Social Influence Flashcards
What is conformity?
Conformity is a form of social influence which is a change in a person behaviour or opinions as a result of a real or imagined pressure from a person or a group of people.
______ (____) argues we could distinguish between 3 types of conformity. What are they?
Kelman (1958)
Compliance - adjusting or changing behaviour, views attitudes and beliefs they use in public so they are in line with the majority. No change to private behaviour, views attitudes and beliefs and only lasts while group is present - superficial and temporary form of conformity.
Internalisation - adjusting or changing behaviour, views attitudes and beliefs they use in public and in private (believing that the majority is correct ) so they are in line with the majority - a more deeper and permanent form of conformity.
Identification- a moderate type of conformity, where we conform to the opinions of the group because there is something about the group that we value. We can also identify with people we admire- public agreement but private disagreement.
Explanations for conformity AO1
_______ and ______ (____) developed a two process theory, trying to explain why we conform - what was this?
Deutsch and Gerald (1955)
Informative social influence ISI:
The desire to be right, the person conforms because they are unsure of the right answer so they look to others for information. It is more likely to happen in more ambiguous or difficult situations or in a crisis or when we believe others have more expertise.
Normative social influence NSI:
The desire to be liked, following the norm to ‘fit in’ the group as research has shown people like those who are similar to them so conformity can be an effective strategy to ensure acceptance.
Explanations for conformity AO3
STRENGTHS
+there is research to support ISI and NSI as an explanation for conformity
Lucas et al. (2006) found in his study that students were more likely to conform to incorrect answers for difficult math problems, especially those who felt less confident in their math skills. This supports the Informational Social Influence (ISI) explanation, as it shows people conform when a situation is challenging or ambiguous, relying on others for guidance.
In contrast, Asch (1951) demonstrated Normative Social Influence (NSI), where participants conformed to clearly incorrect answers to avoid rejection, even though the task was straightforward. This shows that people may conform not out of uncertainty but due to social pressure and the desire to fit in.
WEAKNESS
-Not all individuals are equally affected by Normative Social Influence (NSI).
Research by McGhee and Teevan (1967) found that students with a high need for affiliation (to be close to others), known as nAffiliators, were more likely to conform. This suggests that individuals who care about being liked or forming relationships are more susceptible to NSI.This finding highlights that NSI is not universal, as the explanation for NSI does not account these individual differences, therefore the NSI explanation may lack population validity.
-ISI and NSI might both be a reason why someone conforms rather than it having to be just one or the other, they shouldn’t be seen as two separate processes.
-another limitation for using NSI and ISI as an explanation for conformity is the lack of ecological validity for supporting research. Studies like Adch’s (1951) were conducted in artificial lab settings, where participants judged line lengths - a task unlike usual everyday life where conformity happens in more meaningful situations , so lab findings may not represent genuine behaviour of the participants. This questions the generalisability of using NSI and ISI as an explanation for conformity
Asch’s (1951) study AO1
-Asch wanted to see the extent to which social pressure from a majority group could influence an individual to conform in a non ambiguous situation
-it involved the use of a lab experiment including 123 US undergraduate male participants
-participants were placed in a group with confederates
-there were many trials but confederates face the intentionally wrong answer for some of them known as the critical trials
-participants were shown a standardised line X next to 3 standard lines A B C and were asked which comparison line matched the standardised line.
-the naive participant always answered around last
-there was also a control group without confederates
-75% of the participants conformed at least once
-naive participants gave the wrong answer around one third of the time
-the control group participants made errors on the test less than 1% of the time
Asch’s study + variables AO3 (STRENGTHS)
Asch’s study + variables AO3 (WEAKNESSES)
Variables affecting conformity: GROUP SIZE
Variables affecting conformity: UNANIMITY OF THE MAJORITY
Variables affecting conformity: TASK DIFFICULTY
Zimbardos Stanford Prision Experiment AO1
-Zimbardo wanted to see if people would conform to social roles they were put into.
-he conducted an observational study at Stanford university with 24 male US student volunteers, who passsed psychological tests
-randomly assigned the role of prisoner or guard
-prisoners arrested unexpectedly at their house deloused and given prison uniform and mock ID numbers and lived in mock prison cells at the basement of Stanford university and had limited rights.
-guards wore uniforms, sunglasses and carried clubs
-Zimbardo acted as superintendent
-the prisoners and guards quickly conformed to their social roles
-prisoners rebelled within days but guards responded with increasing abuse, dehumanising the prisoners
-prisoners experienced severe emotional distress such as crying and severe anxiety
Zimbardos Stanford Prision Experment AO3 (STRENGTHS)
Zimbardos Stanford Prision Experment AO3 (WEAKNESSES)
Milgrams experiment on obedience (AO1)
-to investigate whether people would obey an authority figure when told to deliver lethal electric shocks to another human being
-40 male volunteer participants were told they were taking part in a study based on memory and learning
-always “randomly” assigned the role of a teacher while a confederate MR Wallace, was always assigned the role of a learner. The study directed by a confederate which was also another confederate.
-the learner Mr Wallace was seen strapped into a chair in another room with electrodes attached to him. The participant was made to deliver electric shocks which they were made to believe were real every time Mr Wallace made a mistake on the learning task. Every time he made a mistake the electric shock was given at a higher intensity. Electric shocks ranged from 15V to 450V .
-@300V it was labelled intense shock and the learner pounded on the wall and after that stoped responding- participant could hear these pre recorded reactions (but they thought they were live real reactions)
- prods such as “please continue” “the experiment requires you to continue “ were used
-all participants shocked up to 300V and 65% of participants shocked up to 450
-observational findings: nervous laughter, sweating trembling
-some participants experiences seizures
Milgrams experiment on obedience (AO3)
