Social Influence Flashcards
describe ash’s research into conformity baseline study
- 123 american men
- on the left was a standard line and on the left were three comparison lines
- the participants then had to say which comparison line was the same length as the standard
- the participant was next to last with 7 participants and 6 of them confederates
- the confederates all gave the same incorrect answer
- he found that participants conformed to the incorrect answers 36.8% of the time
- 25% of the participants never conformed and gave the wrong answer
describe the variables investigated by asch
- group size
- group size was then tested from 2 to 16
- found a curvilinear relationship
- conformity increase with size until 3 confederates at 31.8% where it then levelled off, and the presence of more made little difference - unanimity
- one confederate disagreed from the other confederates (either correct or the other incorrect answer)
- conformity decreased to less than a quarter than it was while unanimous
- the presence of the dissenter allowed the participants to behave more independently - task difficulty
- made the standard and comparison lines more similar
- conformity increased due to ISI as it was more unclear what the right answer was
Evaluation of Asch’s research
Strengths
research support
- Lucas asked participants to solve easy and hard math problems. They were given answers from three other students
- the participants conformed more often when the problems were harder, showing that task difficulty is a factor
- however, Lucas found that conformity is more complex than Asch suggested, as participants with high confidence in math abilities conformed less on hard tasks than those with low confidence
- therefore individual factors influence conformity by interacting with situational variables, but Asch didn’t research this
Limitations
artificial situation and task
- participants may have given demand characteristics as they knew they were in a study and could have guessed the aims
- there was no reason not to conform
- the groups did not resemble groups we experience in everyday life
- therefore lacks generalizability
limited application
- participants were american men
- women may be more conformist as they care more about social relationships
- the US is an individualist culture, where they care more about individuality than social groups, unlike collectivist cultures. collectivist cultures have been found to be higher
- therefore might not tell us much about women and other cultures in conformity
who suggested the three types of conformity?
Kelman
describe the types of conformity
Compliance
- “going along with others” in public but not privately changing personal opinions or behavior
- short term, so stops when not with the group
- liking a movie that everyone is talking about
Identification
- there is something about the group that we value, so we publicly agree with the group but don’t privately agree with everything the group stands for
- longer term, as we agree until we are not a part of the group anymore, ie, break up with a boyfriends
- being vegan for a boyfriend
Internalization
- we genuinely agree privately and publicly with our behavior
- permanent as attitudes have been internalized
- converting religion
describe the explanations for conformity
Informational social influence (ISI)
- we conform because we want to be right
- is a cognitive process leading to a permanent change in behavior (internalization)
Normative social influence
- we conform because we want to be liked
- an emotional process and leads to a temporary change in behavior (compliance)
- is more pronounced in stressful situations where people have greater need for social support
Evaluation of the explanations for conformity
Strengths
Research support for NSI
- when Asch interviewed his participants some said they conformed because they felt self conscious giving the correct answer and they were afraid of disapproval
- when participants wrote down the answer, conformity dropped to 12.5%, as there was no normative group pressure
- therefore some conformity is due to desire not to be rejected
Research Support for ISI
- Lucas found that participants conformed more often to difficult math problems, as when easy, they knew their own minds, but when hard the answer became unclear so conformity increased as they relied on the answers given
- however, asch found that having a dissenter present decreased levels of conformity. this could be due to NSI, as they provide social support, or ISI, as they provide an alternate source of information
- therefore it’s hard to differentiate between NSI and ISI in research and the real world
Limitations
individual differences in NSI
- nAffiliators are greatly concerned with being liked by others
- McGhee and Teevan found that students who were nAffiliators were more likely to conform
- therefore NSI underlies for some people more than it does others
Describe Zimbardo’s research into conformity to social roles
- set up a prison in the basement of stanford university
- 21 male student volunteers tested as emotionally stable were randomly assigned to play the role of either prison guard or prisoner
- they were encouraged to conform to their social roles
- uniform - prisoners had to wear loose smocks, wear a cap, and were given a number. Guards had a wooden club, handcuffs, and mirror shades
- this created deindividuation
- prisoners and guards were encouraged to conform by their instructions given
findings - guards treated the prisoners harshly
- within two days the prisoners rebelled
- frequent head counts at night by the guards to remind the prisoners that they were powerless
- prisoners then became subdued, depressed, and anxious with one released due to showing signs of psychological disturbance
- one went on hunger strike and was punished by being sent into a tiny dark closet
- the study ended after 6 days instead of the intended 14
Conclusion - social roles have a strong influence on individuals behavior, as the guards became brutal, and the prisoners submissive
- even volunteers who were small roles in the study found themselves behaving as if they were in a real prison, rather than a psychological study
Evaluation of Zimbardo’s research
Limitations
Exaggerates the power of roles
- only 1/3 of the guards actually behaved brutally
- 1/3 tried to apply the rules fairly
- the rest actively tried to help and support the prisoners by offering cigarettes and reinstated privaledges
- therefore overstated the conforming to social roles and minimized the influence of dispositional factors
lack of realism
- Banuazizi and Movahedi argued participants were play acting rather than genuinely conforming
- performances were based on stereotypes of how their role is to behave, with even one participant claiming he had based his role on a brutal character from the film ‘cool hand luke’
- this explained why the prisoners rioted
- suggesting little about conformity in actual prisons
- however, McDermott argues that participants did behave as if the prison life was real, as 90% of the prisoners’ conversations were about prison life, they discussed how it was impossible to leave before their ‘sentence’ was over, and prisoner 416 explained how he believed the prison was real but run by psychologists
- this suggests the SPE did replicate the social roles of prisoners and guards in a real prison, giving the study a high degree of internal validity.
Strengths
control
- emotionally stable participants were chosen and randomly assigned a role
- this way individual personality differences were ruled out as an explanation of the findings
- therefore the role must have caused the change in behavior, increasing the internal validity so we can be mire confident in drawing conclusions about the influence of roles on conformity
Describe Milgram’s research into obedience baseline study
- 40 american men (aged 20-50) volunteered (and were paid $4.50) to take place in a study on ‘memory’
- the participant and confederate drew roles out of a hat, however the participant was always the teacher and the confederate the learner
- an experimenter also stood in the corner in a lab coat
- the participant was given a shock to see what the learner would be feeling
- the participant was ordered to give an increasingly strong shock to a learner located in a different room (in 15 volt increments up to 450 volts)
- the shocks were fake, but the teacher didn’t know this
findings - at 315 volts the learner stopped responding
- all participants delivered shocks up to 300 volts
- 12.5% stopped at 300 volts
- 65% continued to 450 volts
- participants showed signs of tension, including, sweating, trembling, stuttering, biting of the lip, groaning, digging their fingers into their hands, three had seizures
other data - milgram said 14 psychology students estimated that no more than 3% would go to 450 volts, showing that the obedience was underestimated
- all were debriefed and assured their behavior was entirely normal and 84% said they were glad to have participated
conclusions - german people are not different, as the americans were willing to obey orders even when they might harm another person
what were the four prods the experimenter used to order the teacher to continue in Milgrams baseline study?
- please continue or please go on
- the experiment requires that you continue
- it is absolutely essential that you continue
- you have no other choice, you must go on
Evaluation of Milgrams baseline research
Limitations
alternative interpretation to findings
- Haslam showed that Milgrams participants obeyed when the Experimenter delivered the first 3 verbal prods, however at the fourth, everyone disobeyed
- social identity theory suggests that participants only obeyed when they identified with the aims of the study
- social identity theory may provide a more valid interpretation of milgrams findings, as ‘identifying with the science’ is a reason for obedience
low internal validity
- milgram reported that 75% of participants believed the shocks were genuine, however Orne and Holland argued that participants behaved as they did as they believed the set up was fake and they were play acting
- perry listened to the recordings and reported that only half of them believed the shocks were real and 2/3 of these half were disobedient
- therefore, the participants may have been responding to demand characteristics
- however, sheridan and king gave real shocks to puppy in response to orders
- despite the real distress of the animal, 54% of men and 100% of women gave what they believed to be a fatal shock, suggesting the effects of milgrams study were real, as participants behaved obediently when the shocks were real
Strengths
- french documentary focused on a game show where participants believed they were in a pilot episode
- they gave fake shocks to the other participants (actors) in front of a live audience
- 80% delivered the max shock of 460 volts to an unconscious man
- the behavior was also the same as milgrams participants
- this supports the original findings
Discuss milgrams research into situational variables
Location
- moved from Yale to a run down office block, obedience dropped to 47.5%
- the university environment gave a feeling of legitimacy and authority whereas this feeling was lost in the run down building
Proximity
- teacher and learner in the same room, 40%
- teacher forces leaners hand onto plate to deliver shock, 30%
- experimenter gave orders by phone, 20.5%
- decreased proximity allow people to psychologically distance themselves from the consequences of their actions
Uniform
- instead of a lab coat, everyday clothes were worn, dropped to 20%
- uniforms encourage obedience, as it is a sign of authority and is legitimate
Evaluation of milgrams situational variables
Strengths
Research support
- Bickman carried out a field experiment with a confederate wearing either a jacket and tie, milkmans outfit, or security guard, and asked people passing by to pick up litter or hand over a coin for a parking meter
- people were twice as likely to obey the security guard than the one dressed in suit and tie
- therefore uniform does have a significant influence
Cross-cultural replications
- Meeus and Raaijmakers used a more realistic procedure where participants were ordered to stressful things to someone in an interview desperate for a job and found that 90% of participants obeyed
- they also repeated with proximity variation and found that obedience decreased dramatically when the person giving orders was not present
- therefore not limited to only american men but other cultures and women too
- however, research is not very cross cultural, as Smith and Bond identified only two replication in India and Jordan, whereas the others were in more individualist cultures.
- therefore it might not be appropriate to conclude that the findings apply to all people in all or most cultures
Limitation
low internal validity
- Orne and Holland suggest that participants were responding to demand characteristics, as there was no way the participants believed that a member of the public was carrying out an experiment on memory in Yale
- therefore, it is unclear whether the findings are genuinely due to the operation of obedience or because the participants weren’t deceived and play acted
what are the situational explanations of obedience?
Agentic state
autonomous state
- this is when a person is free to behave in their own principles and feel responsible for their actions
- from autonomy to agency is called the agentic shift and occurs when a person perceives someone else as an authority figure
- in the agentic state, one is behaving according to other peoples principles and feels they are not responsible for their own actions
binding factors
- these are aspects of a situation that allow a person to minimize the damaging effect of their behavior and reduce the moral strain
- the individual might use phrases like “he was foolish to volunteer” when trying to justify their behavior
Legitimacy of authority
- we become obedient when with a person who has legitimate authority over us, teacher, parent, police, etc, as they can punish us, so we give up some of our freedom to those who we trust to exercise their authority appropriately
destructive authority
- people can use their authority for destructive purposes which is a problem as it causes people to behave in ways which are cruel and dangerous
