Social Influence Flashcards
Conformity
Adjusting one’s behaviour or thinking to coincide with a group standard. This is as a result of real or imagined pressure from a person or group.
Asch’s research on conformity
AIMS-To find to what extent others will conform and change their opinion to match others
PROCEDURES-123 American men were tested. They needed to compare line x to the line most similar out of ABC and say it out loud. Out of a group of 6-8 there was only 1 genuine participant who was always in the same place. The others who were all confederates all gave the same incorrect answer(the ppt did not know they were fake.)
FINDINGS-On average participants agreed with the confederate in correct answers 36.8% of the time.
CONCLUSION- People are likely to conform because people have a need to be right (isi)
Variables investigated by Asch
- group size ( minimum 3 for conformity to level off 31.8%)
2.unanimity ( conformity decreased to less than a quarter of the level it was when the majority was unanimous).
3.task difficulty ( the harder the task the more conformity.)
Unanimity (Asch)
The extent to which all the members of a group agree. In Asch’s studies, the majority was unanimous when all the confederates selected the same comparison line. This produced the greatest degree of conformity in the naive participants.
Task Difficulty
Asch’s line-judging task is more difficult when it becomes harder to work out the correct answer. Conformity increases because naive participants assume that the majority is more likely to be right.
Evaluation points of Asch’s study
1.Artificial situation and task –> Trivial task, no consequences/ research setting, demand characteristics/ not generalisable
2.Limited application–> Asch’s research only conducted on American men
3.Reasearch support–>Lucas et al found more conformity when maths problems were harder
4.Ethical issues–>Participants were deceived
Types of conformity
Compliance
Internalisation
Identification (Kelman 1958)
Compliance
Going along with group publicly however not when in private
Internalisation
Private and public acceptance of group norms
Identification
Change behaviour to be part of a group we identify with(public) however private thoughts may change too
two-process theory
Deutsch and Gerrard
Conformity can be due to both NSI and ISI at the same time- not just one.
Informational social influence (ISI)
we conform because we want to be right.
when we don’t know what the right or wrong thing is to do, we look to others/the majority who we think are likely to be right.
it is a cognitive process that results in internalisation.
Normative social influence (NSI)
Conform to be liked
An explanation of conformity that says we agree with the opinion of the majority because we want to be accepted, gain social approval and be liked. This may lead to compliance.
Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment
AIM- to investigate the effects of roles of being either a prisoner or a guard.
IV: participants were assigned the role of prison guard or prisoner
DV: behaviour of participants (observation)
PROCEDURE- Participants: 24 male uni students with stable personalities, 18/24 took part in the experiment at once. 9 were assigned role of prisoners and 9 were assigned role of guards.
FINDINGS- Role of prisoner carried minimal power + little/no status. Prisoners were dejected, traumatised, passive & dehumanised. 4 of them had to be released as hysterical crying, confusion & severe depression
- Role of prison guard carried considerable power + status showed a significant increase + abusive behaviour (adopted the power / abusiveness, despite not being that before experiment)
- Study was terminated after 6 days (as everyone took their roles too seriously)
CONCLUSION-The behaviour of normal, well-educated men can be significantly affected when a role they are given involves considerable status/power. PPTS strongly conformed to their social roles
Evaluation of Zimbardo’s study
NOT GENERALISABLE- Population validity, the sample comprised US male students.
The study’s findings cannot be applied to female prisons or those from other countries.
UNETHICAL, lack of full informed
consent, not protected from
psychological harm
LACK OF REALISM-, Most of the guards
later claimed they were simply acting. Not applicable to real prison settings, low ecological validity
CONTROL OF VARIABLES INCREASE INTERNAL VALIDITY
minority influence
minority influence leads to conversion and internalisation
What are the three components of minority influence?
1.Consistency
2.commitment
3.flexibility
Minority Influence - Consistency
Minority influence is most effective if the minority keeps the same beliefs, both over time (diachronic consistency) and between all individuals (synchronic consistency) that form the minority. It’s effective because it draws attention to the minority view, and allows a deeper processing to happen which is important in conversion to the minority view.
Synchronic consistency
People in the minority are all saying the same thing
Minority influence- commitment
Minority influence is more powerful if the minority demonstrates dedication to their position, for example, by making personal sacrifices (augmentation principle). This is important as it shows the minority isn’t acting out of self interest.
Diachronic consistency
All been saying the same thing for a long time
Minority Influence - Flexibility
Minority more convincing if they accept some counter-arguments
drawing attention (social change)
drawing attention to situation by providing social proof of situation
Social change 6steps
1.drawing attention
2.consistency
3.deeper processing
4.augmentation principle
5.snowball effect
6.social cryptomnesia
deeper processing (social change)
thinking about the situation more deeply
Consistency (social change)
being consistent with your views and what you are fighting for
augmentation principle (social change)
Adding greater weight to a situation such as risking something to show that you are serious about the situation.
snowball effect (social change)
The previous steps all come together to cause social change at a fast rate where it changes on a large scale
Social Cryptoamnesia (social change)
People remember that change has happened but don’t remember how
Research support for consistency
Moscovici et al. (1969)
slide study showed that consistent minority opinion had greater effect on other people than an inconsistent opinion
(People had to say slides were green people agreed even though were blue)
Wood et al. (1994)
meta-analysis on almost 100 similar studies found minorities who were seen as consistent were most influential
OBEDIENCE
Milgram’s Obedience Study
AIMS:To see if people would follow instructions even if they know it is not morally correct.
PROCEDURE: A participant given the role of ‘teacher’ and a confederate given the role of ‘learner’. This was decided through a random allocation. Participant had to ask the confederate a series of questions. Whenever the confederate got the answer wrong, the participant had to give him an electric shock, even when no answer was given. The electric shocks incremented by 15 volts at a time, ranging from 300V to 450V, where 330V was marked as ‘lethal’.
Participants thought the shocks were real when in fact there were no real shocks administered, and the confederate was acting. The shocks were falsely demonstrated to be real prior to the start of the study. Participants were assessed on how many volts they were willing to shock the confederate with. The experimenter’s role was to give a series of orders / prods when the participant refused to administer a shock, which increased in terms of demandingness for every time the participant refused to administer a shock. The same 4 prods were used each time when participants refused to administer the shocks. .
FINDINGS:
- All participants went up to 300V and 65% went up to 450V.
- No participants stopped below 300V, whilst only 12.5% stopped at 300V, showing that the vast majority of participants were prepared to give lethal electric shocks to a confederate.
Agentic state
A mental state where we feel no personal responsibility for our behaviour because we believe ourselves to be acting for an authority figure, i.e. as their agent. This frees us from the demands of our consciences and allows us to obey even a destructive authority figure.
autonomous state
Where individuals are seen as personally responsible for their actions
What is the key term for switching between Agentic state and autonomous state ?
Agentic shift
What is a binding factor ?
A binding factor is an aspect of the situation that allow the person to ignore or minimise damaging effect of the behaviour and reduce moral strain that they are feeling.
Evaluation of Agentic state
+ Milgram’s own studies support the role of agentic state in obedience
many ppts resisted giving shocks after 300V as the learners were shouting in pain & asking the teacher to stop.
they asked the experimenter if the learner was being harmed & continued to give shocks when the experimenter said that they would take responsibility.
this shows that ppts shifted to an agentic state when responsibility for their actions was removed. instead they believed that they were acting on behalf of the experimenter, who has authority.
being in this state increases obedience, explaining why 65% of ppts delivered the maximum shock of 450V.
- the theory of agentic shift can’t explain findings from other studies
in Hofling’s study, nurses obeyed the order to give twice the recommended dose when the order was given by a phone call.
as the doctor’s were not physically present, obedience of the nurses should be low as the large proximity between the nurses & doctor & the absence of the authority figure makes it more difficult for the nurses to shift responsibility on to them.
however, the obedience of the nurses was still high which suggests that obedience was not due to agentic shift.
this is a limitation of the agentic shift explanation because it can only explain obedience in some situations.
Legitamacy of authority
The degree to which individuals are seen as justified in having power over others
Destructive authority
Problems arise when legitimate authority become destructive. History has often shown that people can use legitimate power for destructive purposes e.g. Hitler.
Evaluation of legitimacy of authority
+ It can explainCultural differences: Kilham + Mann (1974) replicated Milgram’s study in Australia. Only 16% gave the maximum voltage. However, Mantell (1971) found that 85% would give that maximum voltage in Germany.
Cross-cultural research increases the validity of legitimacy of authority.
Authoritarian personality
Adorno’s term for people who are prejudiced and rank high on scales of conformity, intolerance, insecurity, respect for authority, and submissiveness to superiors
Origins of authoritarian personality (AP)
Harsh parenting creates hostility that cannot be expressed against parents so is displaced onto scapegoats
Adorno’s et al’s research into AP
PROCEDURE: used F-scale to study unconscious attitudes towards other ethnic groups
FINDINGS :AP’s identify with “strong” people, having fixed cognitive style and hold stereo types and prejudices
Evaluation of AP research
+RESEARCH SUPPORT~ Obedient ppts had high F- scale scores (Elms and milgram)
COUNTERPOINT~ obedient ppts also unlike authoritarians in many ways, complex
-POLITICAL BIAS ~ authoritarianism equated with right wing ideology ignore left wing
Factors affecting obedience
social proximity, uniform, location
Social proximity
the closeness between two or more people, either in physical distance or in the closeness of their relationship
-Participants obeyed more when the experimenter was in the same room i.e. 62.5%. This was reduced to 40% when the experimenter and participant were in separate rooms, and reduced to a further 30% in the touch proximity condition
Uniform
Participants obeyed more when the experimenter wore a lab coat. A person is more likely to obey someone wearing a uniform as it gives them a higher status and a greater sense of legitimacy. It was found that obedience was much higher when the experimenter wore a lab coat as opposed to normal clothes
Location
Participants obeyed more when the study was conducted at a prestigious university i.e. Stanford. This is because the prestige of such a location demands obedience and also may increase the trust that the participant places in the integrity of the researchers and their experiments.
Evaluation of Milgram’s study
WEAKNESSES
- Ethical issues
- Low internal validity because of the lack of realism (actor screaming wasnt very real because participants showed no remorse)
- Individual difference (gender)
STRENGTHS
-Participants were debriefed afterwards
-Real life application(German soldiers)
-High internal validity
-Highly replicable (lab study)
-External validity hs been established by supporting studies(Hofling et al)
Resistance to social influence
social influence
Refers to the ability of people to withstand the social pressure to conform to the majority or to obey authority. This ability to withstand social pressure is influenced by both situational and dispositional factors.
resistance to obedience
Obedience decreases in presence of disobedient peer who acts as a model to follow- challenges legitimacy of authority figure. Obedience levels dropped from 65% to 10%
situational factors
factors affecting the consumer decision process; those that are specific to the situation that may override, or at least influence, psychological and social issues
Dispositional factors
individual characteristics that influence behavior and actions in a person - such as personality or temperament
Locus of control
A belief about the amount of control a person has over situations in their life.
Locus of control:internal
these people believe they can control events in their lives through their own efforts. They believe that the rewards they receive are internally controlled by their own actions (knowledge, effort, skill)/
Locus of control: external
these people believe the environment has more of an effect on the control over events that effect them. They also believe that forces such as luck, chance, or fate control their lives and determine their rewards and punishments.
The LOC continuum
High internal at one end and high external at the other
Resistance to social influence LOC
people with high internal LOC are more able to resist pressure to conform or obey because they are more confident so therefore have less need for social approval
Evaluation of LOC
+RESEARCH SUPPORT ~Internals less likely to fully obey in Milgram type procedure (Holland)
-CONTRADICTORY RESEARCH~ People now more independent but also more external(Twenge et al)
