Social Influence Flashcards
What is conformity?
Conformity refers to behaviour change as a result of real (explicit) or imagined pressure from a person or group.
How did Zimbardo and Leippe (1991) define conformity?
‘A change in belief or behaviour in response to real or imagined group pressure when there’s no direct request to comply with the group nor any reason to justify behaviour change.’
What are the 3 ways Kellman (1958) suggested in which people conform to the opinions of a majority?
Compliance
Identification
Internalisation
What is compliance?
A shallow type of conformity where you publicly agree with/change behaviour to the majority but privately disagree with/don’t change behaviour to them. This is because you don’t agree with what they’re doing, so you just perform the behaviour publicly, but inside you know you don’t agree or want to show that behaviour. The change in behaviour only lasts as long as the group is monitoring you, and is temporary as it doesn’t change your permanent opinion.
What is identification?
A moderate type of conformity where we act in the same way as a group because we value it and want to be part of it. This involves public agreement/change in behaviour and may or may not result in private agreement/change in behaviour (as we don’t necessarily agree with everything the majority believes). It’s generally temporary and isn’t maintained when the individual leaves the group.
What is internalisation?
The deepest type of conformity where there’s public and private agreement/change in behaviour with the majority because you agree with what they’re saying/trust them. It usually results in permanent change in your opinions about how you should behave and these become part of your belief system. You will now act in this way regardless of whether the group is present or not.
What were Deutsch and Gerard’s views on the explanations of conformity (1955)?
Developed a 2-process theory, arguing that there are 2 main reasons why people conform:
The need to be right (ISI)
The need to be liked (NSI)
What is Normative Social Influence (NSI)?
The need to be liked, involving norms. People conform as they have a need to be liked by others and don’t want to stand out. They fear rejection, so go along with the group so that the group will accept them as part of it.
What does Normative Social Influence (NSI) lead to?
Compliance because they publicly agree with the majority but privately disagree with them as they don’t agree with what the majority are doing, but don’t want the majority to reject them. They just go along with them to be liked and accepted.
When is Normative Social Influence (NSI) more likely to occur?
When you’re with strangers as you want to make a good impression.
When you’re with people you know as you care about what they think.
When you’re in stressful situations to minimise the stress.
What is Informational Social Influence (ISI)?
The need to be right.
This is about who has the better information - you or the rest of the group.
People conform because they aren’t sure how to behave, so use the majority as a source of information.
People want to be correct and behave in the right way, but don’t know how to behave or what is correct.
What does Informational Social Influence (ISI) lead to?
Internalisation because they publicly and privately agree with the majority. This is because they actually believe that the group does have more knowledge than them, so believe that what the group are doing must be right.
When is Informational Social Influence (ISI) more likely to occur?
When the situation is ambiguous.
In novel situations.
Because in these situations we are less likely to know how to behave, so look to someone/a group who we think will know what the correct way to behave is.
(+) Asch (1956) research support for NSI evaluation.
Found that many participant went along with a clearly wrong answer just because other people did. When Asch asked his participants why, some participants said that they felt self-conscious giving the correct answer and they were afraid of disapproval.
It shows how some people conform to fit in with the group and not to stand out from others.
It’s a strength as it provides evidence that NSI exists in real life and so increases the ecological validity of the NSI explanation.
(+) Lucas et al (2006) research support for ISI evaluation.
Asked students to give answers to maths questions which were easy or difficult. Participants were given answers from 3 other students (who weren’t real). They found that there was greater conformity to incorrect answers when they were difficult than easier ones - this was true for students who rated their mathematical ability as poor.
Therefore, this shows that people conform in situations where they are unsure of the answer, which is exactly the outcome predicted by the ISI explanation.
This is a strength because it shows how some people conform due to lacking knowledge and understanding of a situation and thus provides evidence that ISI exists in real life (this increases the ecological validity of the explanation, meaning we can be more confident that we can generalise ISI to real life).
(-) Difficult to separate NSI and ISI in real life evaluation, include Asch (1956) to support.
The idea of the 2-process theory is that behaviours are either due to ISI or NSI, but it could be that both processes are involved.
Asch (1951) found that both processes were involved in conformity. He found that conformity reduced when there was 1 rebellious participant who gave the correct answer. This rebellious participant may reduce the power of NSI as they provide social support for others (less group pressure to conform) OR may reduce the power of ISI as there’s alternative information (which may be correct).
Therefore we can’t be sure if it is NSI, ISI or both.
This is a weakness because in real life, it’s likely that the 2 processes work together, which makes the individual concepts of NSI and ISI over-simplistic.
(-) Individual differences oppose NSI and ISI evaluation, use McGhee and Teevan (1967) to support.
NSI (and potentially ISI) doesn’t affect everyone in the same way.
Eg. McGhee and Teevan (1967) found that students high in need of affiliation (care more about being liked, called nAffiliators) were more likely to conform than students who are less concerned with being liked. nAffiliators who have a greater need for affiliation are more likely to conform.
Therefore, this shows that not all individuals will act in the same way and some people in society are more likely to conform than others. This can explain why some people go against society and don’t conform to the expected standards.
This is a weakness as it suggests that NSI cannot be generalised to everyone and makes it much less useful as it cannot be used as an explanation for conformity in everyone.
(+) Lab experiments are used to conduct research supporting the 2-process theory evaluation.
Lab experiments are conducted in a controlled environment.
We can be more confident that the IV is affecting the DV, which increases the internal validity of the study, which also increases the validity of the 2-process theory (likely to be correct). It also increases the reliability of the findings, meaning the 2-process theory can be tested over and over, ensuring the results are consistent, suggesting the 2-process theory is also reliable.
What was Asch’s aim (1956)?
To investigate the effect that a majority would have if the test was obvious and unambiguous.
What was Asch’s method (1956)?
123 male American undergraduate students were his participants.
Each took it in turns to join a group of confederates to take part in the task.
The real participant didn’t know the rest of the people taking part we’re all confederates - thought they were real participants like themself.
Between 7 and 9 people in a group (so number of confederates was between 6 and 8).
Two sets of cards - one card was a standard line, other had 3 ‘comparison lines’.
One of the lines on the comparison card was the same size as the standard line, and participants just had to say which comparison line was the same as the standard line.
Each participant was shown 18 series of cards (18 trials), the confederates gave the correct answer 6 times and the incorrect answer 12 times (12 critical trials).
The participant was placed either last or second to last.
What were Asch’s results (1956)?
On the critical trials:
36.8% of answers given by participants were incorrect (conformed to majority).
25% of participants never conformed.
75% of participants conformed at least once.
5% conformed on every critical trial.
In post-experimental interviews, some participants said they felt self-conscious when giving the correct answer, and were afraid of disapproval.
What was Asch’s conclusion (1956)?
Participants will conform to a majority even when the correct answer is clear and unambiguous.
It supports NSI as many participants conformed with the majority by giving the same incorrect response because they feared being rejected by the group - wanted to be liked and accepted by the group.
What did Asch (1956) do for his group size variation?
M - repeated the study with different sized majority groups, ranging from 1-15 confederated.
R - with 1 confederate, participants conformed on 3% of critical trials; with 2 confederates, participants conformed on 12.8% of critical trials; with 3 confederates, participants confirmed on 31.8% of critical trials (similar to percentage in original study); and further increases in the size of majority had little effect on conformity (3-7 confederates between 32% and 37%, from 7 onwards, conformity levels slightly declined).
C - size of the majority is important in conformity, but only up to a certain point (~3 confederates), after which it doesn’t have any additional impact. This is because as the number of confederates increases from 1 to 3, this increases both fear of rejection and the pressure of being liked (increases effect of NSI).
What did Asch (1956) do for his unanimity variation?
M - Asch introduced a confederate who disagreed with the others - they answered differently (sometimes correctly, sometimes a different incorrect answer) on all trials before the participant.
R - average conformity dropped to 5.5%.
C - the influence of the majority depends on the group being unanimous. The presence of another non-conformist allowed the participant to act more independently. There was less pressure to conform as the participant had an ally who didn’t conform (decreases effects of NSI).
What did Asch (1956) do for his task difficulty variation?
M - Asch made the line judgement task more difficult by making the standard line more similar in length to the other lines.
R - conformity increased, though he didn’t report the percentage.
C - the influence of the majority depends on the difficulty of the task. As the situation became more ambiguous, participants were more likely to look to other people for guidance and assume they’re right. This suggests the effect of ISI is greater when the task becomes harder.
(+) Research support (Lucas et al 2006) evaluation for Asch (1956).
Asch’s findings have been supported by other studies - for example, Lucas et al (2006) asked students to give answers to maths questions that were easy or difficult. Participants were given answers from 3 other students (who weren’t real). They found that there was greater conformity to incorrect answers when they were difficult than easier ones - this was true for students who rated their maths ability as poor).
This supports Asch’s findings that task difficulty affects conformity (as difficulty increases, conformity increases).
This suggests that task difficulty is a reliable variable and therefore is more likely to be a valid explanation.
(-) Lacks temporal validity evaluation for Asch (1956), use Perrin and Spencer (1980).
Asch’s findings may be unique as the research took place in a particular period of USA history when conformity was high. In 1950s America, there was a strong sense of anti-communism, where people were scared to go against the majority for fear of being called a communist.
Perrin and Spencer (1980) repeated Asch’s original study, but with engineering students in the UK. Only one student conformed in a total of 396 trials. It may be that engineering students felt more confident about measuring lines than the original sample, so therefore conformed less.
Therefore, Asch’s study may lack temporal validity as people now may not conform as much as they did in the 1950s as we are in a current cultural climate where we are celebrated for being an individual, not a follower. This also means that Asch’s findings on how variables affect conformity may also lack temporal validity, so may not affect conformity in the same way today.
(-) Artificial situation and task evaluation for Asch (1956).
Participants knew they were in a research study and may simply have gone along with the demands of the situation (demand characteristics) as this is what they thought they were meant to do. The line task was trivial and therefore there was really no reason not to conform (lacks mundane realism). Also the confederates weren’t trained actors, so it could be that the participants may have realised what was happening and just pretended to conform as that is what they thought the researcher wanted them to do. Furthermore, although participants were members of a ‘group’, this was not a natural group we would be part of in real life.
Therefore, the results of the study may not be accurate, and therefore lacks internal validity as Asch may not have been measuring what he intended - instead of measuring the level of conformity, he was measuring the amount of demand characteristics shown instead. This also means Asch’s findings on how variables affect conformity may also lack validity, so may not affect conformity as Asch suggested.
(-) Ethical issues evaluation for Asch (1956).
Participants were deceived as they didn’t know that the other ‘participants’ were actually confederates. Asch also told they that they were taking part in a vision test, instead of a test of conformity. As Asch deceived them, he couldn’t gain informed consent. This could have put the participants under stress during the experiment and also could have caused embarrassment to them once they discovered the true nature of it afterward, which could lead to psychological harm.
Therefore, the experiment can be said to have ethical limitations and could be considered unacceptable. However, without deceiving the participants, there’s no way that studies like this can take place. Also, it’s unlikely that this study would have caused long-term damage to a person’s mental health.
(-) Lacks ecological validity evaluation for Asch (1956), use Williams and Sogon (1984).
The fact that participants had to answer out loud and were with a group of strangers who they wanted to impress might mean that conformity was higher than usual. Williams and Sogon (1984) found conformity was actually higher when the majority of the group were friends than when with strangers.
Some people may not be worried about fitting in and facing rejection if they are with strangers who they’ll never see again. With friends, there potentially a greater effect of NSI as there’s greater fear of rejection and an increased need to fit in and be liked.
Therefore we can’t be sure we’d see the same high rates of conformity in all situations so we can’t generalise Asch’s findings to all situations. Asch’s findings on how variables affect conformity may also lack ecological validity, so may not affect conformity in the same way in all situations.
(-) Low population validity evaluation for Asch (1956).
Asch carried out his research on male undergraduate students who may not be representative of everyone eg. women, people of different ages/from other countries/different educational backgrounds.
Therefore Asch’s findings about conformity may not be able to be generalised to other groups not represented in his study. This also means Asch’s findings on how variables affect conformity may also lack population validity, so may not affect conformity in the same way for all people.
What are social roles?
Hare (2003) ‘a social role is a pattern of behaviour that is expected of a person in each setting or group’. Individuals learn how to behave by looking at the social roles other people have and then conforming to them. Conformity to social roles involves identification.
What was Zimbardo’s aim (1973)?
To investigate whether prison guards behave brutally because of their aggressive personalities (dispositional) or whether it is the situation that influences their behaviour (situational).
What was Zimbardo’s method (1973)?
Set up a mock prison at Stanford University and advertised for students willing to volunteer.
75 people responded and 24 were chosen who were deemed ‘emotionally stable’ after psychological testing.
Students were randomly assigned roles of a prison guards or prisoners.
Zimbardo himself was the prison superintendent.
Prisoners were arrested at their homes and delivered to the ‘prison’ (they didn’t know this would happen).
The prison was the basement of the psychology department, but the experience was made as realistic as possible by using real police officers to make the arrests.
Prisoners were blindfolded, finger-printed, strip-searched, de-loused and issued a uniform and number.
There were 16 rules, enforced by guards, that prisoners had to follow.
Prisoners’ names were never used, only their numbers, and had to wear numbered smocks and nylon stockings on their heads to resemble a shaved head.
Guards had their own uniform, wooden club, handcuff, keys, and mirror shades (couldn’t see someone’s eyes). They were told they had complete power over prisoners, even deciding when they could go to the toilet.
What were Zimbardo’s results (1973)?
Both guards and prisoners settled quickly into their social roles and in particular, guards took up their roles with enthusiam, some even taking extra shifts without pay ($15 per day).
Guards conducted frequent headcounts - highlighted differences in social roles by creating opportunities to enforce rules to punish even small offences.
Within 2 days, the prisoners rebelled against harsh treatment by the guards. They ripped their uniforms, shouted, swore at the guards.
‘Divide-and-rule’ tactics were employed by guards where they played prisoners off against each other.
Guards crushed the rebellion by dehumanising the prisoners through taunting them, waking them up in the night, giving them meaningless boring tasks to do, even forcing them to clean the toilets with their bare hands.
1 prisoner went on a hunger strike and the guards attempted to force-feed, then they put him in the ‘hole’ (a small dark closet).
After the rebellion, prisoners became subdued, anxious and depressed.
1 prisoner was released on the first day as he showed symptoms of psychological disturbance. 4 more were released on the 4th day.
Guards identified more with their role and became more brutal and aggressive with some appearing to enjoy the power they had over prisoners.
Their behaviour became a threat to the prisoners’ psychological and physical health, and the study was stopped after 6 days instead of the intended 14 days. The prisoners were happy but the guards were upset by Zimbardo’s decision.
What was Zimbardo’s conclusion (1973)?
It revealed the power of the situation to influence people’s behaviour. Guards, prisoners and researchers all conformed to their roles within the prison - these roles were taken on very easily by all the participants. Their behaviour was not seen outside of the prison simulation, and most of the participants afterwards said they were shocked by their own behaviour. Both guards and prisoners demonstrated social roles gained from media sources and learned models of social power.
This suggests that people behave in a certain way (by conforming to social roles in this example) due to the situation/environment (rather than due to the individual - dispositional).
(-) Ethical issues evaluation for Zimbardo (1973).
Zimbardo couldn’t gain full informed consent (and so deceived them) as they didn’t tell the participants that they’d be arrested at home.
Many participants were experiencing emotional distress and therefore suffering from psychological harm, the prisoners were exposed to what most people would regard as an unacceptable amount of humiliation and distress.
When one prisoner asked to be released, Zimbardo spoke to him as a superintendent rather than a researcher with responsibilities towards his participants and he wasn’t allowed to leave the prison/study, violating his right to withdraw.
However Zimbardo did carry out debriefing sessions for several years afterwards and concluded that there were no lasting negative effects. His study was ethical at the time as it followed guidelines and the Stanford University Ethics Committee approved it.
(+) High control of extraneous variables evaluation for Zimbardo (1973).
The experiment was carried out in an artificial setting, so was highly controlled eg. in the selection of participants, emotionally stable individuals were chosen and randomly assigned to the roles of guard or prisoner.
This is one way researchers tried to limit individual personality differences as an explanation of the findings. If guards and prisoners behaved very differently but were in those roles only by chance, then their behaviours must have been due to the pressures of the situation (so they’re likely conforming to social roles).
This is a strength as it gives the study high internal validity, so we can be confident that the conclusion about the influence of roles/situational factors on conformity is more likely to be correct.
(-) Lacks realism evaluation for Zimbardo (1973), use Banuazizi and Mohavedi (1975).
Banuazizi and Mohavedi (1975) found that one of the guards said he had based his role on a brutal character from the film ‘Cool Hand Luke’. This would also explain why prisoners rioted, because they thought that was what real prisoners did.
Demand characteristics could explain the findings of the study. Most of the guards later claimed they were simply acting. Because the guards and prisoners were playing a role, their behaviour may not be influenced by the same factors which affect behaviour in real life. This means the study’s findings cannot be reasonably generalised to real life, such as prison settings eg. the study has low ecological validity so we cannot be sure that people would conform to social roles in real life.
As Zimbardo thought he was measuring how people would adapt to social roles, the study’s internal validity could be reduced, as he could have been measuring how well people were acting according to the TV shows they’ve seen involving prisoners. Therefore his study may tell us nothing about conformity to social roles.
(-) Ignores dispositional factors evaluation for Zimbardo (1973), use Fromm (1973).
Fromm (1973) accused Zimbardo of exaggerating the power of the situation to influence behaviour and minimising the toll of personality factors (dispositional influences). For example, only a minority of the guards (1/3) behaved in a brutal manner. Another third was keen on applying the rules fairly. The rest actively tried to help and support the prisoners, sympathising with them, offering them cigarettes and reinstating privileges.
This suggests that Zimbardo’s conclusion that guards were conforming to social roles was exaggerated as not all of them did so.
Consequently, this suggests not everyone will conform to social roles, suggesting that situational factors don’t influence everyone in the same way. Therefore we can’t generalise Zimbardo’s conclusion to everyone and cannot say that all people will conform to social roles due to the situation they’re in (for example, dispositional factors probably explained why some guards helped and supported the prisoners - simply, they were nice people).
(-) Low population validity evaluation for Zimbardo (1973).
Zimbardo carried out his research on American male students who may not be representative of everyone eg. women, people of different ages/other countries/different abilities.
Therefore Zimbardo’s findings about conformity to social roles may not be able to be generalised to other groups not represented in his study eg. situational factors may not affect conformity to social roles in the same way for all people.
What is obedience?
A form of social influence in which an individual follows a direct order.
