Social influence Flashcards
Types of conformity
- Internalisation-person accepts group norms+agrees privately and publicly
- Identification-person conforms to group as they identify with it and wants to be a part
- Compliance-person goes along with others but doesn’t privately change, stops when group pressure stops.
Informational social influence
-about who has the better info
-conform as the person doesn’t know what to do and others are more likely to be right
-new/ambiguous situations
Normative social influence
-about what is normal of typical behaviour
-person don’t want to be foolish and want to gain social approval
-strangers, person concerned about rejection
Evaluations for ISI and NSI
Strengths:
-Lucas et al-more conformity when maths q was difficult (ISI)
-Asch-conformed even when the answer was clearly wrong, as they felt conscious
Weaknesses:
-nAffiliators are more likely to show NSI but others may not
-Both could affect conformity and can’t tell which one
-ISI affects less when the person is experienced
Asch’s study
-23 Americans asked to judge line lengths
-group with 6-8 confederates, said their answer last
-Conformed 36.8% of the time
-75% conformed at least once
-NSI
Asch’s variations
- Group size-decreased to 31.8%
- Unanimity-when 2 disagreed, conformity decreased by 25%
Asch-evaluation
Strengths:
-lab-high levels of control
Weaknesses:
-Lacks temporal validity, Perrin and Spencer found that only 1 out of 396 engineering students conformed
-Artificial task and situation-lacks ecological validity and mundane realism
-Can’t be applied to different cultures
-Findings only apply to situation w strangers
-Deception
Sherif’s study
-Lab+repeated measures
-Spot of light appear to move but wasn’t (auto kinetic effect), participants had to estimate speed alone, then with other people, then asked individually
-alone-personal norms and group-group norms
-ISI
Sheriff-evaluation
Strengths:
-Lab study with high control
Weaknesses:
-Limited sample (all male)
-lack ecological validity
Zimbardo’s study
-24 psychology students in prison, randomly assigned role of guard/prisoner
-social roles divided (regulated routine, called by numbers, uniform)
-guards were brutal and prisoners rebelled
-conformed to social roles in prison
Zimbardo-evaluation
Strengths:
-High internal validity due to control, emotionally stable people were chosen and randomisation
Weaknesses:
-lack of realism-role play rather than conforming
-Exaggerated as only 1/3 guards were brutal and others were fair and tried to help prisoners
-Later studies (Reicher and Haslam) showed different results
-Unethical
-Researcher bias as Zimbardo also took part
Milgram’s study
-40 men told to play the ‘teacher’, had to give electric shocks to the learner
-researcher told them to continue
-12% stopped at 300V
65% continued to 450V
-signs of distress such as swear, tremble
-debriefed
Milgram-evaluation
Strengths:
-High external validity due to lab reflecting wider authority situations
-Replication on reality TV showed similar results (80% continued to 460V)
Weaknesses:
-Low internal validity (Perry) but Sheridan and King’s shocks to puppy study gave similar results
-Social identity theory (identified as the ‘teacher’)
-Unethical
Milgram’s variations
- Proximity to victim, 65% to 40% 30%
- Proximity to authority, 65% to 20% on a phone call
- Location, 47% in a run down building
- Uniform, 20% authority taken away and different member with normal clothes
Milgram’s variations-evaluation
Strengths:
-Research support (Bickman’s had jacket/milkman’s outfit/security in public and asked people to pick up litter-twice more obedience with security guard)
-Similar results in cross cultural studies (90% with Spanish students)
-High control
Weaknesses:
-Low internal validity
-Obedience alibi
Obedience-social factors
Agentic state (autonomous to agents state) due to a perceived authority figure due to social hierarchy
-Binding factors:aspects of situations that allow person to ignore the effect of their action (milligram-people wanted to quit but couldn’t)
-legistimacy of authority-some given power to punish others, learnt due to social norms
-destructive
Obedience social factors evaluation
Strengths:
-Blass and Schmitt-student blamed experimenter
-Show cultural differences (Germany-85%)
-Show obedience in real life war crimes)
Weaknesses
-Doesn’t explain all findings
-Obedience alibi
Obedience dispositional factors
Authoritarian personality-Observed white Americans’ racist attitudes and F scale
-rigid cognitive style, stereotypical
-extreme respect for authority
-strong leader needed
-scapegoating due to strict parenting (psychodynamic explanation)
Obedience dispositional factors evaluation
Strengths:
-Interview showed correlation between F scale and obedience
Weaknesses
-F scale is biased
-Can’t explain all findings (social identity theory)
-Political bias (extreme form go right wings)
-Correlation doesn’t mean causation (third factor involved)
Resistance to social influence
-Social support can decrease influence
-LOC-externals conform more
-continuum
Resistance to social influence evaluation
Strengths:
-Asch showed that unanimity decreases conformity
-Gamson’s study did Milgrams study in groups and showed less obedience
-Holland’s milligram study-37% internals didn’t continue, 23% externals didn’t
Weaknesses
-Twenge’s study-40 year study, people become more restart AND external
-LOC is exaggerated, Rotter stated that it only influences new situations
Minority influence
-when minority influences others (internalisation)
-Synchronic consistency-all saying the same thing
-diachronic consistency-say the same thing for a long time
-consistency make others reconsider the views
-commitment-augmentation principle (shows that the thought is important)
-Flexibility-should be reasonable and acceptive
-snowball effect-minority becomes majority
-social crypto amnesia-changes in view but don’t know where it started
Minority influence evaluation
Strengths:
-Moscovici’s research support for consistency
-Martin et all-minority message is more deeply processed
-Moscovici’s study supports internalisation as participants wrote their thoughts
Weaknesses:
-Artificial material used
-Limited real world application (in real life minority and majority are vague)
Social change
- Draw attention
- Consistency
- Deeper processing
- Augmentation principle (deep commitment that life is risky)
- Snowball effect
- Social cryptoamnesia
-Asch’s study
-Zimbardo’s social change through gradual commitment (once a small section id obeyed, resistance is more difficult)
Social change evaluation
Strengths:
-Nolan et al-gave messages to people about ‘most people try to reduce energy levels’ and ‘you should reduce energy’-first group had more decrease (normative)
Weaknesses:
-Only indirectly effective
-Mackie’s study showed that majority influence causes deeper processing not minority
-People resist social change because they don’t want to be associated with stereotypical views
-Social change studies have problems
Moscovici’s study
192 participants in group of 6 had to judge the colour of 36 all blue slides
-2 confederates called all slides green/24 green and 12 blue
-Consistent-8% called green, inconsistent-1% called it green
