Social Influence Flashcards
Conformity
Asch (1951) – 123 American male participants, (line X, A, B, C), 6-8 confederates, 36.8% conformed, 25% never conformed
Fiske (2014) - ‘Asch’s groups were not very groupy’ and did not resemble groups we experience in real life
Neto (1995) – women may be more conformist and more concerned about social relationships and being accepted
Bond and Smith (1996) – conformity studies conducted in collectivist cultures such as China where social group is more important than the individual
Lucas et al. (2006) – participants solved easy and hard maths problems
Conformity: Types And Explanations
Asch – interviewed participants and some claimed that they were self-conscious giving correct answer and afraid of disapproval (conformity 12.5% when answers were written down)
Lucas et al. – participants conformed more often with difficult maths questions
Asch – hard to separate ISI and NSI with dissenter
McGhee and Teevan (1967) – nAffiliators
Conformity To Social Roles
Zimbardo et al. (1973) – mock prison in basement of psychology department of Stanford University, 21 male volunteers tested to be ‘emotionally stable’, randomly assigned, uniforms and de-individuation, instructions about behaviour
Banuazizi and Movahedi (1975) – play acting vs conforming to social roles, stereotypes, Cool Hand Luke, thought that prisoners usually rioted
McDermott (2019) – prisoners behaved as if the prison was real to them, 90% 0f conversations about prison life, Prisoner ‘416’
Fromm (1973) – exaggerated the power of social roles in to influence behaviour, 1/3 guards behaved in brutal manner, 1/3 applied rules fairly, 1/3 actively sympathised, offering cigarettes and reinstating privileges
Obedience
Milgram (1963) – 40 American men volunteered, Yale University, Milgram’s lab, ‘randomly’ drew lots, Learner was confederate, Teacher was participant, Experimenter in a grey lab coat, 100 %shocked up to 300V, 12.5% stopped at 300V, 65% shocked to 450V
Beauvois et al. (2012) – game show (The Game of Death), fake electric shocks to other participants in front of audience, 80% reached maximum 460V
Orne and Holland (1968) – demand characteristics as they did not believe in the set up, play acting
Perry (2013) – tapes of Milgram’s participants show that 1/2 believed shocks were real, 2/3 of those participants were disobedient
Sheridan and King (1972) – real shocks to puppy, 54% male participants gave perceived fatal shock vs 100% female participants gave perceived fatal shock
Haslam et al. (2014) – three prods, social identity theory, “The experiment requires you to continue” vs “You have no other choice you must go on”
Baumrind (1964) – criticised Milgram for deceiving participants, possible long-lasting psychological damage
Obedience: Situational Variables
Bickman (1974) – jacket and tie, milkman outfit, security guard uniform, asked passers-by to do tasks, twice as likely to over assistant dressed as security guard than dressed in a jacket and tie
Meeus and Raaijmakers (1986) – replication with a more realistic procedure with Dutch participants, participants ordered to say stressful things in interview (confederate) for someone desperate for a job, 90% obeyed, proximity variable tested and obedience decreased when person giving order was not present
Smith and Bond (1998) – two replications (1968 and 1985) in ‘non-Western’ countries (India and Jordan), other replications (Spain, Australia, Scotland) not very culturally different than USA
Orne and Holland (1968) – may be aware that variations are fake, extra manipulation of variables, apparent when ordinary member of the public became experimenter, Milgram acknowledged that situation may be contrived
Mandel (1998) – risk that research offers excuse or alibi for evil behaviour situational explanation
Obedience: Situational Explanations
Milgram (1963) – “Who is responsible if Mr Wallace (the learner) is harmed?”, “I’m responsible”
Rank and Jacobson (1977) – 16/18 hospital nurses disobeyed orders from a doctor to administer a lethal dose of a drug to a patient
Mandel (1998) – WW2 German Reserve Police Battalion 101 shot many civilians in a small town in Poland despite not having direct order to do so
Kilham and Mann (1974) – Milgram-style study, 16% Australian, female participants went to 450V
Mantell (1971) – 85% German participants went to 450V
Kelman and Hamilton (1989) – real world crime of obedience can be understood by rigid hierarchy of power in the US army
Obedience: Dispositional Explanations
Adorno et al. (1950) – 2000 middle-class people, unconscious attitudes towards other racial groups, several measurement scales (‘potential-for-fascism scale)
Elms and Milgram (1966) – interviewed small sample of original obedience participants, 20 participants scored higher on F-scale than a comparison group of 20 disobedient participants
Christie and Jahoda (1954) – F-scale politically-biased interpretation of Authoritarian Personality, extreme right-wing and left-wing ideologies have much in common, emphasise importance of obedience to political authority
Greenstein (1969) – response bias mistaken for Authoritarian Personality, F-scale a ‘comedy of methodological errors’, high score by selecting agree answers
Resistance To Social Influence
Albrecht et al. (2006) – evaluate Teen Fresh Start USA, 8-week programme to help pregnant girls aged 14-19 resist peer pressure to smoke, social support with a buddy, less likely to smoke than a control group with no buddy
Gamson et al. (1982) – participants told to provide smear campaign on a reputable oil company, higher levels of resistance, 29/33 groups (88%) rebelled
Allen and Levine (1971) – dissenter with good eyesight resulted in 64% participant resistance, no dissenter/social support resulted in 3% resistance
Allen and Levine (1971) - dissenter with bad eyesight resulted in 36% resistance
Holland (1967) – 37% internals did not continue to highest shock level, 23% externals did not continue
Twenge et al. (2004) – American LOC studies (1960-2002), people became more resistant but also became more external
Rotter (1982) – not necessarily most important factor in determining resistance to social influence, LOC only significantly affects behaviour in new situations
Minority Influence
Moscovici et al. (1969) – 36 blue-coloured slides that varied in intensity, 2 confederates consistently gave wrong answer, gave same wrong answer in 8.42% of the trials, 2nd group (24 green answers and 12 blue answers, fell to 1.25%, 3rd group (no confederates) fell to 0.25%
Wood et al. (1994) – meta-analysis on almost 100 similar studies, minorities seen as consistent were most influential
Martin et al. (2003) – presented a message supporting a particular viewpoint, one group had the viewpoint reinforced by a minority group, another group had the viewpoint reinforced by a majority group, both groups exposed to conflicting viewpoints and attitudes, group that listened to minority group less willing to change their opinions than group that listened to majority group
Social Influence And Social Change
Nolan et al. (2008) – change people’s energy-use habits, hung messages on doors of house in San Diego every week for a month, key message that most residents were trying to reduce their energy consumption vs control group, significant decreases in energy usage in first group
Foxcroft et al. (2015) – reviewed social norms interventions as part of Cochrane Collaboration, included 70 studies to reduce student alcohol consumption, only small reduction in drinking quantity and no effect on drinking frequency
Nemeth (2009) – social change due to type of thinking minorities inspire, broad divergent thinking, leads to better decisions and more creative solutions
Mackie (1987) – majority influence may create deeper processing, subconscious belief that people share our views and think in the same ways as us
Bashir et al. (2013) – participants less likely to behave in environmentally-friendly ways, did not want to be associated with stereotypical and minority ‘environmentalists’
