Social Influence Flashcards
Outline conformity
Changing ones behaviours or beliefs due to real or imagined pressure from a person or group of people.
3 types of conformity - Kelman
Internalisation - strongest and most permanent form of conformity where an individual genuinely internalises the beliefs of a group. Change in behaviour and beliefs occurs both publicly and privately, whether the group is there or not.
Identification - Conform to beliefs and behaviours of a group because they have traits we value and want to be recognised as a part of it. Beliefs will be changed publicly but everything the group stands for may not be agreed with in private.
Compliance - most superficial form of conformity. “Going along with others” and the norm to be socially accepted. In private, beliefs do not change.
Outline the reasons for conformity
Deutsch and Gerrard - two process theory
ISI - Informational social influence is where a person conforms because they have a desire to be right, and look to others who they believe may have more information. This type of conformity occurs when a person is unsure of a situation or lacks knowledge and is associated with internalisation.
Lucas et al: students were asked to give answers to maths problems ranging in difficulty. Greater conformity occurred when the questions became more difficult, supporting the theory of ISI and that greater ambiguity leads to greater conformity.
NSI - normative social influence
Grounded in emotion, conformity occurs because we want to be socially accepted and fear rejection.
Asch found that people conformed to a majority, even giving an obviously wrong answer. This supports that people will conform in order to fit in with a group
Teevan and McGhee outline that individual differences impact the influence of NSI. Those in need of affiliation will be more influenced.
A dissenter can reduce the influence of NSI by providing social support. Similarly, by providing an alternative source of information they can reduce the influence of NSI.
Outline Asch’s study
1950’s
40 male American undergraduates.
Participants were asked to match a “standard line” to 1 of 3 comparison lines. In each group there was only one real participant the remaining 6 were confederates.
A confederate gave an incorrect answer in 12/18 trials. In the baseline procedure, 75% conformed at least once to the incorrect answer. Less than 1% conformed in the control group.
Outline the variables influencing conformity in Asch’s study
Group Size:
Asch found a curvilinear relationship between group size and conformity. Conformity rose as the number of confederates increased, but only up to a certain point. 13% with 2, 32% with 3.
Task difficulty:
As task ambiguity increased, so did conformity. Providing supporting evidence for ISI and than individuals are more likely to conform in situations where the answer is unclear.
Group unanimity:
Conformity decreased when a dissenter was brought in; 9% when the dissenter gave an alternative wrong answer and 5% when the dissenter gave the correct answer. This could be due to the dissenter providing social support for the genuine participant and encouraging them to think independently and not conform to the group majority which they are influenced to do through NSI. Similarly, providing an alternative answer gives the genuine participant another source of information to look to reducing the influence of ISI.
Evaluate Asch’s research on conformity
+ lab based - higher control = higher validity
+ Lucas et al also demonstrated the influence of ISI
- contradictory evidence from replications. Perrin and Spencer replicated Asch’s study in the 1980s in the UK with male engineering students. Less than 1% conformed. This suggests the “Asch effect” lacks temporal validity and changes across time and context.
- ungeneralisable sample. Bond and Smith argue conformity is different in collectivist cultures. Similarly, Neto argues women are more likely to conform.
- research conducted during a time of high conformity.
Fiske highlights how the study didn’t properly reflect group dynamics which influence the pressure to conform. Thereby, decreasing the study’s ecological validity.
Outline Milgram’s baseline procedure
Volunteer sample (160 men)
Each participant met individually with another “participant” and the “experimenter” at Yale University.
A rigged draw allocated the roles to the participants. The naïve participant always got the role of the teacher and the confederate always got assigned the role of the learner.
The learner would have to match a pair of words in a memory based task. An incorrect answer would result in an electric shock from the teacher, with each incorrect answer increasing the voltage of the shock.
The shocks reached up to 450V.
Outline the results of Milgram’s baseline procedure
Milgram concluded ordinary people are very obedient to authority, it is not evil people who commit atrocities but rather ordinary people obeying authority.
100% of participants gave all shocks up to 300V, whilst 65% gave up to the 450V shocks.
Evaluate Milgram’s baseline procedure
Research support:
Sheridan and King replicated Milgram’s and found 54% of men and 100% of women gave the highest shock, believed to be the fatal one to live puppies.
Beauvois - “la jeu de la mort”
French documentary researched obedience through creating a fake game show. 80% of naïve participants gave the 460V shock to a confederate even when they pretended to pass out.
Lack of Internal validity - Orne and Holland said the experiment was overly contrived and the participants figured out the purpose of the study and were therefore, displaying demand characteristics. However, 3 participants had fully blown seizures as a stress response to the experiment, suggesting they thought the shocks were real and did not question the authenticity of the study.
Ethical issues - participants were deceived throughout the experiment. They believed they were involved in an experiment about the role of operant conditioning on memory and they were put under extreme levels of stress.
Outline the situation variables of Milgram’s research into obedience
Location: changed from Yale University to a run down office block in Connecticut. Obedience dropped from 65% to 48%. Yale is a prestigious University, establishing its legitimacy to participants. Obedience was still high as participants still recognised the experimenters legitimacy.
Proximity:
Remote feedback: 65%
Verbal feedback: 62.5%
When the teacher and learner were in the same room obedience dropped to 40%
Touch proximity: 30%
Telephonic communications: 21%.
participants are able to psychologically distance themselves from their actions as proximity from the learner increased. When orders were given over the phone, authority is less apparent, enabling participants to act independently.
Uniform: when the experimenter in a lab coat was replaced by an “ordinary man”, obedience dropped to 20%.
Evaluate the research into situational variables in obedience
Research support:
Bickman’s field study showed that when given basic orders, the public were twice as likely to obey orders given by a man in a security guards uniform, compared to an “ordinary man.” This suggested that uniform is a widely accepted symbol of authority, thus encouraging obedience.
Lack of internal validty:
Orne and Holland highlighted that the partipants figured out the inauthenticty of the study. Milgram even agreed the uniform variable was contrived.
Miranda et al found similar results in a sample of Spanish students. 80% Suggesting the findings are consistent between cultures and in genders.
However Bond and Smith - lack of replications in collectivist cultures. Only one identified in Jordan.
Danger of situational perspective: oversimplifying obedience to situational variables can cause excuses for destructive obedience. Mandel argues that attributing situations like the Holocaust to situational variables whilst ignoring the role of dispositional factors, is offensive to survivors.
Outline Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison experiment
21 participants chosen after psychological screening.
Randomly allocated the role of either guard or prisoner.
Prisoners were arrested by their local police from their homes, driven to a mock prison, stripped, deloused and given smocks and a prison number that they would be referred to.
Guards were given matching uniforms, batons, reflective sunglasses (to minimise eye contact and thus identification with the prisoners) and were told they had complete authority over the prisoners.
Participants quickly conformed to their social roles. Riots occurred on day two but was quickly shut down by the guards.
Participant #8612 left on day 1 due to psychological distress. One prisoner went on a hunger strike leading them to be put in a “hole.”
The guards displayed destructive authority, physically and sexually abusing and tormenting the prisoners.
Prisoners became depressed, passive and traumatised.
Experiment ended on day 6 opposed to the intended fortnight due to psychological distress.
Evaluate Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison experiment
High internal validity: 90% of prisoner’s private conversations were about prison conditions. When the prisoners were introduced to the priest they introduced themselves by prison number rather than their name, showing how quickly conformed to their social role.
Supposed real life application:
The findings of the experiment could be used in the real world and can be used to implement interventions intended to prevent abuse of power. However, police brutality is still highly prevalent suggesting the findings are meaningless.
Ecological validity issues: ungeneralisable sample who were paid to take part. Payment could lead to demand characteristics; Banvazizi and Mohavedi argued participants were merely playing up to stereotypical roles.
Ethical issues
Individual differences: Fromm argued Zimbardo overexaggerated the findings of the study and the role of the situation, ignoring the role of the personality. 1/3 of guards displayed extremely sadistic behaviour but others offered the prisoners support, sympathy and revoked lost privileges. These findings suggest Zimbardo overstated the role of situational factors whilst ignoring the role of dispositional factors in relation to conformity to social roles.
Lack of replication to validate findings:
Contradictory evidence: Reicher and Haslam’s BBC experiment found that participants did not automatically conform to their social role. The guards did not identify with their status and refused to impose their authority; the prisoners identified as a group to challenge the guard’s authority, which resulted in a shift of power and a collapse of the prison system. This suggests conformity to social roles may not be as automatic and is instead more influenced by a shared social identity.
Outline the legitimacy of authority
Social explanation for obedience.
We are more likely to obey people we perceive has having more authority than us.
Authority is seen as legitimate due to the individuals position of power within a social hierarchy.
Acknowledgment and appreciation of hierarchy is usually taught during childhood and reinforced through socialisation.
Outline the agentic state
A mental state where we feel no personal responsibility for our actions because we are acting for an authoritative figure.
Obedience therefore occurs because an individual acts as an “agent.”
Frees us from the demands of our conscience but we may still feel anxious over our actions due to our perceived inability to disobey orders.
Outline the autonomous state
We are free and able to act according to our own beliefs and morals, and so therefore feel responsible for the outcome of our actions.
