Social Influence Flashcards
What are the types of conformity?
Internalisation - strong form of conformity. Permanent change in behaviour even when group is absent.
Identification - moderate type of conformity. Act the same way as the group but don’t necessarily agree with everything.
Compliance - going along with others but not privately changing behaviours.
What are the explanations for conformity?
Informational Social Influence (ISI)
- People conform because they want to be right
Normative Social Influence (NSI)
- People conform because they want to be liked
evaluate NSI
+ When Asch asked participants to write their answers down conformity levels dropped
- The desire to be liked underlies conformity and one theory does not cover all the differences.
evaluate ISI
+ Lucas et al found that there was more
conformity to incorrect answers when
the problems were more difficult.
- Asch found that students were less
conformist than other participants
NAMED STUDY
Asch’s Research
- 123 males. Groups 6-8 other participants confederates.
- Asked which line was the same as target line, real participant placed last or next to last.
Evaluation:
- Beta bias
- Lacks ecological validity and application due to artificial tasks
- research support ➜ Lucas et al
Variations of study:
- Group size (increased conformity with bigger groups)
- Unanimity (non-conforming confederate gave correct answer. Decreased conformity)
- Task difficulty
what is a dissenter (Asch’s research ➜ unanimity)?
someone who disagrees with the majority or refuses to obey➜ in Asch’s case a confederate who disagreed with other confederates ➜ in one variation they gave the right answer, in another variation they gave an alternative wrong answer ➜ presence of dissenter freed participant to act more independently
Zimbardo’s Research (Conformity to Social Roles)
The Stanford Prison Experiment
- Mock prison set up in basement of psychology dept at Stanford University. Planned for 14 days.
- 24 male students volunteered (volunteer sample)
- Randomly assigned to play either prison guard or prisoner. Encouraged to conform to social roles through uniform and instructions.
- Prisoners arrested unknowingly at their homes by real officers, blindfolded and brought to prison. Stripped naked and given uniform (de-individualisation)
- If prisoners wanted to leave they had to apply for “parole” (fails to meet right to withdraw issue)
Findings:
- Prisoners rebelled, guards took up their roles by harassing prisoners
- Guards became more brutal and so the experiment was stopped after 6 days
Evaluation:
- Can be used to explain real life events e.g. Abu Gharib
- Ethical issues (Deception, Protection from harm, Right to withdraw etc.)
Evaluate Zimbardo’s research (stanford prison experiment)
STRENGTHS
- control over key variables ➜ EXAMPLE = selection of mentally-stable participants which ruled out individual personality differences as an explaination for the findings ➜ increased internal validity
LIMITATIONS
- lack of realism ➜ not a real prison ➜ it was argued the prisoners were play-acting basing thier behaviours off of stereotypes e.g. a guard admitted he based his role on a character from cool hand luke
COUNTERPOINT ➜ McDermott argued prison was seen as real amongst Ps e.g. 90% of convos were about prison life, pirsoner 416 stated he believed the prison was real but ran by psychologists ➜ high internal validity
- exaggerates the power roles ➜ only 1/3 of guards displayed brutal behaviour another 1/3 followed rules fairly the rest tried to help + support the prisoners.
- alternative explanation ➜ social identity theory ➜ guards had to actively identify with their roles to act how they did
What are the reasons to conform/obey?
- Dispositional (internal factors e.g. personality traits)
- Situational (external factors which affect out behaviour e.g. social roles, environment)
Milgrams study (Obedience)
Procedure:
- 40 particpants recruited with wide variety of backgrounds (volunteer sample). Participants told study was about memory + effects of punishment on learning (deception)
- Involved 3 people:
- Experimenter (wearing grey lab coat as symbol of authority)
- Teacher (naive participant)
- Learner (knew about study)
Teacher reads out pairs of words, students must respond to stimulus correctly to avoid punishment. Learner deliberately gets them wrong. Teacher administers shock with each wrong response. Learner strapped into ‘electric chair’ in the other room.
If teacher hesitated the experimenter used the following 4 ‘prods’ in this precise order:
❖ “Please continue”
❖ “The experiment requires that you
continue”
❖ “It’s absolutely essential that you continue”
❖ “You have no other choice, you must go on
Findings:
Approximately 65% gave the maximum shock which would be fatal if actually administered. Milgram concluded that the social setting
was a powerful determinant of an individuals behaviour.
Evaluation:
- beta bias
- all American
- volunteer sample (demand characteristics)
- deception, protection from harm, right to withdraw, informed consent
- cross-cultural replications
What were Milgrams situational variables?
- Proximity (the learner and teacher were now in the same room). Obedience -> 40%
- Touch proximity (the teacher had to physically force the learner’s hand onto electric shock plate). Obedience -> 30%
- Remote instruction (the experimenter gave instructions over the phone). Obedience -> 20.5%
- Location (change from Yale University to run down office block). Obedience -> 47.5%
- Uniform - (the role of the experimenter was taken over by a member of the public (confederate) in everyday clothes). Obedience -> 20%
Obedience dropped the most when uniform was the situational variable. This is because of legitmacy of authority.
evaluate milgram’s situational variables?
Strengths
- research support ➜ Bickman ➜ 3 confederates in NYC in different outfits (jacket + tie, milkman’s outfit, security guard uniform) they then seperately asked passers-by to peform tasks e.g. picking up litter, asking for coin. People were twice as likely to obey the security guard uniform than jacket + tie ➜ supports situation variable e.g. uniform
- cross-cultural replications ➜ Meeus + Raajimakers ➜ Ps were ordered to say stressful things in an interview to someone (a confederate) desperate for a job. 90% of Ps obeyed. When the person giving the orders wasn’t present obedience dropped (proximity-milgram) ➜ milgram’s research valid across cultures
COUNTERPOINT ➜ Smith + Bond ➜ identified only 2 replications that took place in non-western cultures (India + Jordan). Other countries involved e.g. France, Spain, Scotland etc were not that culturally different to America. ➜ milgram’s findings cannot be generalised to other cultures
limitations
-low internal validity ➜ Ps may be aware of procedure being fake ➜ Martin + Orne ➜ extra manipulation of variables led to Ps seeing through the procedure e.g. uniform situation too contrived
What is legitimacy of authority?
Legitimacy of authority is an explanation for obedience which suggests that we are more likely to obey people who we perceive to have authority over us. This authority is justified (legitimate) by the individual’s position of power within a social hierarchy. Most societies are structured in a hierarchical way. This means some people have authority over us at times e.g. parents, teachers, police officers. Most of us accept these authority figures. Legitimate authority has the power to punish others e.g. police and courts can punish criminals.
What is the agentic state?
They are an “agent” acting for someone else. This person still experience high anxiety (moral strain) when they realise what they are doing is wrong but feel powerless to disobey.
Milgram was curious to why individuals remain in agentic state. He noted many of his participants said they wanted to stop but seemed powerless to do so. This was due to binding factors – aspects of the situation meant participant allow themselves to ignore or minimise the moral strain of their actions. For example, denying the damage they were doing.
evaluate agentic state
STRENGTHS
- research support ➜ milgram ➜ most Ps resisted giving shocks at some point + often asked experimenter questions regarding the procedure e.g. who is responsible if Mr Wallace (learner) is harmed? when eperimenter said “im responsible” Ps continued with no objections. Easily acts as experimenter’s agent when they were no longer responsible for their behaviour
LIMITATIONS
- limited explanation ➜ agentic shift doesn’t explain many obedience research findings e.g. Rank + Jacobson ➜ 16/18 nurses disobeyed orders from a dr to administer an OD to a patient. Dr = an obvious authority figure but almost all nurses remained autonomous this means agentic shift can only be used to explain some situations of obedience
evaluate legitimacy of authority?
STRENGTHS
- explains cultural differences ➜ studies show countries differ in how obedient people are to authority e.g. Kilham and Man found only 16% of female Australian Ps went to 450 volts however Mantell found German Ps - 85% ➜ some cultures authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimate + entitled to demand obedience ➜ reflects how different societies are structured + how kids are raised to perceive authority figures
LIMITATIONS
- cannot explain all obedience/disobedience ➜ Rank + Jacobson study
