Social influence Flashcards
Define conformity
A change in behaviour or belief as a result of real or imagined group pressure
Identity the 3 types of conformity
Compliance
Identification
Internalisation
Define compliance
Shallowest level of conformity
Individual changes behaviour to FIT IN with group/avoid rejection
Do not privately agree with behaviour/belief but do agree publically
Due to normative social influence (NSI)
Define identification
Individual adopts the behaviour/belief of group
Accept group’s norms out of desire for a relationship/association with the group
Define internalisation
Deepest level of conformity
Individual accepts behaviour/belief of majority publically AND privately - become part of their belief system
Due to informational social influence (ISI)
Identify the 2 explanations for conformity
Informational social influence (ISI)
Normative social influence (NSI)
Define NSI
Conforming to the majority to avoid rejection
Driven by desire to be liked
Leads to compliance
Define ISI
Conforming to majority because of a desire to the correct in situations where right action/belief is uncertain
Leads to internalisation
Who studied conformity?
What did he do?
What did he find?
Asch (1951) - line judgment study
Groups of 8-10 male college students
Only one actual ppt - all other were confederates
Ppts shown standard line + 3 comparison lines - ppts had to identify which line matched standard line
6 control trials - confederates gave correct answers
12 critical trails - confederates gave same incorrect answer unanimously
75% ppts conformed at least once
5% ppts conformed every time
Overall conformity rate in critical trials - 32%
Suggests people will conform due to NSI - conform for social approval, avoid rejection
Evaluate Asch’s study
KEY POINTS:
Ethical issues
Methological issues
Ethical issues:
- Deception + lack of informed consent
+ Debriefing was used to gain retrospective consent and ppts were informed of right to withdraw their results at that point
Methological issues:
- Poor external validity (low population validity, low ecological validity, low temporal valdity
- Low internal valdity - demand characteristics possibly present as ppts may have worked out what study was about
3 variables affecting conformity (Asch’s variations)
Group size - increasing size of majority (no. of conferderates) increased conformity (up to a point(
Unanimity - Asch arranged for a confederate to give different answer to majority and/or sam answer as real ppt. This reduced conformity
Task difficulty - Asch made real answer less obvious by having lines of similar length, increasing task difficulty increased conformity
Who investigated the power of social roles?
Zimbardo (1973) Stanford prison study
Procedure of Zimbardo’s study
24 U.S male student volunteers
Randomly allocated role of prisoner or guard
Prisoners:
- arrested from home, deloused, given uniform, ID number
- given some rights e.g. 3 meals a day, 3 supervised toilet trips a day, 2 visits a week
Guards:
- given uniform, clubs, whistles, wore reflective sunglasses
Zimbardo took role as prison superintendent
Findings of Zimbardo’s study
Experiment planned to last 2 weeks, but was stopped after 6 days
Many guards had become abusive
After rebellion was put down, prisoners became subdued, depressed and anxious
Conclusions of Zimbardo’s study
Situation had influenced people’s behaviour
Guards, prisoners + researchers all conformed to roles within prison
Evaluation of Zimbardo’s study
KEY WORDS:
3 ethical issues
3 methological issues
ethical issues:
- protection from harm + psychological harm
- right to withdraw (pressurised to stay)
HOWEVER - would have lacked realism if allowed to leave, therefore validity of a prison without this
- lack of informed consent (consent gained but unlikely sufficiently infomed)
methological issues:
- Zimbardo played ‘dual role’ - became to involved - his behaviour may have influnced way in which event unfolded
- criticized for likely demand characteristics
- reasonably poor ecological validity - not a real prison - difficult to generalise
Who investigated obedience?
Milgram’s (1963) electric shock study
Sample of Milgram’s study
40 male ppts
Aged between 20-50
All American - New Haven area
White, middle class
Volunteers
Procedure of Milgram’s study
Drew starts to assign role of leaner + teacher - it was rigged, ppt always teacher, confederate always learner
Ppts told that confederate/leaner had heart condition
Shocks on scale of 15V - 450V in 15V increments
Learner gave mainly wrong answers on purpose
If ppt refused to administer shock - series of prods used by experimenter
Teacher + learner in separate rooms
NO SHOCK ACTUALLY ADMINISTERED - ALL FAKE
Findings of Milgram’s study
65% ppts continued to full 450V
100% of ppts continued up to 300V
Evaluate Milgram’s study
KEY WORDS:
3 ethical issues
- protection from harm + psychological distress
- right to withdraw
- deception + lack of informed consent (ppts unaware shocks were fake, thought study was into ‘learning’ not conformity)
What are the 3 situational VARIABLES of obedience (from Milgram’s study)
Effect of location
Proximity
Uniform
Effect of location (Milgram’s study) variation
Location changed to run-down building
Obedience levels dropped by 17.5% (65% at Yale vs 47.5% run-down office)
Status of location changed ppts perception of legitimacy of authority of the investigator
Proximity (Milgram’s study) variation
When teacher + learner in same room - obedience levels decreased
When experimenter leaves room - obedience levels decreased
Uniform (Milgram’s study) variation
Obedience levels decreased if lab coat not worn by experimenter
What are the 3 situational EXPLANATIONS of obedience
Legitimacy of authority
Agentic state
Binding factors
Legitimacy of authority
When a person recognises their own + other’s position in a social heirarchy
Legitimacy is increased by visible symbols of authority e.g uniform (Milgram - lab coat vs no lab coat)
Legitimacy of setting can contribute - Yale vs run-down office
Agentic state
When a person acts on behalf of an authority figure/person of higher status, the actor feels no responsibly/no guilt for actions
Person shifts into an ‘agentic state’ (opposite of autonomous state, where people act according to their own principles)
Binding factors
When aspects of the situation mean the individual is able to take away their own ‘moral strain’ and ignore their damaging behaviour
How is authoirtarian personality measured?
Using the F scale
Is the authoritarian personality a dispositional or situational explanation of obedience?
Dispostional (internal factors which influence our actions e.g. personality traits, biological makeup)
Authoritarian traits - developed from strict, rigid parenting
- Highly conformist
- Dogmatic
- Conventional
- Very high respect for authority figures
- Very obedient towards people of perceived higher status
- Very hostile (unfriendly) towards people of perceived lower status
Authoritarian traits - developed from strict, rigid parenting
- Highly conformist
- Dogmatic
- Conventional
- Very high respect for authority figures
- Very obedient towards people of perceived higher status
- Very hostile (unfriendly) towards people of perceived lower status
Evaluation of the authoritarian personality of obedience
Little supporting research - much more research for role of situational factors
Explnation problematic - relies on self-report - F scale = questionnaire data NOT VALID EVIDENCE BASE
Difficulties establishing cause + effect between AP parenting style and obedience:
- based on retrospective data
- level of education may determine authoritarianism and obedience
What are the 2 ways of resisting SI?
Locus of control
Social support
Internal locus of control
More likely to resist pressure to conform
Less likely to obey (resist SI) than those with an external locus of control
Belive they control their own circumstances
Evaluation of locus of control
Reasonable level of supporting evidence - Holland (1967):
- found 37% people with an ILOC refused to obey max shock level in Milgram-type study
- compared to 23% with an ELOC
Oliner + Oliner (1988) interviewed 2 groups of non-Jews who lived through the holocaust in Nazi Germany
- interviewed 406 people who had rescued + protected Jews and 106 who had not
- found rescuers more likely to have an ILOC
Social support (presence of an ally)
Non-conformity more likely if others are seen to resist SI
Seeing other disobey/not conform gives an observer confidence to do so
Different types of social support depending on type of SI being resisted:
- disobedient role models (obedience) challenge legitimacy of authority figure
- having an ally (conformity) breaks the unanimity of the group in conformity situations
Evaluation of social support
Presence of an ally giving wrong answer in a variation of Asch’s study/disobedient role model who refused to shock in variation of Milgram’s study - demonstrates the effect of social support, as conformity levels were reduces
Not just social support, other factors also involved in resistance e.g. dispostion (ILOC + high-self esteem), gender
What are the 3 types of minority influence?
Consisistency - keeping to a view
Commitment - defending a view
Flexibility
Research support for consistency
Research support of consistency: Moscovoci (1969)
- told 172 female ppts they were taking part in a colour perception task
- ppts had to state aloud colour of each slide
- 2 of 6 ppts were confederates - in 1 condition, the 2 confederates said all 36 slides were green
- in 2nd condition - confederates said 24 slides were green + 12 were blue
- real ppts agreed and gave wrong answer ‘green’ 7% more of the time in the 1st condition
Over time, commitment to a majority view will increasingly convert people, and there will become a ‘tipping point’ via the snowball effect
What is social change?
Change which occurs in a society, not at individual level
Minorities bring about social change by being consistent, committed and flexible
What are the social influence processes in social change?
Drawing attention through social proof
Consistency
Deeper processing of issue
Augmentation principle
Snowball effect
Social crypto-amnesia
Consistency
Contributes to social change when a minority repeatedly gives same message
This makes majority reassess their belief + consider issue more carefully
Augmentation principle (commitment)
Commitment contributes to social change when a minority shows they are willing to give up something for their belief, the majority take their argument more seriously (so may adopt as their own)
Social crypto-amnesia
People have a memory that change has occurred but don’t remember how it happened
Evaluation of social processes
Evaluation of social influence processes in social change?
