Social Influence Flashcards
Definition of compliance?
Shallowest form of conformity. When we go along with a group for approval. Change in behaviour publicly but not privately. Results in superficial change and behaviour stops as soon as group pressure ceases.
Definition of identification?
Has elements of both compliance and internalisation as we accept the group norms as true but purpose of doing so is to be accepted as a member. We go along with a group that we value and want to become a part of. Not true conformity as we only go along with the group to gain approval. Also happens when conforming to social roles.
Definition of internalisation?
Genuine acceptance of group norms both publicly and privately. This is true conformity.
What is informational social influence?
A cognitive process with the desire to be right and not the odd one out. Happens in ambiguous situations where most people believe the majority is correct so go along with them to reduce uncertainty. High likelihood that the individual believes the opinions they are adopting. It results in internalisation.
What is normative social influence?
Is an emotional process with the desire to be liked and act as others without looking foolish. Motivation is to be accepted, respected and liked by others and the easiest way to do this is by agreeing. Happens when you don’t know the norms in a social setting with people you know so conform to gain social approval. Privately, beliefs don’t change and conformity depends on groups prescience so results in compliance.
What are the brief negatives of Asch’s study?
- Artificial situation so low ecological validity and unable to be generalised.
- Involves deception which is unethical as the naive participants were unaware that the others were confederates.
What is the brief positive of Asch;s study?
Was in a lab setting so variables were strictly controlled which makes it easier to replicate and minimises extraneous variables.
What is the evaluation about lack of temporal validity for Asch?
And the double about individual differences?
It has been argued that Asch’s study lacks temporal validity due to the high conformity rates at the time due to McCarthyism. For example, research by Perrin and Spencer replicating Asch found virtually no conformity by science and engineering students but similar levels in students on probation. Therefore, it is unclear whether the mixed results are due to a lack of temporal validity or individual differences.
Individual differences may be due to affiliations like gender. For example, Asch only used male participants and Neto 1995 suggested that women are more conformist, possibly because they are more concerned with social relationships and being accepted. Additionally, the participants were only from the USA which is an individualistic culture where they care more about themselves than social groups. This is supported by Smith and Bond’s 1998 research suggesting that individualistic cultures do in fact have lower conformity rates. Therefore, this suggests that conformity levels may sometimes be even higher than Asch found and his research may be limited to American men.
What is the evaluation about artificial task and situation for Asch?
A limitation of Asch’s study was that the task and situation were artificial. Participants knew they were in a study so may have responded to demand characteristics. Additionally, the line task was trivial so there was no reason not to conform and the naive participants were in a ‘group’ but not a group we would find in every life. Therefore, the results were unable to be generalised to everyday situations where conformity has more important consequences, and where we interact and communicate in groups much more directly.
What is the evaluation for cultural differences for Asch?
Research suggests that there are important cultural differences in conformity and we might therefore expect different results depending on the culture in which a study takes place. For example, Smith et al 2006 analysed results from Asch type studies across different cultures and found the average conformity rate was 31.2%. However, differences were found between different cultures. For example, individualistic cultures has 25% whereas collectivist cultures had 37%. Markus and Kitayama 1991 suggested that higher rates of conformity arise in collectivist cultures as they view conformity more favourably as a form of social glue that binds communities together.
What are the 3 things that affect conformity and explain them?
- Group size: the higher the number of people in the majority, the more likely an individual will conform. However, there is an upper limit where adding more members does not increase conformity which is 7 for Asch. Conformity increased by 30% from 2-3 confederates.
- Unanimity of majority: in the presence of a dissenter/non-conformist, conformity decreases whether the answer is right or wrong as the naive participant is able to behave more independently. When all confederates gave the same answer, conformity was 33% but dropped to 5.5% when one confederate gave the right answer.
- Task difficulty: Conformity increases when the task is more difficult. It is made more difficult by making the comparison and stimulus line closer in length. ISI plays a big role as the situation is ambiguous so we are more likely to look to others for guidance.
What are social roles?
Social roles are the part that people play as members of a social group. With each new social role you adopt, you change your behaviour to fit the expectations that you and others have of that role.
Which type of conformity represents conforming to social roles?
This type of conformity represents identification where a person changes their beliefs publicly and privately but only whilst in a particular social role.
What is the aim of Zimbardo’s SPE?
To see whether the brutality of prison guards was due to sadistic personality or created by the situation.
What is the conclusion of Zimbardo’s SPE?
Zimbardo’s research suggests that situational factors rather than individual personality traits can drive behaviour, as people considered normal and healthy before the experiment according to the psych evals, engaged in abusive or submissive behaviours as a result of their assigned social roles and the prison environment. This showed the power of the situation and social roles on the influence of normal people’s behaviour.
What is the evaluation for SPE being criticised as androcentric?
The Stanford prison experiment is often criticised for being androcentric. This is because it only focuses on male participants. The problem with this is that Zimbardo believed the results could be generalised to everyone as male behaviour was seen as the ‘norm’. However, it has been suggested that women conform differently to men. For example Jenness 1932 did a study to see whether individual judgements of jelly beans in a jar were influenced by group discussion. Participants were given a second chance to change their estimate after a group discussion and he found that men changed their estimate by 256 jelly beans and women changed theirs by 382. Therefore, this shows that due to beta bias, the results of the SPE may be unable to be generalised to the wider public.
What is the evaluation for Zimbardo lacking internal validity due to demand characteristics?
Some researchers argue that Zimbardo’s study lacks internal validity due to demand characteristics. Banuazizi and Movahedi 1975 presented some details of the SPE to a large sample of students who had never heard of it. The vast majority correctly guessed that the purpose of the experiment was to show how ordinary people when assigned the role of guard or prisoner would act like real guards or real prisoners. They also correctly predicted that the guards would act in a hostile and domineering way and the prisoners would act passively. Furthermore, the participants were being paid $15 a day so may have felt bound to complete the experiment even after being told that if opted out, they would still be paid. This suggests that the behaviour of Zimbardo’s prisoners and guards may not have been due to the ‘compelling prison environment’ but instead, to the powerful demand characteristics within the experimental situation itself.
What is the evaluation for Zimbardo’s study being unethical?
Zimbardo’s study is often criticised for being unethical, despite following the guidelines of the Stanford University’s ethics committee who approved it. For example, 3 participants had to be removed early due to signs of psychological distress, and prisoners were found to be engaging in anxious behaviours such as rocking back and fourth. Zimbardo acknowledges that perhaps the study should have been stopped sooner as so many participants experienced emotional distress. To make amends for this, he carried out debriefing sessions for several years afterwards and concluded that there was no negative long lasting effects. Due to these findings, Zimbardo’s study has been unable to be exactly replicated but similar future studies have been able to take greater steps to minimise potential harm to participants for example Reicher and Haslam.
What is the evaluation for Zimbardo’s study explaining Abu Ghraib?
Zimbardo argues that the conformity to social roles effect can be used to explain events in Abu Ghraib, a military prison notorious for the torture and abuse of Iraqi prisoners by US soldiers in 2003+4. As in the SPE, Zimbardo believes that the guards committing the abuse were victims of situational factors that made it more likely. Factors such as little training, unrelenting boredom, and no accountability to a higher authority were present in both the SPE and AG. Zimbardo concludes that these factors combined with the opportunity to misuse the power associated with the role of the guard led to the abuse of prisoners in both situations.
What was Milgram’s aim?
To see why the Germans were willing to kill Jews in the holocaust. He thought Germans were evil and that Americans wouldnt follow such orders.
What was Milgram’s procedure (8)?
- 40 males from a newspaper ad ranging from unskilled to professional
- Took place at Yale as a controlled lab experiment
- They were paid $4.50 for just turning up
- Naive participants were all given the role of teacher and confederates were given the learner.
- Teacher and learner were in separate rooms and the experimenter instructed the teachers to shock the learner every time they got a word wrong going up in voltage each time.
- Went from 15 volts to 450
- At 300 v the learner would pound on the wall and then stop responding.
- The experimenter had 4 prompts increasing in pressure: 1. Please continue 2. The experiment requires that you continue 3. It is absolutely essential that you continue 4. You have no other choice you must go on.
What were the results of Milgram’s study? (
- 65% went up to the full 450V and all continued to 300V.
- Participants were observed to show signs of extreme stress such as biting lips, groaning, trembling, digging their nails into their palms.
- 3 participants had full blown uncontrollable seizures.
- All were debriefed after and 84% they were glad to have taken part and 74% said they learnt something of personal importance.
- The results were shocking to everyone as people like psychologists, students and colleagues said that only 1% of Americans would go beyond 150v.
What are the three factors that Milgram found affect obedience?
Proximity, location and uniform
What happened in Milgram’s proximity variation?
What happened in touch proximity variation?
What happened in remote instruction proximity variation?
The teacher and learner where in the same room and obedience rates dropped from 65% to 40% as the teacher was able to experience the learners pain more directly.
The teacher had to force the learner’s hand onto the shock plate. Obedience rates dropped again to 30%.
The proximity to authority figures also affects obedience. Experimenter left and gave instructions over the phone and obedience dropped again to 21%