social influence Flashcards
what is compliance?
this is superficial and temporary.
we outwardly go along with the majority but privately disagree.
change in behaviour only last as long as we are in the presence of a group.
what is identification?
this is a moderate type of conformity.
we act the same way as the group as we value it and want to be a part of it.
dont necesarily agree with everything the majority believes.
what is internalisation?
deepest type of conformity.
we take on the majority view as we accept it as correct.
leads to far reaching and permanent change in behaviour even if group was absent.
what was deutsch and gerards two process theory?
this theory was based on two central human needs.
informational social influence is the need to be right, it says we agree with the majority as we believe its correct and we want to be correct as well. this can lead to internalisation. its a cognitive process as its to do with what you think. its most likely to occur in situations that are new to a person or that have some sort of ambiguity.
normative social influence is the need to be liked. it says we agree with the majority as we want to be accepted, gain social approval and be liked. it can lead to compliance. its most likely to occur in situations with strangers where we are concernd with rejection, or with people we know as we are concerned about getting social approval from friends.
what is a strength of deutsch and gerards two process theory?
an advantage is its supported by research. lucas et al 2006 asked students to give answers to hard or easy maths questions. he found greater conformity to incorrect answers if they were difficult questions. this shows people conform in situations where they dont know the answer - the ISI explanation.
what are the 2 weaknesses of deutsch and gerards two process theory?
a weakness is individual differences in NSI. NSI doesnt affect everyone in the same way e.g. those not concerned with being liked are less affected by NSI than those concerned with being liked. these people have greater need for affiliation - nAffliators. mcghee and teevan 1967 found students high in need of affiliation were more likely to conform. this shows the desire to be liked underlies confomrity for some more than others.
another weakness is that normally both ISI and NSI are involved, not one and another like Deutsch and gerard said. for example, conformity is reduced when theres a dissenting participant - Asch study. the dissenter can reudce the power of NSI or ISI. this shows we cant be sure if NSI or ISI is at work. this is the case in lab studies but truer in real life conformity situations. this casts doubt over ISI and NSI as two independent processes.
describe asch research into conformity
asch used 123 american male undergraduates. the aim was to test conformity. they showed participants 2 white cards - one had a standard line and the other had 3 comaprison lines with one matching the standard.
he had groups of 6-8 confederates with 1 naive participant.
in the first few trials confederates gave right answers but then gave wrong ones. there were 18 total trials only 12 ‘critical’ ones where the wrong answer was given.
naive gave the wrong answer 36.8% of the time. 25% of the time particpants didnt conform on any trials. 75% conformed at least once.
the term ‘asch effect’ is the extent partcicpants conform in unambiguous situations.
the participants were interviewed after and said they conformed to avoid rejection (NSI).
describe asch research into conformity - variations
asch did 3 further variations.
1. group size where they found with 3 confederates conformity to the wrong answer rose to 31.8%. adding more confederates made no difference.
2. unanimity where they introduced a confederate who disagreed with the others. the dissenting confederate meant conformity reduced by 1/4.
3. task difficulty where they made the comparison and standard line more similar and conformity increased. ISI plays a bigger role when theres a harder task as people look to others for help.
what are the three disadvantages of aschs conformity research?
one weakness is that its artificial. participants knew they were in a study so may have gone along with the demand characteristi. identifying lines is a simple task that we dont do in real life situations so we overall cant generalise it to everyday situations.
another weakness is that it could be a child of its time. perrin and spencer 1980 replicated achs study with engineering students in the UK - only 1 student conformed in 396 trials. 1950s in america were very conformist so it made sense to conform to establish social norms. this means the asch effect isnt consistent across situations and time so isnt a fundamental feature of human behaviour.
another disadvantage is the limited application of findings. asch only tested men and other research suggests women could be more conformist as they have more concern over social relationships (neto 1995). the US is an individualist culture and studies done in collectivist cultures like china have found higher conformity rates. this is due to cultures like this being more oriented to group needs (bond and smith 1996). aschs findings may only apply to american men as he didnt take gender or cultural differences into account.
describe zimbardos research into conformity
zimbardo set up a mock prison in the basement of stanford university. he advertised for students willing to volunteer and selcted the ‘emotionally stable’ ones after psychological testing. students were randomly allocated role of guards or prisoner.
‘prisoners’ arrested in their own homes by local police and then got taken to the ‘priosn’. they were blindfolded, deloused, given a uniform and number.
the social roles of prisoners and guards were strictly divided. prisoners daily roles were heavily regulated. they had 16 rules to follow that were enforced by guards in shifts of 3. they only used prisoners numbers to refer to them.
guards had a uniform of a wooden club, handcuffs, keys and mirror shades. they had complete power over prisoners.
what were the results of zimbardos study into conformity?
the study stopped after 6 days instead of the planned 14. in 2 days prisoners rebelled against the harsh treatment of the guards. they ripped uniforms, swore and shouted at guards.
guards harassed the prisoners - they conducted headcounts in the night and punished smallest misdemeanour.
the prisoners rebellion got put down and they became subdued, anxious and deoressed. 1 prisoner was released on the 4th day, 1 went on a hunger strike and the guards tried to force feed him and put him in a dark small closet.
the guards behaviour was brutal and aggressive.
what is the strength of zimbardos research into conformity?
a strength is that zimbardo and his colleagues had some control over the variables. they selcted the most emotionally stable participants and randomly assigned them to their roles. this is how they tried to rule out individual personality differences as an explanantion of their findings, the guards and prisoners behaved very differently but as the roles were chance then the behaviour must be because of the pressure of the situation. high control over variables means high internal validity.
what are the 2 weaknesses of zimbardos research into conformity?
a weakness is that theres ethical issues. zimbardo had a dual role in the study and when 1 participant tried to leave zimbardo responded as a superintendent worried about running a prison instead of a researcher with responsibilities towards his participants.
another weakness is that zimbardo minimised the role of personality (dispositional) factors. Fromm 1973 said zimbardo exagerated the power of the situation e.g. only 1/3 of the guards behaved brutally. another 1/3 wanted to apply the rules fairly and the rest tried to help the prisoners and sympathise with them. suggests zimbardos conclusion that particpants conformed to social roles may be overstated. difference in guards behaviour inidicates they could exercise rights and wrongs even with situational pressures.
describe milgrams research into obedience
milgram wanted an answer to why germans followed hitlers orders and killed over 10 million jews - he wanted to know if germans were different e.g. were they more obedient?
he used 40 male participants and recruited them through newspaper ads. they were aged 20 - 50 and had jobs from unskilled to professionals. they were offered $4.50 to take part. there was a rigged draw for roles. the confederate was always the ‘learner’ and the naive was the ‘teacher’. there was an experimenter (another confederate) in a lab coat. the participants were told they could leave at any time.
learner was strapped into a chair in another room with electrodes and the teacher was required to give the learner increasingly severe electric shocks if they made a mistake on a learning task (word pairs). the shocks were demonstrated to the teacher but the rest were fake.
the shocks started at 15 volts ‘slight shock’ label and rose to 450 volts ‘danger severe shock’. when the teacher got to 300 volts the learner pounded on the wall and didnt respond to the next question. at 315 volts they hit the wall again and gave no further response.
if the teacher turned to the experimenter for guidance the experimenter said “the absence of a response should be treated as a wrong answer” (standardised instruction). if they were unsure on continuing the experimenter gave 4 prods - 1. please continue, 2. experiment requires you continue, 3. absolutely essential you continue and 4. you have no choice must go on.
what were the findings of milgrams research into obedience?
milgram found no participants stopped below 300 volts, 12.5% stopped at 300 volts. 65% continued to 450 volts.
qualitative date was collected and they observed signs of tension like sweat.
3/40 participants had seizures.
all the participants were debriefed and sent a follow up questionnaire where 84% said they were glad they took part.
what are the 2 strengths of milgrams research into obedience?
one strength is that theres good external validity. a big feature was the relationship between the authority figure (experimenter) and the participant. milgram said the lab environment reflected authority relationships in real life. hofling et al 1966 found nurses levels obedience to unjustified demands by doctors were high (21/22 obeyed). suggest obedience in milgrams study can be generalised to other situations.
another strength is supporting replications. ‘le jeu de la mort’ was a documentary on french reality TV (2010). it had a replication of milgrams study. they were paid to give shocks to a participant (actually an actor). 80% delivered the max shock of 450 volts to an apparently unconscious man. the behaviour was similar to milgrams participants e.g. nail biting. this shows milgrams findings werent just a one off chance.
what is the weakness of milgrams obedience study?
the weakness is that theres low internal validity. orne and holland 1968 said participants was due to believing in set up. this means milgram may not have been testing what he wanted. gina perry 2013 confirms this as she listened to tapes of the study and found many participants expressed doubt about the shocks.
describe milgrams situational variables
- proxmimity - teacher and learner in same room obedeicne dropped from 65% to 45%. in another variation the teacher forced the learners hand onto the ‘electroshock’ plate and obedience drop to 30%. in a third variation experimenter gave instructions over phone obedience reduced to 20.5%.
- location - study was done in a run down building instead of the university (Yale) where the original study was done. the experimenter had less authority so obedience fell to 47.5%.
- uniform - in the original study the experimenter wore a lab coat but in a variation the experimenter got called away and the role was taken over by ‘an ordinary member of public’ in everyday clothes. obedience dropped to 20%.
what are the 2 strengths of milgrams situational variables?
one strength is research support. other studies have shown the influence of situational variables of obedience. a field experiment in NYC by bickman 1974 had 3 confederates, one in a jacket and tie, one in a milkmans outift and one in a security guard uniform. confederates stood in the street and told passerbys to perform tasks like picking up litter. people were 2x as more likely to obey security than the jacket and tie. this supports milgrams conclusion of uniform conveying authority.
another strength is cross culturall replications. miranda et al 1981 found obedience was over 90% in Spanish students. suggests findings arent just limited to american males but are valid across cultures and gender as well.
what is the weakness of milgrams situational variables?
the weakness is the lack of internal validity. orne and holland criticised the original study as they thought participants figured out it was fake. this is more likely in variations due to the extra manipulation, like in the uniform variation where even milgram said the situation was very contrived so people could work out the truth. it means its unclear if the results are due to obedience or as they saw through the deception and acted accordingly.
explain resistance to social influence - social support
social support can help people resist conformity.
pressure to conform can be reduced if others arent conforming. we saw this in asch study where the person not conforming doesnt have to be right but the fact they arent conforming means the person is free to follow their own conscience. this person acts as a ‘model’. if the non conformer conforms then so does the naive participant.
social support can help people resist obedience.
pressure to obey dropped from 65% to 10% when the genuine participant was joined by a disobedient confederate. others disobedience is a ‘model’ and it allows them to act from their own conscience.
explain resistance to social influence - locus of control
rotter 1966 proposed locus of control. theres an internal vs external control.
externals tend to believe things happen without their own control.
internals tend to believe what happens to them is largely controlled by themselves.
theres a continuum with high internal LOC at one end and high external LOC at the other. low internal and external LOC lies inbetween.
if you have an internal LOC they are more likely to resist pressure to conform or obey as they are more self-confident and intelligent, have less need for social approval and take responsibility for actions which means they are more likely to base their decisions on their own views and so resist pressure.
what are the 2 strengths of resistance to social influence - social support
strength is research support in resistance to conformity. is supports the role of dissenting peers. allen and levine 1971 found a decrease in conformity if 1dissenter in asch type study, even if disssnter had thick glasses and said they had difficulty with vision. supports view that resistance is not just motivated by following what others say but it also enables freeness from group pressure.
another strength is that theres research support for resistance to obedience and role of dissenting peers. gamson et al 1982 found higher resistance levels as participants were in groups. 29/33 groups (88%) rebelled. shows peer support is linked to greater resistance.
what is the strength of resistance to social influence - locus of control
the strength is research evidence supporting the link between LOC and resistance to obedience. holland 1967 repeated milgrams baseline study to see if people were internals or externals. 37% of internals didnt continue to the highest shock level but 23% externals didnt. internals showed greater resistance to authority.
