Social Influence Flashcards
What is conformity?
A change in a person’s behaviour or opinions as a result of a real or imagined pressure from a person or group of people
Internalisation
A deep type of conformity where we take on the majority view because we accept it as correct.
This leads to a far-reaching and permanent change in behaviour, even when the group is absent
Identification
A moderate type of conformity where we act in the same way with the group because we value it and want to be part of it.
However, we do not necessarily agree with everything the majority believes.
Compliance
A temporary type of conformity where we outwardly go along with the majority but privately disagree with it.
This change in our behaviour only lasts as long as we are with the group.
Informational Social Influence
An explanation of conformity that says we agree with the opinion of the majority because we believe it is correct.
We then accept it because we also want to be correct.
Normative Social Influence
An explanation of conformity that says we agree with the opinion of the majority because we want to be accepted and liked.
ISI - Research Support
Lucas et al (2006) asked students to give answers to maths problems that were easy and difficult.
He found that there was greater conformity to incorrect answers when they were difficult rather than easy.
This study shows that people conform in situations where they feel they don’t know the answer.
NSI - Research Support
There is evidence supporting the link between NSI and bullying, thus suggesting a real-life application with an increased understanding of the different types of conformity.
Garandeau and Cillissen found that a boy can be manipulated by a bully into victimising another child because the bully provides a common goal for the boy’s group of friends, the goal is to victimise the other child, so the boy would most likely also victimise the child to avoid disapproval from his friends.
ISI + NSI - Work Together
Deutsch and Gerrard argued the ‘two process’ approach where both ISI and NSI work together.
Conformity is reduced when there is a dissenter as the dissenter reduces the power of NSI and ISI.
ISI and NSI + Individual Differences
Some research shows that NSI does not affect everyone’s behaviour.
Some people are less concerned with being liked and therefore are less affected by NSI than those who care about being liked.
Asch - Procedure
Asch tested conformity by showing participants one standard line with three comparison lines.
Each participant is tested individually with six-eight confederates with the participant going last.
Through the first through trials, the confederates gave the correct answers; after this all of the confederates gave the same wrong answer.
The participants took 18 trials and within 12 of them, the confederates gave the wrong answe
Asch - Findings
Asch found that 75% of participants conformed at least once, with 5% of participants conforming every time.
However, 25% of participants never conformed.
Asch found that people are less likely to conform if they can answer in private with the idea that in public, participants conformed due to normative social influence.
Control trial - 1% - not issue of ambiguity
Asch - Group Size
Asch increased the size of the group by adding more confederates, thus increasing the size of the majority.
Conformity increased with group size, but only up to a point, levelling off when the majority was greater than three.
Asch - Unanimity
The extent to which all the members of a group agree. In Asch’s studies, the majority was unanimous when all the confederates selected the same comparison line.
This produced the greatest degree of conformity in the naïve participants.
When joined by another participant or disaffected confederate who gave the correct answer, conformity fell from 32% to 5.5%.
If different answers are given, it falls from 32% to 9%.
Asch - Task Difficulty
Asch’s line-judging task is more difficult when it becomes harder to work out the correct answer.
Conformity increases because naïve participants assume that the majority is more likely to be right.
This suggests that informational social influence is a major mechanism for conformity when the situation is ambiguous and the individual does not have enough of their own knowledge or information to make an informed decision independently, and so has to look towards others.
Asch - Internal Validity
There was strict control over extraneous variables, such as timing of assessment and the type of task used.
The participants did the experiment before without confederates to see if they actually knew the correct answer, thus removing the confounding variable of a lack of knowledge.
This suggests that valid and reliable ‘cause and effect’ relationships can be established, as well as valid conclusions.
Asch - Lab Experiment
Extraneous and confounding variables are strictly controlled, meaning that replication of the experiment is easy.
Successful replication increases the reliability of the findings because it reduces the likelihood that the observed findings were a ‘one-off’.
Asch - Ethics as a Strength
The researchers breached the BPS ethical guideline of deception and consequently, the ability to give informed consent.
However, the participants were debriefed.
Ethical issues do not threaten the validity or reliability of findings, but rather suggest that a cost-benefit analysis is required.
Asch - Supports NSI
Participants reported that they conformed to fit in with the group, so it supports the idea of normative influence, which states that people conform to fit in when privately disagreeing with the majority.
Asch - Ecological Validity
It was based on peoples’ perception of lines and so the findings cannot be generalised to real life as it does not reflect the complexity of real life conformity i.e. where there are many other confounding variables and majorities exert influence irrespective of being a large group.
Asch - Population Validity
The participants were only American male undergraduates, and so the study was subject to gender bias, where it is assumed that findings from male participants can be generalised to females (i.e. beta bias)
Asch - Ethics
There was deception as participants were tricked into thinking the study was about perception rather than compliance so they could not give informed consent.
There could have been psychological harm as the participants could have been embarrassed after realising the true aims of the study.
Such issues simply mean that a cost-benefit analysis is required to evaluate whether the ethical costs are smaller than the benefits of increased knowledge of the field. They do not affect the validity or reliability of findings!
Asch - Temporal Validity
The social context of the 1950s may have affected results.
For example, Perrin and Spencer criticised the study by stating that the period that the experiment was conducted in influenced the results because it was an anti-Communist.
Thus, the study can be said to lack temporal validity because the findings cannot be generalised across all time periods.
Zimbardo - Type of Participants
24 American male undergraduate students
Zimbardo - Aim
To investigate how readily people would conform to the social roles in a simulated environment, and specifically, to investigate why ‘good people do bad things’.
Zimbardo - Procedure
Zimbardo set up a mock prison and advertised for ‘emotionally stable young men to sign up as volunteers.
To create realism within Zimbardo’s study
the prisoners were arrested at their homes and were stripped and searched.
Zimbardo - Findings
Identification occurred very fast, as both the prisoners and guards adopted their new roles and played their part in a short amount of time, despite the apparent disparity between the two social roles.
Guards started to harass prisoners and prisoners would only talk about prison issues not their previous real life
This suggests they thought it was real and weren’t acting due to demand characteristics
The guards became more demanding of obedience and assertiveness towards the prisoners while the prisoners become more submissive
This suggests that the respective social roles became increasingly internalised.
Zimbardo - Real Life Application
This research changed the way US prisons are run e.g. young prisoners are no longer kept with adult prisoners to prevent the bad behaviour perpetuating.
Beehive-style prisons, where all cells are under constant surveillance from a central monitoring unit, are also not used in modern times, due to such setups increasing the effects of institutionalisation and over exaggerating the differences in social roles between prisoners and guards.
Zimbardo - Debriefing
Participants were fully and completely debriefed about the aims and results of the study.
This is particularly important when considering that the BPS ethical guidelines of deception and informed consent had been breached.
Dealing with ethical issues in this way simply makes the study more ethically acceptable, but does not change the quality (in terms of validity and reliability) of the findings.
Zimbardo - Formal Ethical Guidelines (strength)
The amount of ethical issues with the study led to the formal recognition or ethical guidelines so that future studies were safer and less harmful to participants due to legally bound rules.
This demonstrates the practical application of an increased understanding of the mechanisms of conformity and the variables which affect this.
Zimbardo - Ecological Validity
The study suffered from demand characteristics.
For example, the participants knew that they were participating in a study and therefore may have changed their behaviour.
The participants also knew that the study was not real so they claimed that they simply acted according to the expectations associated with their role rather genuinely adopting it.
This was seen particularly with qualitative data gathered from an interview with one guard, who said that he based his performance from the stereotypical guard role portrayed in the film Cool Hand Luke, thus further reducing the validity of the findings.
Zimbardo - Population Validity
The sample only consisted of American male students and so the findings cannot be generalised to other genders and cultures.
For example, collectivist cultures, such as China or Japan, may be more conformist to their prescribed social roles because such cultures value the needs of the group over the needs of the individual. This suggests that such findings may be culture-bound!
Zimbardo - Ethical Issues
Lack of fully informed consent due to the deception required to (theoretically) avoid demand characteristics and participant reactivity
However Zimbardo himself did not know what was going to happen, so could not inform the participants, meaning that there is possible justification for a breach of ethical guidelines.
Psychological harm
Participants were not protected from stress, anxiety, emotional distress and embarrassment e.g. one prisoner had to be released due to excess distress and uncontrollable screaming and crying.
One prisoner was released on the first day due to showing signs of psychological disturbance, with a further two being released on the next day.
This study would be deemed unacceptable according to modern ethical standards.
Milgram - Type of Participants
Randomly selected participants - 40 male volunteers
Milgram - Aim
To observe whether people would obey a figure of authority when told to harm another person i.e. evaluating the influence of a destructive authority figure.
Milgram - Procedure
Participants were told the study was the role of punishment in learning.
The participant (teacher) started at 15v increments to 450v.
If the learner made a mistake in the questions, the teacher had to shock them and could hear the ‘cries of pain’ from the confederate.
If the teacher hesitated then the researchers encouraged them to continue with verbal prods.
The experiment continued until the teacher refused to continue or until 450v had been given 4 times. Furthermore, a debrief was given.
Milgram - Findings
All participants went up to 300V and 65% went up to 450V.
No participants stopped below 300V
12.5% stopped at 300V, showing that the vast majority of participants were prepared to give lethal electric shocks to a confederate.
Milgram - Proximity
Participants obeyed more when the experimenter was in the same room i.e. 62.5%.
This was reduced to 40% when the experimenter and participant were in separate rooms, and reduced to a further 30% in the touch proximity condition i.e. where the experimenter forcibly placed the participant’s hand on the electric plate.
Milgram - Location
Participants obeyed more when the study was conducted at a prestigious university i.e. Stanford.
This is because the prestige of such a location demands obedience and also may increase the trust that the participant places in the integrity of the researchers and their experiments.
