social influence Flashcards
what is social influence
the process by which an individuals attitudes, beliefs or behaviours are modified by the actual, imagined, or implied presence of others
includes conformity obediance and minority influence
what is conformity (majority influence)
the tendancy to change our behaviour/beliefs/attitudes in response to the influence of others
what is obediance
where an individual complies with a direct order from a figure with percieved authority
individuals respond in a way they wouldnt have done without the order
types of conformity
compliance
identification
internalisation
compliance
conforms publically with the views/behaviours of others- but privately disagrees
identification
adopts the views of a group publically and privately because they identify with the group and feel a sense of membership
may only be temporary- not maintained once left the group
internalisation
conversion-true change of private views to match those of the group
new attitudes/behaviuors become part of the individuals value system- not dependent on the presence of the group
the change is long term/more permanent than the other types of conformity
what are the two explanations of conformity
normative social influence
informational social influence
normative social influence
desire to be liked
desire for the approval of others and to be accepted
often results in compliance only
informational social influence
desire to be right
look to others to give us information about how to behave/think
particularly in new or ambiguos situtaions
may result in identification or internalisation
who did research studies into conformity
Asch 1951
Sherif 1935
how did sherif investigate conformity
autokinetic effect
what is the autokinetic effect
where in a completely dark room a stationary pinpoint of light appears to move and the amount it appers to move by depends on the individual
what was the procedure of sherifs study
individuals asked on their own how much the light moved and then asked in groups
what were the findings of sherifs study
peoples perception of the amount the light moved conformed to a group norm when they were asked together
why was sherifs study criticised
task was ambiguous
there was no right answer
what was the aim of aschs study
to see if individuals would conform to a majority when presented with an unambigous task (clear right/wrong answer)
method of aschs conformity study
recruited 123 male participants
asked them to participate in a visual perception task
one naive geniune p placed in a group of 7-9 others who were all confederates
there was one standard test line andthen three comparison lines of differing lengths shown
ps had to say which comparison line matched the standard line- correct answer always obvious
confederates gave same wrong answer unanimously on 12 of the 18 trials- called critical trials
what were the findings of aschs experiment
26% never conformed giving correct answer on all 12 trials
74% conformed to the incorrect answer at least once
participants answered correctly 99% of the time when there was no group pressure
5% of participants conformed on every critical trial
what was found during debriefs of aschs experiment
some ps said they didnt want to upset the experimenter and wanted to convey a favourable impression
some ps said they doubted themselves and thought their perceptions were innacurate
what were the conclusions from aschs experiment
individuals conform for different reasons:
normative si- to avoid rejection
informational- doubt own judgement
criticisms of aschs conformity study
all male participants
lacks ecological validity
possibly unethical, make participants feel uncomfotable/stress/less confident
what variables affect conformity
group size
unanimity
task difficulty
how did asch research the effect of group size on conformity
manipulated the size of the group of confederates- 1,2,3,4,8,10 and 15
what did asch find from his research into the effect of group size on conformity
conformity increased as the number of confederates increased from 1-3 but after group size made no difference
in some conditions group sizes of 15 confederates led to lower levels of conformity- maybe as ps become more suspicious when faced with a larger majority
what did Bond find in relation to the effect of group size on conformity
replications supported asch
group size rapidly reached a plateau
meta analysis by Bond (2005)
found conformity was similar with majority sizes of 3,4,5,6, or 7
how does whether the response is given publically or privately affect group size and conformity
Bond 2005 found when ps could give their response privately there was a small negative relationship between conformity and group size
what did Asch find about the effect of unanimity on conformity
conformity most likely when confederates are unanimous in their answers
asch found one confederate is instructed to disagree with the majority judgement and give the correct answer on every trial conformity decreased from 37% of critical trials down to 5.5%
for what two reasosns did asch say the presence of a dissenter led to a decrease in conformity
the dissenter provides useful information about the correct response and
reduces the need for group social approval
what did aschs research into task difficulty and its effect on conformity find
if the task is difficult- comparison lines all similar in length to the standard line then conformity increases
what did Lucas 2006 find about task difficulty and conformity
gave students easy and hard maths problems and found greater level of conformity when problems were hard
especially if participants doybted their mathematical abilities
how do individual differences affect conformity
conformity high for people who have low self esteem, are concerned about social relationships, have a strong need for social approval and are attracted towardss other group members
conformity lower for those with high levels of self efficacy (confidence in own abilities) and higher for those with low self efficacy
how are aschs and sherifs studies limited by ecological validity
laboratory experiments
situation is artificial and tasks are unreal so can results of experiments be generalised to everyday life
lacks ecological validity- extent to which research findings can be generalised to other settings
how can aschs and sherifs research be evaluated in terms of temporal validity
experiments conducted in early 1950s USA
high levels of cinformity in aschs research was seen as a reflection of 1950s american society by some
was a time when non conformity was discourafed
what Nicholson 1985 find that showed limitations of the temporal validity of aschs experiment
replicated aschs experiment and found lower conformity levels
may be due to changes in american society but also differences in samples
ethical issues in aschs experiment
deception as they arent informed about the real aim of the task- were told it was about visual percpetion- means ps didnt really consent
confidence could be affected
embarrasment
how can aschs research be defended in terms of ethics
if ps told real aim and procedure there wouldve been a lack of internak validity
debriefed ps after
how does Aschs study show normative social influence
the correct answer was obvious- yet indivudals conformed to the wrong answer
confirmed in debriefing interviews they knew they were giving the wrong answer but didnt want to be in minority of group and stand out
indicated compliance and desire to fit in and therefore suggests NSI
how does Sherifs research indicate informational social influence
sherifs study was an ambigous task with no obvious right answer
in ambigous situations individuals look to others as a guide- likely to show informational social influence
what did abrams find about normative social influence
presence of in group results in higher conformity than outgroup presence
supports nsi- as would have greater desire for acceptance from in group
if it was isl- would be no difference between in group and out group
when are people most likely to conform to normative social influence according to Latane’s social impact theory
when group membership is important to us
Perrin and Spencer 1981 found unemployed black youths from a racially tense part of London were more likely to conform to a majority if other black youths when experimenter was white
how can normaive social influence be evaluated- real world application
give insight to why isome children begin bullying other children when they are uncomfortable with the behaviour
Garandau and Cillessen 2006 found children who had greater need for social acceptance were the most likely to comply to pressure exerted by a bullying group to victimise another child
by conforming to the actions of the bullying group, these children believed they would be accepted by other group members and so could maintain friendships regardless of how they felt in private about bullying
when are people most likely to conform to informational social influence
situational ambiguity
in an emergency we might not have time to think calmly so we look to others for the best course of action
we are more likely to conform if we believe the majority has more expertise or knowledge about the task
what did Allen 1980 suggest about when we are most likely to conform
suggested intelligence was a major determining factor of conformity to informational social influence with intelligent individuals being more self confident and less likely to conform
what are social roles
the behaviours expected of an individual who occupies a given social position or status
what research investigated conformity to social roles
Zimbardos stanford prison study
what hypothesis was zimbardo testing
the dispositional (personality) vs situational hypothesis to explain prison behaviour
deindividualisation
the process of loosing ones sense of self, often associated with group/mob behaviour
dehumanisation
the denial of full humaneness to others- enables aggression and mistreatment of others
aim of zimbardos prison experiment
to investigate whether brutality reported among guards in american prisons at the time was due to sadistic personalities of the guards (dispositional hypothesis) or to do with the power structure in the prison environment (situational hypothesis)
precoedure of the stanford prison experiment
male ps recruited through newspaper advertisements
psychological tests used to select those who appeared most stable with no voilent or antisocial tendancies
from 75 volunteers, 24 well adjusted healthy male students were selected
study was a two week role play simulation study of prison life in a mock prison
participants observed by hidden cameras
randomly allocated to guard or prisoner role
prisoners ‘‘arrested’’ at homes without warning, charged, read their rights, searched, handcuffed and taken to police station
stripped, deloused and given prison number
confined to cells apart from meals, work and toilet privelages
guards whore military style khaki uniforms reflector sunglasses, carried wooden batons
guards on duty 24 hours a day working 8 hour shifts
instructed to keep prisoners under conrtol but no physical aggression permitted
what were the findings of prisoners from the zimbardo experiment
prisoners rebelled against guards after two days, guards quelled rebellion using fire extinguishers
after this prisoners became submissive and subdued
some prisoners had to be released early due to extreme reactions (severe emotional disturbance, rage, disorganised thinking, acute anxiety and depression)
eg one prisoner had ro be released after less than 36 hours
zimbardo experiment findings of the guards
use of force, harrassment and aggression by guards increased steadily
guards conformed to percieved roles with zeal, harrassing the prisoners so much the study had to be discontinued after 6 days
individual differences in guards behaviour
1/3 became tyrannical in arbitrary use of power
some were ‘good guards’ who didnt degrade or harrass prisoners
conclusions of the stanford prison experiment
behaviour observed was due to situational variabes rather than individuals personalities (disposition) with participants conforming to expected forms of behaviour for the roles of prisoner and guard, demonstrating conformity by identification
some findings could be explained as a result of deindividuation as some features of experiment eg uniforms, reflector sunglasses would encourage deindividuation by increasing feelings of anonymity and aggression
how can stanford prison experiment be evaluated by the fact conformity to roles isnt automatic
zimbardo assumed the guards drift into sadistic behaviour was an utomatic consequence of them conforming to their role
however there were individual differences between guards- some guards became tyrannical whilst others didnt
individual differences are inconsistent with an entirely situational explanation for guards behaviour and suggest conformity to roles isnt automatic with participants choosing how to respond to the situation rather than blindly conforming to their social role
what did Banuazizi and Movahedi 1975 say about demand charachteristics and participant reactivity in the stanford prison experiment
argued behaviour of zimbardos guards and prisoners wasnt due to the ‘prisoner environment’ but was a response to the powerful demand charachteristics in the experimental situation
this can result in participant effects/reactivity where ps change their behaviour as a result of these percieved expectations
the mock prison was v different from a real prison
ps knew they hadnt committed a crime and were free to leave
led to researchers suggestibf the artifical setting resulted in ps demonstrating participant reactivity with prisoners and guards play acting
what are demand charachteristics
those aspects of a study that lead ps to guess what the experimenters expect of them or how they want them to behave
what is obedience
the type of social influence where an individual complies witj a direct order from a figure with percieved authority
it is implied that the person receiving the order responds in a way they wouldnt have done without the order
who did research into obediance
milgram
what was the aim of milgrams experiment
to find out whether ordinary americans would obey an unjust order from an authority figure to inflict pain on another person
milgram wanted to discover what factors in a situation led people to obey
precedure for milgrams experiment
40 male volunteers selected and each paid $4.50
ps told the study concerned the role of punishment in learning (not told real aim of testing obediance to authority)
roles of experimenter teacher and learner
geniune p was always the teacher
confederate was the learner
teacher decieved into thinking they were giving electric shocks when none were actually administered
teacher had to administer a shock evrry time learner made a mistake
p watched confederate being strapped to a chair with electrode attached to their arm
shocks given started at 15v and rose in 15v to 450v
if p hesitated the researcher encouraged him to continue
experiment continued until teacher refused to continue or until 450v were reached 4 times
p then debriefed
findings of milgrams experiment
65% of participants went on giving shocks up to and including 450V
all ps gave shocks up to 300v
only 12.5% of ps stopped at 300v