 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.
Procedure of Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment (4)
- 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
Findings of Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment (4)
- 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
Conclusions of Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment
- 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
Weakness of Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment (right to withdraw?)
- 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
- Shows although the guards were conforming to their social role they behaved harshly towards the prisoners
Strength of Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment (how ethical was it?)
- 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
Strength of Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment (control over key variables?)
- 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
Weakness of Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment (researchers argued that the participants did behave as if the prison was real to them)
- 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
Conformity to social roles: Zimbardo’s Prison study (4)
- 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
Obedience
- 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
Self- preservation
Undesirable consequences if we don’t obey. Conditioned to obey from an early age. Rewarded for obedience, punished for defiance
Milgram’s Procedure (5)
- 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 (fake) shock 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
Findings of Milgram’s study
- 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
Quantitative data
- To do with numbers
- Easier to analyse- compare, graphs, mean, median, mode
- Lacks reasons- doesn’t give reasons for participants’ behaviour
Qualitative data
- To do with word/ descriptions
- Didn’t do it easily- were struggling