SOCIAL INFLUENCE Flashcards
define COMPLIANCE
it leads to…
simply ‘going along with others’ in public, but not privately changing personal opinions and behaviour.
It results only in a superficial change and a particular behaviour or opinion stops as soon as the group pressure stops.
define IDENTIFICATION
conform because…
We conform to the behaviour of the group because we value it and want to be a part of it, leading to identification with the group where we may publicly change our opinions to be accepted by the group, even if we don’t privately agree with what the group stands for.
define INTERNALISATION
result in…
Occurs when a person genuinely accepts the group norms.
This results in private and public change of opinion/behaviour.
This change is usually permanent because attitudes become part of the way a person thinks, so the change persists even in the absence of the group.
Deutsch and Gerard developed a two-process theory of why people conform.
They are based on two human needs:
exlanations of conformity
the need to be liked (NSI) and
the need to be right (ISI).
NORMATIVE SOCIAL INFLENCE NSI
why it happens, when, type of process, leads to…
Suggests we agree with the majority due to the need to be accepted, gain approval and to be liked.
People do not like to appear foolish and prefer to gain social approval rather than rejection, therefore they often follow social norms. So NSI is an emotional process, not cognitive.
NSI mostly occurs in situations with strangers where people may feel concerned about rejection, or with friends as we are most concerned about the opinions of people we know. It often leads to compliance.
INFORMATIONAL SOCIAL INFLUENCE ISI
Suggests we agree with the majority as we believe they are correct or more knowledgeable than us.
It is more likely to happen in situations that are new to a person or where there is some ambiguity (not clear what’s right), so people assume the group is more likely to be right.
It is a cognitive process that leads to internalisation.
AO3 - research support for NSI
research evidence supporting NSI as an explanation of conformity - Asch
When Asch interviewed his participants, some said they conformed because they felt self-conscious giving the correct answer as they were afraid of disapproval.
When participants wrote their answer down, conformity rate dropped to 12.5% - this is because giving answers privately meant there was no normative group pressure.
This shows that at least some conformity is due to a desire not to be rejected by the group for disagreeing with them.
AO3 - research support for ISI
research evidence supporting ISI as an explanation of conformity - Lucas
Lucas et al. found that participants conformed more often to incorrect answers when they were given when the maths problems were more difficult. This is because when the problems were easy the participants knew their own minds, but when the problems became harder the situation became unclear. The participants did not want to be wrong, so they relied on the answers they were given.
This shows that ISI is a valid explanation of conformity because it showed that people conform in situations where they do not know the answer, exactly what ISI states.
AO3 - limitation of NSI
individual differences - nAffiliators (McGhee)
NSI does not predict conformity in every case.
Some people are greatly concerned with being liked by others - they are called nAffiliators, meaning they have a strong need for affiliation (wanting to relate to people). McGhee found that students who were nAffiliators were more likely to conform.
This shows that NSI underlies conformity for some people more than it does for others. There are individual differences in conformity that cannot be fully explained by the two-process theory.
AO3 - limitation of Deutsch & Gerard’s two process theory
theory is flawed - both processes work together
The idea of Deutsch and Gerard’s two-process theory is that NSI and ISI work separately. However, more often, both processes work together.
For example, in Asch’s study the possibility of rejection was a strong reason for conformity, demonstrating NSI, but it was also true that the unanimous group conveyed the impression that everyone ‘knew’ the answer, demonstrating ISI.
This means that the theory is flawed as conformity is likely to be a result of a combination of both ISI and NSI.
THIS IS NOT IN THE SPEC, BUT IT IS USEFUL
ASCH’S BASELINE PROCEDURE
123 American men were tested, each in groups of 6-8, where all others were confederates.
Each saw 2 large cards, one with the standard line and one with 3 comparison lines, one always clearly the same length as the standard line.
The other two were clearly wrong.
On each trial the participant had to say out loud which comparison line was the same as the standard line.
The participant was always seated last or second to last in the group.
The confederated gave all the same incorrect answers in all trials.
The genuine participants did not know others were confederates.
ASCH’S BASELINE FINDINGS
average % of conformity, % of participants thatnever conformed
On average the genuine participants agreed with the confederates’ incorrect answers 36.8% of the time.
25% of the participants never conformed, meaning 75% conformed at least once.
ASCH’S VARIATIONS
1 . GROUP SIZE
how, findings, suggests that…
Asch varied the number of confederates from 1 to 15. He found a curvilinear relationship between group size and conformity. Conformity increased with group size, but only up to 7. With 3 confederates, conformity rose to 31.8%.
This suggests that most people are very sensitive to the view of others, because just 2 confederates were enough to significantly sway opinion.
ASCH’S VARIATIONS
2 . UNANIMITY
how, findings, suggests that…
Asch introduced a confederate who disagreed with the other confederates and gave the correct answer in one variation, and the other wrong answer in another. The participant conformed less often in the presence of a dissenter. Conformity levels dropped to as low as 5%, as the presence of a dissenter allowed the participant to behave more independently. This was even true when the dissenter gave the other incorrect answer.
This suggests the influence of the majority depends on it being unanimous.
ASCH’S VARIATIONS
3 . TASK DIFFICULTY
how, findings, suggests that…
Asch increased the difficulty by making the standard and comparison lines more like each other.
This meant it became harder for the participants to see the differences between the lines.
Asch found that conformity increased, due to the situation becoming more ambiguous.
People look to others for guidance and assume they are right and themselves are wrong (ISI).
AO3 - strength of Asch’s variables
research support for task difficulty - Lucas
There is support from other studies for the effects of task difficulty.
Lucas et al. asked their participants to solve ‘easy’ and ‘hard’ maths problems. Participants were also given answers that were falsely claimed to be from three other students. The participants conformed more often and agreed with the wrong answers when the problems were harder.
This shows that Asch was correct in claiming that task difficulty is a factor that affects conformity.
AO3 - limitation of Asch’s situational variables
The task and situation were artificial (Fiske)
Participants knew they were in a research study and may have simply gone along with what was expected (demand characteristics). The task of identifying lines was relatively trivial and therefore there was no real reason not to conform. Furthermore, according to Fiske, Asch’s groups did not really resemble the groups that we experience in everyday life.
This means the findings do not generalise to real world situations, especially those where consequences of conformity may be important.
AO3 - limitation of Asch’s situational variables
limited application - all american males (gender & culture bias)
Asch’s participants were American men.
Other research suggests that women may be more conformist, possibly because they are more concerned about social relationships and being accepted. Furthermore, the US is an individualist culture where people are more concerned about themselves rather than their social group. Similar conformity studies conducted in collectivist studies like China have found conformity rates in collectivist cultures is higher.
This means that Asch’s findings tell us little about conformity in women and people from other cultures.
ZIMBARDO wanted to know why prison guards behave brutally - was it because they have
dispositional vs situational explanation
sadistic personalities or was it their social role (as a prison guard) that created such behaviour.
THE STANFORD PRISON EXPERIMENT (SPE) - PROCEDURE
Zimbardo et al set up a mock prison in the basement of the psychology department at Stanford University.
They selected 24 men (student volunteers) who tested as emotionally stable.
The students were randomly assigned to play the role of prison guard or prisoner and were encouraged to conform to social roles both through the uniforms they wore and also instructions about their behaviour.
ZIMBARDO - PROCEDURE
how did uniforms affect conformity to social roles?
prisoner uniform, guard uniform, deindividuation
The prisoners were given a loose smock to wear and a cap to cover their hair, and they were identified by number (their names were never used). The guards had their own uniform reflecting the status of their role, with wooden club, handcuffs, and mirror shades.
These uniforms created a loss of personal identity (called de-individuation) and meant they would be more likely to conform to the perceived social role.
ZIMBARDO - PROCEDURE
how were the participants encouraged to conform to their social roles?
instructons about behaviour
The prisoners were further encouraged to identify with their role by several procedures. For example, rather than leaving the study early. prisoners could ‘apply for parole’.
The guards were encouraged to play their role by being reminded that they had complete power over the prisoners.
What were the findings of the SPE?
who identified with their role more closely?
The guards took up their roles with enthusiasm, treating the prisoners harshly. Within two days, the prisoners rebelled ripped their uniforms and shouted and swore at the guards, who retaliated with fire extinguishers.
The guards harassed the prisoners constantly, to remind them of the powerlessness of their role they conducted frequent headcounts, sometimes at night, when the prisoners would stand in line and call out their numbers.
The guards highlighted the differences in social roles by creating opportunities to enforce the rules and administer punishments.
After their rebellion was put down, the prisoners became subdued, depressed, and anxious.
One was released because he showed symptoms of psychological disturbance.
Two more were released on the fourth day.
One prisoner went on a hunger strike. The guards tried to force-feed him and then punished him by putting him in the hole, a tiny dark closet.
The guards identified more and more closely with their role their behaviour became increasingly brutal and aggressive, with some of them appearing to enjoy the power they had over the prisoners.
Zimbardo ended the study after
6 days instead of the intended 14.
What did Zimbardo conclude?
supports which explanation?
Social roles appear to have a strong influence on individuals’ behaviour.
The guards became brutal, and the prisoners became submissive.
Such roles were very easily taken on by all participants.
Supports the situational explanation -> social roles affect behaviour.
AO3 - strength of Zimbardo’s SPE
control over key variables
Zimbardo and his colleagues had control over key variables.
The most obvious example of this was the selection of participants. Emotionally stable individuals were chosen and randomly assigned to the roles of prisoner or guard. This rules out individual differences as an explanation of the findings as if the guards and prisoners behaved differently and were in the roles were only by chance, then their behaviour must have been due to the role itself.
This degree of control over variables increased the internal validity of the study, so we can be much more confident in drawing conclusions about the influence of roles on conformity.
AO3 - limitaton of Zimbardo’s SPE
lack of realism / play acting - Mohavedi (Cool Hand Luke)
One limitation of the SPE is that it did not have the realism of a true prison.
Movahedi argued the participants were merely play-acting rather than genuinely conforming to a role. Participants’ performances were based on their stereotypes of how prisoners and guards are supposed to behave. For example, one of the guards claimed he had based his role on a brutal character from the film Cool Hand Luke. This would also explain why the prisoners rioted - they thought that was what real prisoners did.
This suggests that the findings of the SPE tell us little about conformity to social roles in actual prisons.
AO3 - limitaton of Zimbardo’s SPE
exaggeration - Fromm (undermines the effect of dispositional factors)
Fromm accused Zimbardo of exaggerating the power of the situation and minimising the role of personality factors.
For example, only a minority of the guards (about a third) behaved in a brutal manner. Another third was keen on applying the rules fairly. The rest actively tried to help and support the prisoners, sympathising with them, offering them cigarettes and reinstating privileges. The differences in the guards’ behaviour indicate that they were able to exercise their own belief of right or wrong, despite the social pressure of conforming to a role.
This suggests that Zimbardo overstated his view that SPE participants were conforming to social roles and minimised the influence of dispositional influences.
describe Milgram’s baseline procedure
40 American men volunteered to take part in a study, supposedly on memory. They were paid $4.50 upon arrival.
When each volunteer arrived at Milgram’s lab he was introduced to another participant (a confederate of Milgram’s).
They drew lots to see who would be the ‘Teacher’ (T) and who would be the Learner’ (L).
The draw was fixed so that the participant was always the Teacher.
An ‘Experimenter’ (E) was also involved (also a confederate, dressed in a grey lab coat).
Milgram’s study aimed
describe layout (shocks, what mr Wallace did after 300 volts)
The study aimed to assess obedience in a situation where an authority figure (Experimenter) ordered the participant (Teacher) to give an increasingly strong shock to a Learner located in a different room when he made errors. (in 15-volt steps up to 450 volts). The shocks were fake, but the Teacher did not know this.
· The switches were labelled from slight, intense and to danger - severe shock.
· When the teachers got to 300V, the learner pounded on the wall and gave no response to the next question.
· At 315V, he pounded on the wall one last time and gave no response until the end
MILGRAM - BASELINE PROCEDURE
The 4 standard prods the experimenter used to order the teacher to continue were:
- Please continue,
- The experiment requires that you continue,
- It is absolutely essential that you continue,
- You have no other choice, you must go on.
MILGRAM - baseline findings
how many went up to 300?, psychological effects, % up to the full 450?
Every participant delivered all the shocks up to 300 volts.
· 12.5% (five participants) stopped at 300 volts (labelled intesne shock).
· Milgram also collected qualitative data including observations such as: the participants showed signs of extreme tension; many of them were seen to ‘sweat, tremble, stutter, bite their lips, groan and dig their fingernails into their hands’; three even had full blown seizures.
65& continued to the highest level of 450 volts, they were fully obedient.
MILGRAM - conclusion
German people are not different.
The American participants in his study were willing to obey orders even when they might harm another person.
AO3 - strength of MILGRAM’S BASELINE STUDY
replication - jeu de la mort
One strength is that Milgram’s findings were replicated in a French documentary that was made about reality TV.
This documentary focused on a game show made especially for the programme. The participants in the ‘game’ believed there were contestants in a pilot episode for a new show called Le Jeu de la Mort (The Game of Death). They were paid to give (fake) electric shocks (ordered by the presenter) to other participants (who were actually actors) in front of a studio audience. 80% of the participants delivered the maximum shock of 460 volts to an apparently unconscious man. Their behaviour was almost identical to that of Milgram’s participants - nervous laughter, nail-biting and other signs of anxiety.
This supports Milgram’s original findings about obedience to authority and demonstrates that the findings were not just due to special circumstances.
AO3 - limitaton of MILGRAM’S BASELINE STUDY
low internal validty - orne & holland, perry (tapes)
One limitation is that Milgram’s procedure may not have been testing what he intended to test.
Milgram reported that 75% of his participants said they believed the shocks were genuine. However, Orne and Holland argued that participants behaved as they did because they didn’t really believe in the set up, so they were ‘play-acting’. Perry’s research confirms this. She listened to tapes of Milgram’s participants and reported that only about half of them believed the shocks were real. Two-thirds of these participants were disobedient.
This suggests that participants may have been responding to demand characteristics, trying to fulfil the aims of the study.
AO3 - strength of MILGRAM’S BASELINE STUDY
COUNTERPOINT - research support (Sheridan & King, puppies)
There is evidence confirming Milgram’s findings are valid.
Sheridan and King conducted a study using a procedure like Milgram’s. Participants (all students) gave real shocks to a puppy in response to orders from an experimenter.
Despite the real distress of the animal, 54% of the men and 100% of the women gave what they thought was a fatal shock.
This suggests that the effects in Milgram’s study were genuine because people behaved obediently even when the shocks were real.
AO3 - limitaton of MILGRAM’S BASELINE STUDY
alternative explanations - social identity theory (Haslam, prods)
Another limitation is that Milgram’s conclusions about blind obedience may not be justified.
Haslam et al. showed that Milgram’s participants obeyed when the Experimenter delivered the first three verbal prods. However, every participant who was given the fourth prod (‘You have no other choice, you must go on) without exception disobeyed. According to social identity theory (SIT), participants in Milgram’s study only obeyed when they identified with the scientific aims of the research (‘The experiment requires that you continue).
When they were ordered to blindly obey an authority figure, they refused.
This shows that SIT may provide a more valid interpretation of Milgram’s findings, especially as Milgram himself suggested that identifying with the science’ is a reason for obedience.
SITUATIONAL VARIATIONS AFFECTING OBEDIENCE - MILGRAM
1 .1. TOUCH PROXIMITY VARIATION
the Teacher had to force the Learner’s hand onto an electroshock plate if he refused to place it there himself after giving a wrong answer. Obedience dropped further to
30%.
SITUATIONAL VARIATIONS AFFECTING OBEDIENCE - MILGRAM
1 . PROXIMITY
In Milgram’s baseline study, the Teacher could hear the Learner but not see him.
In the proximity variation, Teacher and Learner were in the same room. The obedience rate dropped from the original 65% to
40%
SITUATIONAL VARIATIONS AFFECTING OBEDIENCE - MILGRAM
1 . 2 REMOTE INSTRUCTION VARIATION
the Experimenter left the room and gave instructions to the Teacher by telephone.
Obedience reduced to
20.5%
The participants also frequently pretended to give shocks.
SITUATIONAL VARIATIONS AFFECTING OBEDIENCE - MILGRAM
2 . LOCATION
Milgram conducted a variation in a run-down office block rather than in the prestigious Yale University setting of the baseline study. In this location, obedience fell to
47.5%.
SITUATIONAL VARIATIONS AFFECTING OBEDIENCE - MILGRAM
PROXIMITY EXPLANAION
Decreased proximity allows people to
psychologically distance themselves from the consequences of their actions - when the Teacher and Learner were physically separated (as in the baseline study), the Teacher was less aware of the harm they were causing to another person, so they were more obedient.
