Social Influence Flashcards
Three types of conformity
Compliance
Internalisation
Identification
Explanations for conformity
Normative social influence- social approval
Informative social influence - the need to be correct
Evaluation of NSI and ISI
+Asch (1951)- comparison to standard line, 37% of the trials participants conformed, post interview participants said that they wanted to be in line with majority
+Jenness(1932)- estimating bean number in a jar, do task alone than in a group- found that people gave roughly same estimates
+sherif (1935)- small spot of light projected onto a screen, visual illusion, tested in threes
-ingratiationsl conformity is a third explanation (motivated by need to gain favour)
-dispositional factors
Variables affecting conformity- Asch (1951)
Comparison of 3 lines to standard line.
Group size- 3%,13%,32%
Unaniminity- dropped from 37% to 5% and 9%
Task difficulty- conformity rose
Social roles
Behaviours expected from an individual due to the social position or status they occupy.
Zimbardo (1973)
-controlled observation
-mock prison in the basement of Stanford uni
-24 young men recruited via volunteer sample
-paid 15 £ a day
-randomly assigned
-prisoners unexpectedly blindfolded and strip searched by real police force
-three prisoners in each cell
-three meals a day
-guards wore uniform, night sticks, whistles and glassses
Guards teamed in 3s and worked 8 hr shifts
Findings of Zimbardo
On the second day the prisoners tried to rebel, ripped off their prisoner numbers and barricaded themselves in their cells, to which the response by the guards was to spray them with carbon dioxide gas. The guards forced the prisoners to do repeated press ups and pushed into urinals and left in the pitch black cupboards for hrs on end
The study was ended just after six days
Obedience
Behaving as instructed by an authority figure
Milgram (1963)- study into obedience
Placed an advert on the newspaper asking for male participants to take part in study for effect if punishment on learning (volunteer sample)
40 participants invited
Greeted by a man in a white lab coat
Introduced to a 47 year old Mr. Wallace
Upto 450-V
Labelled with, slight shock, moderate shock, Danger: sever shock. And XXX
Please continue, the experiment required that you continue, it is absolutely essential that you continue, you have no choice but to continue
Findings of Milgram (1963)
100% shocked upto 300V, whilst 65% shocked upto 450V
Situations variables affecting obedience, Milgram (1974)
-proximity, same room-40%, press Mr Wallace’s hand onto metal plate- 30%
-location- alternate setting of Bridgeport connecticut- the obedience fell to 48%
-uniform - Bickman (1974)- 90% listened to the guard, whilst only 50% listened to the civilian
Situational explanations of obedience - Agentic State
Agentic State- Milgram argued that people obey orders nor because of their own personality, but because of the situation they are in, pepper go through an age tic shift from autonomous state( making independent decisions) to an age tic state (follow the orders unthinkingly and perceive themselves as only an instrument of an authority figure). They believe that the authority figure is responsible for their actions (diffusion of responsibility) and do not feel guilt for their actions. This occurs because people believe that authority figures are trustworthy, orders are reasonable at first before becoming aggressive (gradual commitment), people are psychologically protected by the consequences of their actions (buffers)
-an explanation for Agentic state is to maintain a positive self image
Evaluation of Agentic State
+participants in Milgrams experiment less likely to shock Mr Wallace if in close proximity
-without buffers people shouldn’t be able to go into Agentic state however the case of Major wilhelm trapp conducting a massacre of pple in Josefew suggests otherwise
Situational explanations into obedience- Legitimate authority
Claims that we recognise our own and others position in the social hierarchy and obey those above us, because we recognise the right of authority figures to issue a demand, increased by visible symbols like uniform and can be dependent in the location
Evaluation of legitimate authority
+ hofling(1966)- nurses listed to dr smith are were ready to administer 20mg of Astroten to patients, over a phone call (95% listened)
+Bickman (1974)
-does not explain why some people are able to resist orders
Dispositional explanation of obedience: authoritarian personality
Adorno (1950)- authoritarian personalities are much more likely to obey to authority figures: servile towards higher, hostile towards lower, preoccupied with lower, inflexible, conformists, likely to categories people as us or them, dogmatic. Develop due to rigid parenting which involved physical punishment,creating feelings of hostility which are displaced on those weaker and can not fight back, can’t take out their anger on parents because they fear them so instead repress the anger and act in a submissive way. Measured on a Fascims scale
Evaluation of authoritarian personalities
+miller (1975)- people scoring higher on f scale are more likely to electrocute self on a arithmetic problem
+altemeter (1981)- increasing level of shock given over learning task
-situation variables
-less education people are more likely to have an authoritarian personality and also be more likely to obey
Situation explanations to resistance to social influence e
Social support theory: argues that when one person refuses to conform/obey it makes it far more likely that other will also resist social influence and refuse to compromise or beg
Non conformity- ally, breaks unanimity of the group so people start to think that there are equally legitimate ways of thinking, makes others feel more confident in their decision na duetted able to stand up to the majority
Disobedience- disobedient role model, when a person refuses to obey it challenges the legitimate y of the authority, social support is associated with the diffusion of responsibility, the more people who disobey the less severe the consequences are likely to be
Evaluation of social support theory
+ Milgram (1974) - only 10% shocked mr Wallace when there was another confederate who acted as a disobedient role model
+ Asch (1951)
-in the original studies of both Milgram and Asch people still refused to obey/conform despite not having social support
Dispositional explanations of resistance to social influences: locus of control
Rotter (1966)- a persons personality determines whether they will conform, it is therefore a dispositional explanation. A persons locus of control refers to the extent to which they believe they have control over their own behaviour. It is measured on a dimension from internal to external. People with internal locus of control are less likely to conform or obey because:are more likely to be leaders than followers, less concerned with social approval, are more self confident and believe that they have control of their own circumstances
Evaluation of locus of control
+Oliner and Oliner- interviews 406 Germans, hid Jews in 1930/1940 because they had a internal locus of control
+Milgram (1974)- gave a questionnaire to measure locus of control after the situation and were more likely to have a internal locus of control
-on a test to assess locus of control, non confirms and conformers did not score much differently but it was found that confirmers are less assertive (a more important factor)
Minority influence
It occurs when very persuasive small groups change the way majority think and behave, Moscovici (1985) considered minority influence to lead to conversion (when a individual changes their private beliefs and views because of minority influence)
Minority is more convincing when..
They are committed, when members of minority show that they are dedicated to their beliefs by making sacrifices (augmentation principle), taking risks and being inconvenienced, so implies that minority is not acting out of self interest
They are consistent, this is when the minority repeats the same message, synchronic and diachronic consistency, drawing attention to the minority view
They are Flexible, when a minority shows that they are willing to listen to the others opinion, negotiate and compromise, this makes the majority more likely to listen more seriously, a flexible minority is seen as reasonable and thus more persuasive
Evaluation of Minority Influence
+Moscovici (1969)- 172 American females, placed in a group of 6 (2 were confederates), asked whether the slides are green or blue (36 slides). In inconsistent condition confederate said 12 out of 36 slides were blue (1.25%), whilst in the consistent condition said that the slide was green for all 36 (8.2%)
+Nemeth- flexibility in a simulated jury situation
-most of the studies are based on lab experiments and use artificial tasks (ecological validity, controlled environment)
