Social Influence Flashcards
Social Psychology
Looks at the relationships between people + how people affect each other’s behaviour (social influence)
Conformity
- Is a form of social influence where a person changes their behaviour, attitudes or beliefs so that they are in line with the majority
- This occurs because of pressure from the majority + this pressure can be real or imagined
Compliance
- Is when individuals adjust the behaviour, attitudes, beliefs so that they are in line with the majority
- There is no change in private behaviour, attitudes or beliefs + conformity only lasts while the group is present
- It is therefore a superficial and temporary form of conformity
- E.g. pretending to like a book or movie so you fit in with the group
Internalisation
- Is when individuals adjust the behaviour, attitudes or beliefs publicly AND privately so that they are in line with the majority
- The individuals examines their own behaviour, attitudes or beliefs based on what others are saying + decides that majority is correct
- This is deeper than compliance and can be permanent
- E.g. converting religions
Identification
- Is when an individual accepts social influence because they want to be associated with a role model or social group
- By adopting the role model/group’s behaviour, attitudes or beliefs they feel connected to the role model/group
- E.g. adopting the same style as your friends however when you move away from that friend you go back to your old clothing style
Explanations for Conformity
- Deutsch and Gerrard (1955) developed a theory to explain why people conform
- They proposed that there were only 2 reasons why people conformed
Normative Social Influence
- People have a fundamental need for social approval and acceptance
- We avoid any behaviour that will make others reject or ridicule us
- This can lead us to copy the behaviour of others in order to ‘fit in’
- Studies have shown that people like those who are similar to them + so conformity can be an effective strategy to ensure we fit in with a group
- NSI is likely to lead to compliance
Informational Social Influence
- People have a fundamental need to be right + to have an accurate perception of reality
- Individuals may make objective tests against reality (e.g. check the facts) but if this is not possible they will rely on the opinions of others to check if they are correct + then use this as evidence about reality
- ISI is more likely to happen if the situation is ambiguous or when others are experts
- ISI leads to internalisation
Advantage of Normative Social Influence (1) - Asch
- Asch (1951) asked participants to say which 3 test lines was the same as the standard line
- Participants were in a group with confederates (not real participants) who gave the same wrong answer even though the correct answer was obvious
- 33% of trials the participants conformed to the group + gave the wrong answer due to NSI
- After experiment they claimed they knew the correct answer but were worried the group would ridicule them if they answered differently
Advantage of Informational Social Influence (2) - Jenness
- Jenness (1932) asked participants to estimate how many beans they thought were in a jar
- Each participant had to make an individual estimate first + then do the same as a group
- Found that when they did with a group participants would report estimates roughly the same as others even though they previously reported different estimates as individuals
- Example of ISI as participants would be uncertain about the actual no. of beans in the jar so genuinely influenced by the group
Disadvantage of Normative and Informational Social Influence (1)
- There is a third explanation for conformity known as ingratiational conformity
- Similar to NSI but group influence does not enter into the decision to conform
- Instead motivated by the need to impress or gain favour rather than the fear of rejection (McLeod, 2007)
Disadvantage of Normative and Informational Social Influence (2)
- Dispositional factors (personality traits) may also impact whether a person conforms or not
- People with an internal locus of control are less likely to conform than those with an external locus of control
- NSI/ISI cannot explain this finding
Variables Affecting Conformity (Asch)
1 - Group size
2 - Task difficulty
3 - Unanimity
Procedure of Asch’s study
- Asch (1951) placed a naïve participant in a group with several confederates
- The group was asked to look at a ‘standard line’ + then decide individually which of three other ‘test lines’ was the same length as the standard line without discussing
- They then gave their responses one at a time out loud
- The answer was obvious however the confederates gave the wrong answer on 12/18 trials
- The naïve participant was the last or second to last one to give their response so they heard the rest of the groups’ responses before giving their own
Findings of Asch’s study
- The chance of making a genuine mistake on this task was only 1% but 33% of the responses given by participants were incorrect
- 75% of participants conformed in at least 1of the 18 trials
- 5% of participants conformed on every trial but 25% did not conform on any trial
- When Asch interviewed his participants afterwards he discovered that the majority of participants who had conformed had continued to trust their own judgment but gave the same answer as the group to avoid disapproval (NSI)
Group Size
- Asch (1956) changed group size
- Groups with 1 confederate = conformity rate of 3%
- Groups with 2 confederates = conformity rate of 13%
- With 3 confederates conformity rose significantly = 32%
- It appears that we can resist the influence of 2 people fairly easily but 3 people are much harder to resist
- There was little change to conformity once groups have reached 4 or more confederates
Task Difficulty
- Asch adjusted the task difficulty so he made the test lines more similar in length
- The level of conformity increased possibly because ISI was starting to have an impact
- This is because when we are uncertain, we look to others for confirmation
- The more difficult the task became the greater the ISI + the conformity
Unanimity
- When the group had unanimity (everyone agreed) conformity increased
- However when only 1 other person in the group gave a different answer from the others meaning that the group was not unanimous, conformity dropped
- Asch found that even the presence of just 1 confederate who went against the majority reduced conformity from 33% to 5%
- Even when the confederate gave a different wrong answer to the rest of the group conformity dropped from 33% to 9%
Disadvantages of Asch’s study
Look at notes for more detail
1. No temporal validity
2. Lacks mundane realism + ecological validity
3. Gender/culture bias
4. Volunteer sample used
5. Ethical issues
Conformity to Social Roles
- Social roles are the behaviours expected of an individual who occupies a social position/status
- People can conform to the social roles assigned to them
Procedure of Zimbardo’s study
- Zimbardo (1973) wanted to investigate whether conformity to social roles would alter a person’s behaviour
- A simulated prison was created in the basement of the Stanford University Psychology department
- 24 emotionally + psychologically stable young men were recruited and randomly assigned to the role of prisoner or guard
- The guards had complete control over the prisoners
- The guards were told to maintain order using any means necessary except for physical violence
Findings of Zimbardo’s study
- On the 2nd day the prisoners tried to rebel, they ripped off their prison numbers and barricaded themselves in their cell
- The guards sprayed them with CO2, stripped them naked, took their beds away and forced the ringleaders into solitary confinement
- Over the next few days the guards became increasingly cruel and aggressive creating a brutal atmosphere
- Prisoners became passive and depressed as the guards used verbal abuse, forced them to do repeated press ups, pushed them into urinals and left them in a pitch black cupboard for hours
- The guards became so aggressive that the study had to be ended after only 6 days (it was meant to last 2 weeks) because of concerns about the psychological health of the prisoners, who were showing signs of severe distress
Evaluation of Zimbardo’s study
Look at notes for detail
Obedience
- Is behaving as instructed to by an authority figure
- Authority figures have status + power over others
Procedure of Milgram’s study
Look at notes for detail
Findings of Milgram’s study
- 100% of participants gave shocks up to 300 volts (when Mr Wallace banged on the wall and stopped answering)
- 65% of participants gave electric shocks all the way up to the maximum 450 volts
- Participants felt a high level of stress during the experiments, they showed symptoms including sweating, trembling, anxious and hysterical laughter
- Despite this most were obedient and willing to inflict potentially lethal shocks on a man with a weak heart
Evaluation of Milgram’s study
Look at notes for detail
Situational Variables Affecting Obedience
- Milgram (1974) conducted several variations of his original study
- He wanted to determine which situational variables lead to high levels of obedience + reduces obedience
3 different Situational Variables:
1 - Proximity
2 - Location
3 - Uniform
Proximity
- In the proximity variation the teacher + the learner were seated in the same room
- Obedience levels fell to 40% as the teacher was now able to experience Mr. Wallace’s anguish directly
- In a more extreme variation known as the touch proximity variation the teacher had to actually force the learner’s arm down onto a metal plate to
administer the shocks = the obedience rate was 30% - The proximity of the experimenter is also important
- In the absent experimenter variation the experimenter left the room after giving his instructions + gave subsequent orders by telephone
- The vast majority of participants missed out shocks or gave lower voltages than they were meant to = the obedience rate was 21%
Location
- In the alternative setting variation the experiment was carried out in a rundown office by an experimenter wearing casual clothes = the obedience rate was 48%
- Participants reported the location of Yale Uni gave them confidence in the integrity of the experimenter
- The lower status of the rundown office changed participants’ perception of the legitimacy of the authority of the experimenter
- The experimenter had a higher authority at Yale Uni than the rundown office which led to higher obedience rates
Uniforms
- Uniforms have a powerful impact on obedience as uniforms are visible symbols of authority
- Sometimes uniforms show that someone has power and status e.g. a police officer’s uniform however on other occasions they show that someone does not have power and status e.g. a prisoner’s uniform
- Bickman (1974) asked confederates to order passersby to pick some litter off the street or move away from a bus stop
- The confederates were dressed as either a guard, milkman or just in smart clothes
- 90% of people obeyed the guard but only 50% obeyed the civilian
- A person in a guard uniform is more likely to be obeyed