social influence Flashcards
define conformity
yielding to group pressure, usually influenced by a larger group of people
define compliance
individuals adjust their behaviour and opinions to those of the group to be accepted or avoid disapproval
compliance features
- desire to fit in
- public but not private acceptance and does not result in any change in the persons underlying attitude
- weak and temporary form
define identification
individuals adjust their behaviour and opinions to those of a group, because membership of that group is desirable
features of identification
- stronger type of conformity but still temporary
- both public and private acceptance
define internalisation or true conformity
individuals genuinely adjust their behaviour and opinions to those of a group
features of internalisation
- exposed to the belief systems of others and having to decide what they truly believe in
- if they believe it is correct, it will lead to public and private acceptance and will not depend on presence of the group
define normative social influence
when someone confirms to be apart of the group and be accepted and not rejected which leads to more compliance
define informative social influence
when someone conforms to feel confident that their beliefs and ideas are correct, especially when we are uncertain in unfamiliar and ambiguous situations and leads to internalisation. helps us to survive in situations
evaluation for types and explanations of conformity strengths
- research supports important role of normative beliefs shaping behaviours, as seen in a. study where when adolescents were exposed to the fact other their age don’t smoke they were less likely to smoke too
evaluation for types and explanation of conformity weaknesses
- individual differences are not considered as everyone’s personality to different and are not all driven to want to fit in
- relationship between compliance and internalisation is complicated as it is difficult to determine when each one is taking place
- features of the task affect the level of conformity, as when asked about Bristol, the subjective question of whether bristol is the most fun city in south-west england, we look to other people for similar answers
- not always aware that the behaviour of others affected ours, so we are not directly aware we have been affected under nsi- people less likely to say behaviour of neighbours affected their own energy conservation
sherif study on informative social influence
- participants were asked to estimate how far a point of light has moved, first as individuals, in groups of 3, and then by themselves again
- group estimate condition changed their personal estimate and a group norm emerged
asch (1951) experiment procedure on normative conformity
- investigated degree to which individuals would conform to a majority, but they were told they would be taking part in a visual discrimination task
- 123 american male student volunteers who were in groups with 6-8 other confederates
- seated around a table and asked to match the standard line to one of the 3 comparison lines in 18 different trials
- real participant was either second to last or last
- 12 of the 18 were critical trials where confederates gave identical wrong answers
- first 6 trials, correct answers were given
- control group of 36 participants who were tested individually to see how accurate individual judgements were
asch (1951) findings and conclusion
- 37% conformity to incorrect trials
- 5% conformed to all 12 critical trials
- 25% never conformed
- 75% conformed at least one
- in the control, only 0.04% were incorrect which can eliminate extraneous variables like eyesight
- post event interview showed participants conformed due to distortion of perception (believed the majority estimates were correct), distortion of judgement (aware of their mistake but did not trust their own judgement) or distortion of action (knew they were right but conformed so they didn’t stand out)
factors affecting conformity
- group size
- unanimity
- task difficulty
- mood- people are more likely to conform when they are in a good mood
- gender- women are more likely to conform
- culture- meta analysis found that conformity is higher in “collectivist” cultures
how does group size affect conformity
- smaller group size leads to less conforming
- with 2 confederates, participants only conformed 14% of the time
- with 3 confederates, participants only conformed 32% of the time
-there was little change to conformity rate above 32% with bigger group size - asch only did experiments up to 9 people
how does unanimity affect conformity
- as one confederate agreed with the participant, this made the participants less likely to conform and fell to 5.5%
- if a different, wrong answer was given, conformity fell to 9%
how does task difficulty affect conformity
- more likely to conform if the task is more difficult- ISI
- rely on other people
evaluation of factors affecting conformity strengths
+ mori and arai (2010) showed that confederates acted convincingly as a separate study, where partisans wore glasses with polarising filters, so they saw the lines differently and distorted but they gave the same results
+ high internal validity as there was strict control over extraneous variables
evaluation factors affecting conformity weaknesses
- ethical issues like deception and psychological harm
- lacks ecological validity
- gender issues as only males were sampled but studies show women are more conformist
- cultural bias as only americans were used but collectivist cultures show higher rates of conformity
- took place during McCarthyism where people were scared to go against the majority so it lacks temporal validity
- asch only used a sample size of maximum 9ish you cannot apply to all findings and lacks internal validity for larger groups
- only 1/3 conformed where 2/3 stuck to their original judgement, which perhaps showed a study of people thinking independently instead of
define conformity to social roles
how people are expected to behave and think depending on the different social situations. involves identification
procedure of zimbardos (1973) prison stanford experiment
- mock prison set up in the basement of psychology department in stanford university
- male paid, student volunteers were psychologically and physically screened and the 24 most stable were randomly assigned to be prisoner or guard
- prisoners were “arrested” and taken to “prison” blindfolded and were made to wear uniform and a number
- guards also wore uniform and mirror sunglasses so there could be no eye contact
- planned to last 2 weeks
- zimbardo became prison superintendent
results of zimbardos stanford prison experiment
- first few days the guards became more tyrannical and abusive towards prisoners, like waking them up in their sleep and force them to clean toilets with their bare hands
- some guards were so enthusiastic they volunteered to do extra hours without pay
- 5 prisoners had to be released early due to extreme reactions like crying and anxiety
- study was terminated after 6 days when Christina Maslach reminded the researcher they were only participants in a study
- in interviews afterwards, participants were shocked about how out of character they were
conclusion of zimbardos stanford prison experiment
- both guards and prisoners conformed to their roles as guards became more cruel and sadistic and prisoners became more obedient and passive
- social role and environment can affect behaviours as seemingly well balanced men turned aggressive
evaluation of zimbardo study strengths
- good control over variables like only emotionally stable partisans were chosen so it has high internal validity
- practical application as it can be used to explain events in Abu Ghraib, where Iraqi prisoners were tortured by US soldiers, where situational factors made abuse more likely due to factors like lack of training and boredom, or even help to understand how to to improve places like prisons
evaluation of zimbardos study weaknesses
- individual differences and personality can determine the extent to which a person conforms
- behaviour was more of a consequence if demand characteristics and social desirability bias
- Reicher and Hallam BBC experiment does not support as participants did not conform to their social roles automatically because guards failed to identity with their status and impose authority so the prisoners challenged this
- unethical like deception and physical harm
- lacks population validity as it was only white male american volunteers
define obedience
type of social influence where you comply with the demands an authority figure, which is generally perceived positively to maintain order in society
difference between obedience and conformity
direct order vs implicit pressure
authority figure vs people of equal status
different behaviour to authority figure vs same behaviour of social group
embrace behaviour vs deny influece
milgram aim and description of study
- to find out why people obey authority, especially to explain the behaviour of germans under Hitler
- 40 american males aged 20-50 years volunteered and were paid $4.50
- believe they were taking part in a study of memory and learning
milgram study procedure
- participants give the role of the “teacher” and confederates being the experimenter and learner, in a rigged “random” allocation
- participant was given a 45v shock himself to “check” and helped him believe it was real
- participant had to ask the learner a series of word pair tasks and when they got the answer wrong they had to administer an electric shock
- electric shocks were incremented by 15v at a time, ranging from 300v to 450v and 330v was marked as lethal
- shocks were not real and learner was acting
- learner have a predetermine set of responses, based on 3 wrong answer to one correct answer
- at 315v, the learner screamed in pain and kicked the wall
- at 330v the learner went silent
- experimenter had a series of standardised prods when participant refused to administer a shock
milgram prods
“ please continue” or “please go on”
“ the experiment requires that you continue”
“ it is absolutely essential that you continue”
“ you have no other choice, you must go on”
milgram predicted results
- 14 psychologists at yale were provided a detailed description of experiment and asked how they would expect them to behave
- all predicted insignificant majority would go to the end of the shock series and very few would go beyond very strong shock designation
