social influence Flashcards
what is conformity? (social influence)
- a change in a person’s behaviour or opinions as a result of real or imagined pressure from a person/groups of people
name & define the 3 types of conformity according to Kelman (1958) (social influence)
- COMPLIANCE: temporary & superficial, an opinion is publicly agreed with but privately disagreed with. The behaviour/opinion stops when group pressure stops
- IDENTIFICATION: temporary & moderate, an opinion is publicly & privately agreed when with a group we want to be part of, but no longer agreeing when away from the group
- INTERNALISATION: (conversion), permanent & deep, the acceptance of a view changes both privately & publicly even when not in the presence of others
what is normative social influence according to Deustch & Gerard (1955)? (4) (social influence)
- the desire to be liked
- an individual will conform because they think that others will approve & accept them
- this often leads to compliance as an individual may go along with a majority in order to seek social approval without changing their views
- emotional process
what is informative social influence according to Deustch & Gerard (1955)? (4) (social influence)
- the desire to be right
- an individual will conform because we look to others whom we believe are right on how to behave (especially in novel & ambiguous situation)
- therefore in order to be correct, we don’t just comply with the group but also change our views to match theirs (internalisation)
- is a cognitive process as it is to do with what we think
evaluate normative social influence (social influence)
supporting research:
- when Asch (1951) interviewed his Ps, some said that they conformed because they felt self-conscious about giving the correct answer & were afraid of disapproval. When Ps wrote their answers down, conformity fell by 12.5%
- this is because giving answers privately meant that there was no normative group pressure
- this shows that at least some conformity is due to a desire not to be rejected by the group for disagreeing with them (ie NSI) & demonstrates how people change there behaviour/opinions in order to fit in
individual differences in NSI:
- NSI doesn’t predict conformity in every case
-nAffiliators = people who are greatly concerned with being liked by others
- McGhee & Teevan (1967) found that students who were nAffiliators were more likely to conform
- this shows that NSI underlies conformity as some people do it more than others
- there are individual differences in conformity that can’t be fully explained by one general theory of situational pressures (therefore it can’t be generalised)
evaluate informational social influence (social influence)
supporting research:
- Lucas eat al (2006) found that Ps conform more often to incorrect answers they were given when maths problems were difficult
- this is because when the problems were easy Ps knew ‘in their heads’, but when they were hard the situation became ambiguous
- Ps didn’t want to be working & so relied on the answers they were given
- this shows that ISI is a valid explanation of conformity because the results are what ISI would predict
supporting research counterpoint:
- it is often unclear whether ISI or NSI if present during research studies
- Asch (1955) found that conformity is reduced when there is one other dissenting participant (refuses to take part)
- dissenter may reduce the power of NSI (because they provide social support) or reduce the power of ISI (because they provide an alternative source of social information). Both interpretations are possible
- therefore it is hard to separate ISI & NSI, & both processes probably operate together in most real world conformity situations
outline the aim, procedure & findings of Asch’s 1951 baseline study (social influence)
- AIM: to investigate to what extent an individual will conform to the opinion of others, even if the answer is unambiguous/obvious. He also investigated the effect of group size, unanimity & task difficulty on conformity (influence of compliance & NSI)
- PROCEDURE: lab experiment, 123 male Ps, naïve Ps were put into a room with 7 confederate Ps (already knew aim). The confederates had already agreed on their answers prior to the experiment (unknown to NPs). NPs were always sat in the last/penultimate seat & everyone has to state out loud what they thought the correct answer was (was always obvious). There were 18 trials & confederates gave wrong answers on 12 critical trials. Also had a control condition with no confederates (only NPs)
- FINDINGS: in control group (no group pressure to conform) less than 1% of Ps gave the wrong answers on (proves it was easy). Ps conformed with the clearly incorrect answers on in 37% of the critical trials. Over the 12 trials, about 75% of Ps conformed at least once, not 25% didn’t conform at all. When interviewing Ps after the experiment, most said they knew the answer was wrong but conformed to fit in with the group. This demonstrates that they were showing compliance, which can be explained by NSI
how did group size, unanimity & task difficulty affect Asch’s 1951 baseline study? What did he do to investigate them? (social influence)
- GROUP SIZE: varied the number of confederates in a group from 1-15. Found a curvilinear relationship, conformity increased but only up to a point. 1 confederate = 3% conformity, 2 confederate = 12.8% conformity, With 3 confederates, conformity was 31.8%, more made little difference as the conformity rate levelled off soon after. Suggests that most people are very sensitive to the views of others as just 1 or 2 confederated was enough to sway opinion
- UNANIMITY: introduced a confederate that disagreed with the others. Genuine P conformed less often in the presence of a dissenter. Rate decreased to less than a quarter when the majority was unanimous. Genuine Ps acted more independently even when the confederate disagreed with them. (conformity decreased by 5%). Suggests that the influence of the majority depends on it being unanimous & that non-conformity is more likely when the majority unanimous view is weak
- TASK DIFFICULTY: increased the difficulty of the line-judging task by making the stimulus & comparison lines more similar (made it harder to see the difference). Conformity increased (maybe because the situation became ambiguous as it got harder). Suggests that in ambiguous situations we look to others for guidance & assume they are right (means we are influenced by ISI)
state 2 strengths of Asch (1951) (social influence)
research support:
- has support from other studies on the effect of task difficulty on conformity
- e.g. Lucas et al (2006) asked their Ps to solve ‘easy’ & ‘hard’ maths problems. They were given 3 other answers (not accurate)
- the Ps confirmed more when the problems were harder
- this shows that Asch was correct in claiming that task difficulty effects conformity
highly replicable
- Asch used standardised procedures (e.g. the same rules & instructions)
- this is important as it means we can test for reliability, which (if high) improves credibility
state 4 weaknesses of Asch (1951) (social influence)
gender bias:
- study was conducted on 123 male Ps
- research has shown a difference in conformity between genders
- e.g. Neto (1995) found that women are more conformist than men because they care more about social relationships
- this is important as it means the results can’t be generalised to the wider population, which causes low external validity
artificial situation & task:
- Ps knew they were in a study & may have acted how they thought they were expected to (demand characteristics), which could influence accuracy
- identifying lines is trivial & is unlikely to occur in real life, therefore it is artificial
- study was conducted in a lab so the setting is also artificial
- this means that the findings do not generalise to real world situations (especially where the consequence of conformity is important)
research support counterpoint:
- Lucas et al’s study found that conformity is more complex then Asch suggested
- Ps with high confidence in their maths abilities conformed less in hard tasks than those with low confidence
- this shows that an individual-level factor can influence conformity by interacting with situational variables (Asch did not research the roles of individual factors)
ethical issues:
- naïve Ps were deceived as they thought confederates were genuine
- deception makes it hard to obtain informed consent has Ps don’t know what they are agreeing to
- Asch conducted his study in 1951 (before BPS guidelines were published) so had no ethical guidelines to follow
- it can be argued that deception is necessary to avoid influence of demand characteristics
outline the aim, procedures, findings & conclusions of Zimbardo et al (1973) (stanford prison experiment) (social influence)
- AIM: to investigate why guards in American prisons behaved so brutally towards prisoners during prison riots in the 1970s
- e.g. was it because they had sadistic personalities or was it their social role that created the behaviour
- PROCEDURE: mock prison set up in the basement of the Stanford University psychology department, 24 male student volunteers selected after being deemed ‘emotionally stable’, all Ps given $15 a day for their participation, told it was a study on prison behaviour & it would last for 2 weeks, Ps randomly assigned role of either ‘guard’ or ‘prisoner’, prisoners ‘arrested’ at their homes & guards instructed, Ps given uniform & behavioural instructions in order to encourage them to conform to their social roles
- FINDINGS: guards took roles seriously & treated prisoners harshly, prisoners rebelled after 2 days (e.g. ripped up uniforms & swore at guards), guards constantly harassed prisoners (e.g. waking them up in the middle of the night for head counts), guards created opportunities to enforce rules & give out punishments, after rebellion stopped prisoners became anxious & depressed
- after less than 36 hours 1 P was released as he was showing signs of psychological disturbance, 2 Ps released on the 4th day, 1 P went on a hunger strike & was put in the ‘hole’ (solitary confinement) as punishment, guards behaviour became more aggressive & brutal, researchers who came to observe were shocked by what they saw, study was stopped after only 6 days
instead of the planned 14 - CONCLUSIONS: social roles appear to have a strong influence on an individual’s behaviour, guards became brutal & prisoners became submissive, these roles were taken on easily by Ps, even volunteers who were involved to perform specific roles (e.g. prison chaplain) behaved as if they were in an actual prison instead of a psychology study
outline these key details of Zimbardo et al’s 1973 Stanford prison experiment: uniforms, rules of guards, treatment of prisoners on arrival, behaviours of both guards & prisoners (social influence)
uniforms:
- GUARDS: military uniforms, wore sunglasses so printers couldn’t see their eyes (decreases their ability to act humanely), had extra items for discipline like a wooden bat & handcuffs, increased feelings of power over the prisoners
- PRISONERS: long & loose white gowns (dehumanising/humiliating), caps to cover their heads, were identified by numbers & their names were never used
- uniforms created de-individuation (loss of personal identity) in guards & meant they would be more likely to conform to their perceived social role (they separated themselves from their role & were able to act inhumanely without feeling bad about it)
rules of guards:
- no physical violence could be used
- guards have total power over the prisoners
- once a prisoner had left, the study was supposed to end (it didn’t)
treatment of prisoners upon arrival:
- blindfolded to confuse them
- stripped of their clothes & deloused (change of degradation/humiliation from guards)
- dressed in their gowns & sent to their cells
behaviours of guards:
- woke prisoners up in the middle of the night night to disrupt their sleep & disorient them
- became frustrated by rebellion & so took it out on prisoners
- acted coldly & aggressively towards prisoners
- put prisoners into solitary confinement as punishment
- humiliated prisoners (e.g. made them sing while exercising)
behaviours of prisoners:
- swore at guards
- prisoner 8612 started showing signs of psychological distress & was released from the study early
- prisoner 819 wanted to leave but felt that he couldn’t as he would be a ‘bad prisoner’ (he was eventually released)
- prisoner 416 went on hunger strike & was punished by the guards (put in the hole)
- no solidarity/alliance between prisoners (turned on eachother to protect themselves
state 4 positives of Zimbardo et al’s 1973 Stanford Prison experiment (social influence)
control over variables:
- good control over variables
- e.g. sample of Ps —> emotionally stable people were chosen & randomly assigned to the role of either guard or prisoner (random allocated eliminates researcher bias)
- this way researchers could rule out individual personality differences as an explanation for the findings
- if guards & prisoners acted very differently (but were in those roles by chance) the behaviour must be because of the role itself
- this degree of control increased the internal validity, do we can be more confident in drawing conclusions about the influence of roles on conformity
lack of realism counterpoint:
- Mark McDermott (2019) argues that Ps did behave as if the prison was real to them
- e.g. 90% of the prisoner’s conversations were about prison life (the discussed how they couldn’t leave SPE until they had finished their ‘sentences’
- prisoner 416 later explained that he thought the prison was real, but run by psychologists instead of the government
- this suggests that SPE did replicate social roles of prisoners & guards in a real prison (further gives the study high internal validity)
quantitatively data:
- the study produced statistics as well as observable behaviour
- numerical data is easy to analyse
- results can also be put into meta analysis which can make them more reliable/credible
- numerical data is also easier to draw conclusions from
demand characteristics:
- demand cs helped Ps to conform to their social roles
- it can be argued that his helps make the results more accurate/valid
- however, it can also be argued that Ps going out of their way to ‘impress’ Zimbardo may have negatively impacted the results & caused further harm to prisoners (ethical violations)
state 4 positives of Zimbardo et al’s 1973 Stanford Prison experiment (social influence)
lack of realism:
- SPE did not have the realism of a true prison
- Banuazazi & Movahedi (1975) argued that the Ps were play-acting rather than genuinely conforming to a role
- Ps performances were based on stereotypes of how prisoners & guards were supposed to act
- e.g. one of the guards claimed he based his role off a film character
- this also explains why the prisoners rioted
- gender bias —> Ps were only young males so results can’t be generalised
- this suggests that the findings tell us little about conformity to social roles in actual prisons
exaggerates the power of social roles:
- Zimbardo may have exaggerated the power of social roles to influence behaviour (Fromm 1973)
- only 1/3 of the guards actually behaved in a brutal way
- another 1/3 tried to apply the rules fairy
- the rest actively tried to help & support the prisoners (they sympathised, offered cigarettes & reinstated privileges - Zimbardo 2007)
- most guards were able to resist situational pressures to conform to a brutal role
- this suggests that Zimbardo overstated his view that SPE Ps were conforming to social roles & minimised the influence of dispositional factors (e.g. personality)
alternative explanations:
- Zimbardo’s explanation for the guards (& prisoners) behaviour was that conforming to social roles comes ‘naturally’ & easily
- being given the tolerable of guard means that Ps will behave more brutally because that is the behaviour expected of someone with that role
- Reicher & Haslam (2006) criticised the explanation because it doesn’t account for the behaviour of the non-brutal guards
- they used social identity theory (SIT) to argue that the ‘guards’ had to actively identify with their social roles to act as they did
ethical violations:
- Zimbardo took on the role of ‘prison superintendent’ as well as being the lead researcher
- this meant that he was overly involved, which led to ethical violations
- e.g. the Ps right to withdraw wasn’t made clear. Instead, when one tried to leave he was told to stay & act as a ‘snitch’ for Zimbardo
- other violations include deception, protection from harm (physical & mental), informed consent & privacy
- as a result, SPE is seen as unethical & therefore the results may not be widely respected
- however, the BPS ethical guidelines weren’t’ published until 1985 (SPE took place in 1973_, so there were no set guidelines for Zimbardo to follow
- also, SPE paved the way for ethical evaluations for all future psychological research
what is obedience? (social influence)
- a direct form of social influence where an individual follows an order given to them
- this order often comes from someone with authority or higher status
outline the aim, procedure, findings & conclusion of Milgram’s 1963 baseline study (social influence)
AIM:
- he was inspired by the Holocaust & wanted to understand why the German people obeyed Hitler
PROCEDURE:
- recruited 40 male Ps by advertising for volunteers to take part in a memory study at Yale University
- Ps were given $4.50 for participating
- when they arrived they met an experimenter (confederate P) who wore a lab coat. They also met Mr Wallace (another confederate P)
- experimenter explained that the study was about the effects of punishment on learning
- drew lots to see who would be ‘learner’ & ‘teacher’ (naïve P was always the teacher)
- Mr Wallace went to a different room (couldn’t be seen) where he said he had a heart condition
- generator used went up in 15 volt increments from 0V - 450V & had verbal descriptions to show the severity (shocks weren’t real)
- teacher delivered a shock every time Mr W made a mistake on a paired associate word task (increased shock with each mistake)
- Mr W mainly have rwrong answers & received fake shocks in silence until 300V (very strong shock)
- at 300V Mr W kicked up against the wall & went silent. He cried out in pain & complained his heart was bothering him but then went silent
- is P asked to stop experimenter gave prompts to keep them going (‘please continue’, ‘the experiment requires you to continue’, ‘it is absolutely essential you continue’, ‘you have no choice you must go on’). Only if P asked to stop after all 4 prompts was study stopped
FINDINGS:
- 65% of Ps went to the maximum of 450V
- 100& of Ps went up to 300V
- Milgram observed Ps sweating, trembling, stuttering, biting their lips, grumbling & digging their nails into their hands. 3 Ps had ‘full blown uncontrollable seizures’
CONCLUSIONS:
- all Ps were willing to obey orders from authority even when they may harm another person
- concluded that we are all likely to obey authority, even if they ask us to do unreasonable things
outline 2 strengths of Milgram’s 1963 baseline study (social influence)
research support/temporal validity:
- Blass (1999) carried out statistical analysis of all of Milgram’s obedience studies & studies conducted by other researchers between 1963 & 1985
- later studies found no more or less obedience than the studies conducted earlier
- Burger (2009) found levels of obedience 6A almost identical to those found by Milgram 46 years earlier
- this supports Milgram’s original findings about obedience to authority & demonstrates that the findings were not just due to special circumstances
low internal validity counterpoint:
- Sheridan & King (1972) conducted a study using a procedure like Milgram’s
- Ps (all students) gave real shocks to a puppy in response to orders from the experimenter
- despite the real distress of the animal, 54% of men & 100% of women gave what they thought was the fatal shock
- this suggests that the effects in Milgram’s study were genuine because people behaved obediently even when the shocks were real
outline 4 limitations of Milgram’s 1963 baseline study (social influence)
low internal validity:
- Milgram’s procedure may not have been testing what he intended to
- Milgram reported that 75% of his Ps said they believed the shocks were genuine
- Ome & Holland (1968) argues that Ps behave as they did as they didn’t really believe int he set up & were ‘play-acting’
- Perry (2013) confirmed this
- she listened to tapes of Milgram’s Ps & reported that only half of them believed the shocks were real
- 2/3 of these Ps were disobedient
- this suggests that Ps may have been responding to demand characteristics, trying to fulfil the aims of the study
alternate interpretation of findings:
- Milgram’s conclusions about blind obedience may not be justified
- Halsam et al (2014) showed that Milgram’s Ps obeyed when the experimenter delivered the first 3 verbal prods, however every P who was given the 4th prod disobeyed
- according to social identity theory, Ps in Milgram’s study only obeyed when they identified with the scientific aims of research
- when they were ordered to blindly obey an authority figure, they refused
- this shows that SIT may provide a more valid interpretation of Milgram’s findings, especially as Milgram himself suggested that ‘identifying with the science’ is a reason for obedience
ethical issues:
- Ps were deceived
- e.g. Ps thought the allocation of roles was random, but it was fixed
- also thought the shocks were real
- Milgram dealt with this by debriefing Ps
- protection from harm - 3 Ps had ‘full-blown, uncontrollable seizures’
- Ps couldn’t be fully protected, which Milgram was obligated to do (questions integrity of his research)
- ethical guidelines had not yet been published (1985)
gender bias:
- Milgram only used male Ps (40)
- there was no way to see if obedience rates differed between genders
- sample population was unrepresentative of the target population
- results can’t be generalised to the wider population (lacks external validity)
