Social influence Flashcards
Conformity: outline Asch’s line study
Conformity= typa social influence that leads to a change in beliefs by a minority to fit in w a majority due to real/imagined social pressure
eg ygs conforming to peer pressure
Asch 1956
- 123 paid USA male volunteers told they taking part in vision test. they were asked to compare lines A,B,C to stimulus line
- 17 p(s) placed in group of confederates- p(s) gave their ans last
- confederates gave right ans in most trials but gave same wrong ans in 12/18 critical trials. control grp also used where they judged length in iso
FOUND:
- on average, 32% gave wrong to conform w confederates
- 74% conformed wrong at least once n 5% every time
- control grp almost 100% gave right ans showing task ez n unambiguous
Conclude conformity to groups w social pressure to fit in is stronger than we realise in obvs situs
Evaluate Asch study
- lacks populational validity. Androcentric USA male used. Beta Bias- male derived n assumes women to be same when this isn’t the case as women being tested may prod diff results bcz diff socialisation
- low ecological validity task insig n has no consequences so conformity maybe lower so can’t be generalised
- deception told vision test n possible psych harm when learning true aim of study n how they behaved
- can be argued deception needed for valid results
-
Perrin n Spencer 1980 claim Asch study child of its time. 1950s had lot more conformity n so they did a same experiment w engineer n math students.
only on 1/396 trials did observer join erroneous majority suggesting we more independent thinking - this can’t be generalised as math n engineer students v good problem solvers so doesn’t rep general pop
Factors affecting conformity
-
unanimity
when conf didn’t conform n agreed w p conformity reduced to 5%
when dissenter gave wrong ans, conformity reduced to 9% bcz no unanimous majority to agree to- suggests presence of allies has sig role in conformity even when dissenter disagrees w p -
grp size of conf- varied from 1-15
when 2, conformity reduced to 12.8%
3, increase to 31.8%
after 3, size made lil difference
suggests optimum conformity effect is 3 confs agreeing to same wrong ans -
task difficulty
conformity increased when there was lil difference in line length suggesting we look to others for guidance- ISI
Support:
Lucas et al 2006- maths qs
p(s) given qs classified as ez/hard n given given wrong ans from students who not real
found:
p(s) confirmed to wrong ans if q was hard suggesting task difficulty affects conformity
HOWEVER:
also found p(s) w high maths confidence unlikely to conform on hard qs suggest individual differences important not j situational factors so conformity is complex
Why ppl conform: ISI
-
Informative social influence: we look to others for guidance bcz we wanna be right
likely when:
•situ ambiguous (right wrong not clear)
•crisis situ (must respond quickly) so look for help
• belief others experts and so we trust their judgment over own
SUPPORT:
• Fein et al 2007:
Presidential candidate debate n refer back to post Asch interview where p(s) doubted own judgment so therefore supports ISI
• Jenness 1932
jellybean study (2nd guess closer to grp average) so ISI apparent as look to others when unsure
this lacks eco validity as it’s not representation of how we’d behave irl situs eg court
Why ppl conform: NSI
-
Normative social influence:
conform to be liked. as social animals we fear rejection and want to be accepted or at least avoid disapproval, hence we conform even if we don’t agree w them
SUPPORT:
• Post Asch interviews some p said they knew line length but conform to avoid embarrassment. when they wrote ans instead of aloud conformity reduced to 12.5% bcz no social pressure to conform
• Schultz 2008 analysed data from 794 rooms from 132 hotels where for displayed sign:
guests reuse towel = eco friendly
or 75% guests choose reuse towel
NSI clear as those who saw 2nd sign likelier to refuse towel
• Linchenback n Perkins 2003 showed teens msg majority of age peers don’t smoke n they were likelier to not smoke themselves, supports role of NSI irl situs
Types of conformity
Kelman 1958 proposed 3 types of conformity:
-
compliance- shallowest, from NSI. public conform but priv disagree. Temporary
eg agree w friends movie was good but u didn’t enjoy - identification- deeper. public agree n priv conform but for membership not bcz acc agree w grp but may have temporarily. revert back to original beliefs when leaving grp
-
identification- deepest, true conformity. publicly n priv conform bcz acc believe beliefs n values of grp to be true
eg vegan for life bcz convinced it’s right way by friends
Outline resistance to SI: Social support
Individual/grp behaviour that resists social pressure ie not conforming
-
Social support:
In Asch’s Unanimity variation, conformity reduced to 5% when p(s) had ally, even if dissenter didn’t agree w them bcz it indicates room to differ in views n gives person confident to assert their own views
when there’s unanimity, ppl finds it’s harder to differ -
Allen n Levine 1971
did variation of Asch study-
•w/o dissenter, 3% resisted conformity
but w dissenter that had good eyesight, 64% refused to conform suggesting social support n ISI important
• when dissenter wore dark glasses n said vision bad, his differing judgment gave 36% of p(s) confidence to differ from majority emphasises importance of social support in resisting conformity which couldn’t be explained as due to ISI -
Milgram did variation:
• 2 confs deliberate didn’t give full shock causing only 10% continuing to 450v compared to 65% in previous study
so supports social support in being important to resist conformity
Evaluate Resistance to SI: social support
SUPPORT:
- these lab experiments control variables so indicates results due to social support that reduced conformity rates not EVs so indicates high internal validity
HOWEVER
low eco validity bcz tasks mundane n non-consequential
eg dissenter in nazi G may hesitate due to life threatening consequences - Irl example G women w imprisoned Jewish son/hubby stood in solidarity against G soldiers despite threat of death so led to release of men
Rosa parks- bus seat arrested causing many to resist SI n they copied her/protested against segregation so led to segregation law being removed
Resistance to SI: Locus of control-LOC
LOC= how much control persom thinks they’ve over own behaviour
Rotter 1966 identified:
-
High INTERNAL LOC:
person believes they in control of lives n likelier to take responsibility for behaviour n act independent instead of conform- make own judgments based on info available -
High EXTERNAL LOC:
person look to others for direction & n feel life controlled by external factors
eg fate
feel less responsible for behaviour so likely to conform
LOC= dispositional factor n seen as continuum- ppl not on extreme ends but bw high internal n external
research shows
internals are seekers of info, achievement orientated n better able to resist coercion
we expect them to be unlikely to undergo agentic shift, NSI n not blindly conform
Evaluate Resistance to SI: LOC
SUPPORT:
- Shute 1975- students w high internal unlikely to conform about taking drug compared to external supports effects of LOC on resistance to SI
- Holland 1967- repeated Milgram’s n found 37% of internals refused full shock compared to 23% externals, supports LOC link to conformity
AGAINST:
Twenge et al 2004 found ppl less obedient suggests they’ve High internal LOC but yg Americans likely to believe externals factors eg fate so they’re more external than expected, suggests obedience n LOC not rlly linked
Contradictory research means tho LOC shown to have link to conformity, can only said to have correlation not causation- other variables may affect behaviour so conclusions can’t b drawn
outline Minority influence
Change in beliefs where majority to fit in w minority
minority rejects majority est’d views
eg Suffragetes
opposite to conformity which maintains status quo (way things r)
-
Moscovici et al 1969
AIM= if SI occurs thru internalisation n not j compliance
• 32 independent grp of 6 women tested for eyesight. told experiment on colour perception. 2/6 were confs.
36 blue slides of varying intensity shown eg light/dark blue
3 conditions tested:
• consistent- 2confs said green everytime
• inconsistent- 2 confs said green 24x n blue 12x
• private- p gave verbal ans then written
FOUND:
•Consistent- in 8% trials p agreed slide green & 32% saw green at least once
• inconsistent- 1.25% saw green shows importance of consistency for minority influence
• private- higher agreement w minority showing ppl reluctant to agree w minority in public but liberated to agree w minority in private
Evaluate Minority influence
FOR:
- emphasised consistency
Wood 1994 reviewed 97 studies on minority influence n found consistent minorities likelier to influence majority than non-consistent
AGAINST:
- low eco validity cos artificial no moral context irl minority influence situs do- trivial n non-consequential
- all women no generalisable men may behave different
3 conditions for success in minority influence
-
CONSISTENCY
minor stick firm to beliefs for social change bcz shows acc convinced of views ourselves n not conforming causes ppl to q own ideas
supported by moscovici n wood -
FLEXIBILITY
cant be too rigid since have to convince/negotiate w majority, can’t force bcz less powerful.
lack of flexibility’ll deter ppl
supported by:
Nemeth 1987 simulated jury situ. p(s) discuss how much compensation give to person involved in ski accident.
conf rigid= no influence on majority
conf flexible/compromised= had influence
this is more effective if flexible after negotiations than earlier bcz shows didn’t give in to majority view -
COMMITMENT-
accompanied w sacrifice to persuade ppl of view(augmentation principle)
eg Ghandi hunger strike
majority likely to b persuaded if minority view arises from commitment to higher moral principle
eg equal rights/fairness
Outline the minority influence n social change
• Moscovici claimed majority influence needs compliance
• minority influence needs deep internalisation-takes time to achieve as going against status quo can appear wrong
• consistency n commitment from minority group shows serious n soon ppl come into conflict as they c minority view as real alt to consider
Nemeth 2003 suggests minority influence ‘opens up mind’ n works to bring social change in 5 stages:
1. Draw attention to issue eg Suffragettes
2. Consistency- Moscovici n wood’s research
3. deeper processing- ppl q own est’d views
4. augmentation principle- minority suffers for belief shows seriousness/commitment n indicates important cause eg nelson mandela
5. snowball effect- few convert to minority view n has snowball effect till minority becomes majority
Evaluate minority influence n social change
FOR:
- no doubt from irl examples that minority influence can pray to huge change asw as innovation n new ways of living
AGAINST:
- lacks ecological validity as studies like Asch or Moscovici have flawed methodology bcz lab studies trivial tasks n not applicable to irl situs
this weakens extent to which can b used to explain social change
