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.
