Social Influence Flashcards
Describe Asch’s original study into conformity
Aim- to see if people would conform in an unambiguous task
Ppts- 123 males in groups of 7
Method- laboratory exp
Procedure- 1 real participant and 6 confederates in each group, real ppt sat 2nd to last, compare standard line to comparison, confederates give wrong answer 12/18 times ‘critical trials’, give answers out loud
Results- 37% average conformity, 5% on every trial, 25% remained independent, 1% in control group
Conclusion- compliance occurs to avoid standing out to the crowd
Evaluate Asch’s study for conformity
Well controlled, lighting and lines to enable to see, extraneous variables so judgement clear, high internal validity
Easy to replicate, standardised, controlled setting, changed group size, Asch could test which variables affect conformity
High demand characteristics, behaving unnaturally due to knowing participants are taking part, tried to please researcher, low internal
validity
Low ecological validity, artificial setting, could not question why answer was wrong, not generalisable to real life situations
Deception, didn’t tell ppts about confederates= embarrassment
What are the three variations in Asch’s research
Unanimity- having a dissenter who gives the correct answer or different wrong answer= 25% conformity
Group size- changing size of majority, increases to 32% at 3 people up until 7 people then falls
Task difficulty- making tasks more ambiguous, conformity increases- lack of confidence so look to others for more information
Describe normative social influence as a explanation of conformity
Desire to be liked
Need to be accepted by others
Not to be seen as deviant
To gain confidence and increase self esteem
Not to stand out from the crowd
A type of COMPLIANCE
Describe informational social influence as an explanation of conformity
Desire to be right
More common in new/ambiguous situations
We look to others for how to behave
More permanent- a type of INTERNALISATION
Evaluate the explanations of conformity
NSI
Evidence to support from Asch, confederates have same incorrect answer, avoid standing out, conform for the desire to be liked
Struggle to explain individual differences, Asch has participant variations, 25% remained independent in all trials despite group pressure, does not consider personality differences that could make people be more susceptible
ISI
Asch’s study low ecological validity, Jenne’s study- jelly beans in a jar- task that is not a real life situation, estimating together (internalisation), answer to task unclear so individuals conform to be right
Evidence to support from Asch’s variations, conformity rate increased when lines were more similar, participants have less confidence in the ambiguous task, desire to be right
What are the situational variables affecting obedience?
Proximity- authority figure in room with participant/ in different room over phone
Original results- 65% obedience vs 21% on phone
Location- Yale uni/ run-down office- reducing legitimacy
Results- 65% vs 48% in office
Uniform- authority figure leaves room for + ordinary man in ordinary clothes take over as experimenter
Results- 65%, 20% in ordinary clothes
Describe Moscovicis study into minority influence
Aim- minority group influencing majority and giving incorrect answer on a colour perception test if consistent
172 female participants, eyesight good, groups of 6- 4 participants and 2 confederates
36 slides- clearly different shades of blue
Condition 1- consistent- 2 conf said blue were green every time, 8.42% of answers green
Condition 2- inconsistent- 2 conf said green 24 times, blue 12 times, 1.25% of answers green
Control- non confederate, 0.25% incorrect
Conclusion- minority needs to be CONSISTENT to influence majority
Evaluate Moscovi’s study into minority influence
Deception, deliberately lying to participants, not told there were confederates can cause embarrassment, against ethical COC
Well controlled, lab, lighting and slides, high internal validity
low ecological validity, artificial setting, ppl aren’t asked about blue slides in every day life
High demand characteristics, may behave unnaturally due to knowing aim, tried to please Moscovici
Evidence against- mock jury situation for ski accident compensation- confederate flexible=influence, refuse to change position= no influence, consistency not always effective
What are the factors affecting minority influence?
Consistency- more likely to influence if consistent in views, synchronic-saying same thing, diachronic- same thing over time, leads majority to doubt themselves so behaviour changes
Commitment- minority engages in extreme/risky activities, draws attention, majority pays attention to issue- the augmentation principle
Flexibility- minority needs to be prepared to adapt their point of view, willingness to compromise, Nemeth shows downside of being extremely consistent, seen as rigid and unreasonable
Evaluate the factors affecting minority influence
Flexibility- Evidence from Nemeth supports flexibility, mock jury situation on compensation for a ski accident, confederate refused to change opinion then when minority compromised they influenced majority, important role
- real-life minority groups more complicated, majorities more power and status, minorities tight-knit, oversimplifies processes
Consistency- Moscovici- 8.4% of ppts influenced by majority (blue slides green) when consistent vs 1.5% when not
Meta-analysis of 10 similar studies to Moscovici- consistency important, lots of evidence
Commitment- ppts communicated on socials to another that had alternative pov, if other is committed then adopts view
Research low in ecological validity, real life minority argue in favour of social situations not colour tasks, not generalised to real life situations
What is the agentic state?
Mental state- more likely to obey an order
See yourself as having no personal responsibility for your behaviour
Acting on behalf of an authority figure
Agentic shift- seeing ourselves as responsible (autonomous state) to as an agent carrying out another’s wishes
Evaluate the agentic state as an explanation for obedience
Fails to explain individual differences, Milgram’s study 65% obeyed but many didn’t, some personality types more susceptible to agentic state than others, limited explanation
Milgram support, range of people asked to predict how far they would go before refusing, 65% obeyed to 450V, supports ideas of ppts obeying due to shifting to the agentic state
Real-life case research not explained by agentic state- Nazi Police shot civilians in Poland despite being told they didn’t have to, obeyed without fully shifting to agentic state
Describe the legitimacy of authority as an explanation for obedience
More likely to obey people who we perceive to have real authority over us
Justified by individuals position of power within a social hierarchy
Amount of social power held by authority figure
Through appearance and manner- more likely to obey due to respect and trust
Power to punish
Evaluate legitimacy of authority as an explanation for obedience
Many participants still obey when researcher lacks legitimate authority, Bickmans obedience in someone in run down office, must be other reasons for obedience
Variations of Milgram’s study , more likely to obey in Yale university as it is prestigious 65% than run down office 48%, obey more when we perceive figure with more authority
Explains how obedience leads to war crimes- researchers say My Lai Massacre (504 civilians killed by US Army) to do with power as asked to unquestionably follow orders from commanding officers
Explain social change as a role of social influence
Whole societies change views and behaviours= minority-majority influence
1) Drawing attention to the issue- showing commitment, media attention
2) Consistency- diachronic and synchronic
3)The snowball effect- minority influences more and more until it reaches a tipping point and becomes majority
4) Changes of laws- petitions for keeping abortion legal
4)Majority influence- conformity for normative
Social influence- desire to be liked and accepted to avoid being seen as socially deviant
What are the ways to resist social influence (locus of control)
Assigning blame of behaviour
Scale of internal to external
Internal= blame yourself, responsible- less likely to resist as feel guilty
External= blame others, behaviour is luck- more likely to resist (blame authority figure)
What are the ways of resisting social influence (social support)
Pressure to conform is strongest when….
group is unanimous
Pressure to obey authority is powerful when everyone else obeys
however, Dissenter acting as a model for how to resist and the consequences of their actions helps others to do the same
If consequences are limited then more confidence to not obey
Frees up others to act on their own conscience than agents
Define conformity and the types
Changing our views or behaviours in response to an influence of a larger group.
Compliance- superficial type, agree publicly with internal private beliefs, changing behaviours to be accepted and avoid disapproval
Identification- moderate type, conform as identify with group, mostly privately accept views, purpose is to publicly be accepted as a group member
Internalisation- deepest level, accept the group norm, both publicly and privately, conversion, long lasting change
Explain the research into conformity to social roles
Social roles- behaviours expected by an individual who occupies a given social position or status
Zimbardo- 24 young healthy men randomly assigned to prisoners or guards in stimulated prison environment
Unexpectedly arrested, blindfolded, strip searched, given uniform and number
Had to be terminated after 6 days- extreme behaviours
Guards= given wooden clubs, handcuffs, keys, reflective sunglasses, became sadistic, suffering on prisoners
Prisoners= blindly obedient, dehumanised
Zimbardo= rigid authority figure as prison superintendent
Normal people can do evil things due to situational forces
Evaluate conformity to social roles research
High degree of control
Control over who was selected
Zimbardo ruled out individual differences
High population validity
High demand characteristics
May be play acting
Researchers correctly guessed how ordinary people would act
Reduces internal validity
Evidence against from BBC replication 2006- prisoners took control due to shared social identity - we don’t automatically conform
Ethical issues- ppts not fully aware of possible harm, Zimbardo knew it should have stopped earlier
Prac apps- used to help prevent brutality in prison-like contexts, Abu Ghraib, greater awareness
Explain the research into obedience
Milgram- Germans are different hypothesis
40 American male volunteers, Yale uni, confederates involved
Confederate always learner, participant always teacher
Ppt instructed by authority figure to electrically shock confederate- if incorrect response on memory test
15V- 450V
If they refused, told to continue
Obedience rate of 65% to 450V
Germans not different and all capable of blind obedience to unjust orders
Evaluate Milgram’s research into obedience
Easy to replicate
Lab exp
Standardised but could change variables like uniform
Could test variables affecting obedience
Lacks ecological validity
Artificial setting - does not reflect real life obedience
People respond to authority figures differently in real life
Findings not generalised
Bickman asked passers by in NYC to lend money to stranger for parking meter, 49% obey in street clothes vs 92% in security guard uniform
High degree of control, control extraneous variables, Milgram could control answers given by “learner’, tests variables
Demand characteristics- if ppts realised set up was fake eg obeying due to thinking the shocks were fake
What is the dispositional explanation of obedience?
Dispositional= individuals own personal characteristics and traits
Authoritarian personality- susceptible to obeying people in authority, rigid in beliefs, result of strict parenting during childhood
Adorno- measured by F-scale (fascism) 30 questions assessing 9 personalities, tested 2000 Americans
Those with higher scores, conscious of status, excessive respect to higher status
Conclusion- those with authoritarian personality, obedient to authority, need for strong leaders to enforce traditional values
