Social Influence Flashcards
Compliance
Public conforming, privately disagree
Internalisation
Public acceptance, private acceptance
Identification
Public and private conformity to fit in
Normative Social Influence
Desire to be liked
Informational Social Influence
Desire to be right
Linkenbach and Perkins 2003- NSI
When exposed to a message that peers didn’t smoke, a majority were less likely to take up the habit.
Schultz et al 2008- NSI
When exposed to a message that 75% of hotel guests reuse towels, usage reduced by 25%.
Jenness 1932- ISI
Glass bottle filled with 811 white beans. 101 psychology students estimated how many there where. Participants divided in groups of three and asked to discuss and provide a group estimate. Nearly all participants changed their initial judgement. Males changed by ~256, while females changed by ~382. Highlights the desire to be right.
McGhee and Teeran 1967- nAffilitators- NSI
Those who care about being liked more than others. Students high in need to affection more likely to conform.
Asch Students vs Normal- ISI
Students less conformist (28%) than other participants (37%)
Perrin and Spencer 1980- ISI
Found little conformity with science and engineering students.
Asch 1956- NSI
123 male undergraduate students in the USA tested. Participants were seated with covert confederates and told to look at 3 different lines. Took turns to say which was identical to a standard control line. In 12/18 of the trials, confederates gave a wrong answer. Conformity was 33%. 25% never conformed, half conformed for more than 6 times, while 1 in 20 conformed on all. When confederates answered the correct answer only 1% were mistaken. The majority still privately disagreed.
Asch Evaluation
+ Reliable/ standardised
+ Practical applications- link to smoking deterrent/ hotels
- Ethics/ deception
- Low ecological validity
- Ungeneralisable sample
Group Size on Asch’s Study
Little conformity when 1 or 2 confederates present, but jumped to 30% with 3. Further increases didn’t change the results much.
Campbell and Fairey 1989- Asch
Subjective questions require a larger group, objective questions require one or two.
Unanimity of Group on Asch’s Study
When supported, conformity dropped to 5.5%. When confederates gave an alternative answer from the majority conformity was 9%.
Difficulty of Task on Asch’s Study
Making differentiations smaller caused higher conformity.
Lucas et al 2006- Asch situational differences
Situational differences and individual differences (e.g. self efficacy) are important to being important.
Zimbardo
Mock prison set up in the basement of Stanford University. 24 screened male volunteers (paid $15/day) were given the role of prisoner or guard. Prisoners were arrested at their home and taken to the prison. They were stripped, deloused, given an ID and a uniform. Guards had a uniform, reflective glasses, clubs and whistles. They were not allowed to cause physical harm. Over the trial they became more and more abusive toward prisoners, forcing them to clean toilets and do other degrading activities. Some forgot it was a study and even displayed conformity in private. Five were released early due to extreme reactions and the experiment was terminated after 6 days due to ethical concerns.
Zimbardo Evaluation
- Haslam and Reicher’s recreation found directly oppositional results. Guards refused to assert their dominance and the prisoners took control.
- Individual differences
- Ethics- deception, protection from harm
- Ecological validity
- Ungeneralisable sample
Milgram Obedience Study
Controlled observation- 40 male participants paid $4.50. Conducted at Yale University. Participants were introduced to Mr Wallace, a confederate, and an experimenter in a uniform. The naive partipant was assigned teacher and were told Mr Wallace had a heart problem. They were given a shock test to show that the machine was ‘real’. They then had to ask various questions from an alternative room and shocked Mr Wallace each time he got the question wrong, the voltage increasing by 15V each time. A tape recording was played so participants were immersed. At 300V Mr Wallace kicked the wall and went silent. If they tried to leave the experimental had 4 set prompts, each more authoritative. They were then fully debriefed. 65% went to the full 450V, 100% went to 300V. Behaviour was recorded and many were severely distressed.
Proximity on Milgram’s Study
When both teacher and learner were in the same room obedience was 40%, when forced to place the learners hand on the plate obedience was 30%, when orders came from over the phone obedience 21%.
Location on Milgram’s Study
When in a dilapidated office block only 48% went to 450V.
Bushman 1988- Uniform
Female researcher dressed as a police woman, a business executive and a beggar and asked for change for parking. 72% obeyed her as a police officer, 48% as a business executive and 52% as a beggar.
Diana Baurind 1964- deception
“deception is a betrayal of trust that could damage the reputation of psychology”
Orne and Holland 1968- deception
People distrust the experimenter as they know the purpose of the study may be hidden.
Perry 2012- Milgram
Many participants were skeptical.
Taketo Murata (assistant on Milgram’s study)
Divided participants into doubters and believers, latter more likely to disobey.
Mandel 1998- Milgram ecological validity
Polish soldiers given the option to kill or do something else by a commander. All killed even when in close proximity with victims and away from commander.
Milgram Evaluation
- Ethics!
- Ungeneralisable sample (40 men)
- Low ecological validity
- The Obedience Alibi
Blass 1999- Milgram Gender
Recreated the study with gender variations and found little differences.
The Obedience Alibi
Mandel believe that Milgram’s study offered an excuse for evil behaviour, suggesting that the study paints Nazis as victims.
Agentic State
Do not rely on moral conscience/ lack responsibility
Autonomous State
Rely on moral conscience/ take responsibility
Binding Factors
Social etiquette that keeps people in agentic state, including fears of breaching commitment.
Legitimacy of Authority
Perception that someone is superior - linked with situational variables. Requires an institution- reputable = authority.
Lifton 1986- Nazis
German doctors at Auschwitz had a gradual and irreversible transition from normal doctors to Nazi doctors- contradicts agentic state.
Tarnow 2000- planes
Studied data from flight crashes and found excessive dependence on the captain’s orders and authority.
My Lai Massacre
US soldiers killed 100s of women and children when ordered to do so- blamed it on Commander.
The F Scale
Created by Adorno et al (1950) to measure components of the authoritarian personality. Statements were used that people would agree or disagree with to indicate whether someone had an authoritarian personality.
Authoritarian Personality
Rigid thinkers who obeyed authority. Enforced adherence to social rules and hierarchy. Raised by strict parents (physical punishment).
Elms and Milgram 1966- Authoritarian Personality
20 obedient and 20 defiant participants from Milgram’s study were selected. They completed an MMPI (personality test) and then the F Scale. They were then asked open questions about their parents and childhood. They found that the obedient were less close to their fathers and saw the experimenter as admirable and were more authoritarian.
Social Support
Difficult to go against the crowd because of the desire to be accepted. In Asch’s study the presence of an ally caused conformity to drop to 5.5%.
Locus of Control
People’s perception of personal control over their behaviour.
Internal LOC
We control our lives and what happens is a consequence of ability and effort. Independent.
External LOC
Determined by external factors and life is out of our control. Less independent.
Hutchins and Estey 1978- LOC
High internals can resist coercion from others better. The more intense the pressure, the bigger the difference in performance between internals and externals.
Twenge et al 2004- LOC
Americans are becoming more external and resistant to obedience- contradicting LOC
Allen and Levine 1971- social support
Two conditions- one had thick glasses giving invalid support, while the other had normal visions and valid support. Both reduced conformity but the second more. Ally = more resistant.
Stoltzfus 1996- Rosenstrasse- German women
Women in 1943 Germany refused to be threatened by guns- 2000 Jewish men freed.
Avtgis 1998- LOC
Meta analysis- found a relationship between LOC and persuasion
Elms and Milgram 1974- LOC
Background of disobedient participants- higher internal LOC.
Minority Influence
Conversion created by consistent committed and flexible approach by minority.
Consistency
Forces people to consider views.
Wood et al 1994- consistency
Consistent minorities more influential.
Commitment
More difficult to dismiss.
Flexibility
Allows for negotiation.
Mugny 1982- flexibility
Flexibility more effective than rigidity- allows for negotiation and more progress.
Moscovici et al 1969
172 American females- 4 naive participants and 2 confederates in each group. Shown a series of blue slides- colour varied in intensity. Confederates called slides green on 2/3 of the trials and blue on the rest. For a consistent trial, a control of 6 naive participants was also used. Participants were influenced to say green on 8%. Very little influence- after the study they were asked to sort coloured disks into green or blue. 3 unambiguously green or blue, 10 more ambiguous. In the consistent trial (confeds = all green) judged more green than the inconsistent trial (2/3 green, 1/3 blue). Initial influence on a private level.
Moscovici Evaluation
+ Standardised/ reliable
- Ungeneralisable sample
- Deception
- Low ecological validity
Nemeth 2010- consistency
Consistency causes the majority to think there must be some legitimacy behind the minority’s beliefs. Exposure to minority opinion causes people to be more interested.
Van Dyne and Saavedra 1996- MI
Dissent in work groups improved decision quality
Mackie 1987- MI
The minority opinion does not necessarily lead to greater processing, the majority are more likely to create greater message processing.
Nemeth and Brilmayer 1987- Flexibility
Studied the role of flexibility in a simulated jury where group members discussed compensation for a ski-lift accident. The confederate who wasn’t flexible didn’t influence anyone, but one who was flexible partially influenced the group.
Cognitive conflict
Conflict between current beliefs and minority beliefs
Augmentation Principle
Minority more committed if willing to suffer.
Snowball Effect
Initially small effect, but spreads as people consider issues.
Social Cryptoamnesia
Failure to remember origins of change.
Montana Social Norms Intervention
92% believed most people had previously been drunk driving. In reality, only 20% had. The message “MOST Montana young adults don’t drink drive” reduced prevalence of drunk driving by 13.7%.
Social Norms Interventions
Correcting misperceptions of a community about a behaviour whether than engage with it or now.
DeJong et al 2009- Social Change
Tested social norms marketing over 14 college sits with alcohol consumption. Surveys at the beginning of the study and after 3 years showed that people did not perceive student driving levels any lower and self reported alcohol consumption was also not lower.
Schultz et al 2007- boomerang effect
Boomerang effect can cause people engaging in less destructive behaviour to engage in more.
