Social Influence Flashcards
Who came up with the type of conformity?
Kelman
What are the 3 types of conformity?
compliance
conformity
internalisation
compliance
the individual agrees externally but keeps personal opinion
temporary behaviour change to fit in and avoid rejection
compliance usually due to NSI
indentification
behaviour and private values change only with the group, membership valued
internalisation
personal opinions genuinely change to match the group
permanent change due to ISI
ISI
ISI → driven by a desire to be correct, we look to the majority on guidance on how to behave when correct behaviour is uncertain, assuming others have more knowledge. Permanent
what are the explanations for types of conformity?
ISI and NSI
NSI
driven by a desire to be liked to avoid rejection, the individual wants to appear ‘normal’ and part of the majority. Temporary
Variables affecting conformity ( Asch ) A01
- Asch (1951) 8 to 10 male college students completed line judgement task
- however was deception, only one was a pp
- in 12 of the trials confederates gave wrong answer
RESULTS
75% conformed at least once, 5% all 12 trials
VARIATIONS
social support → conformity dropped 5.5%
task difficulty →increased conformity due to ISI
explanations for conformity (A03)
✅ Asch research supports NSI, 75% conformed once despite answer being unambiguous → conformed due to fear of rejection
✅ The variation of task difficulty increased uncertainty of correct answer and we’re more likely to rely on the answers of others. Supports the ISI explanation
❌ Difficult to separate the influence of NSI and ISI. People might be unaware of their motivations and make seek for social approval and accurate info and the same time
Variables affecting conformity ( Asch ) ( A03 )
✅ lab experiment → high internal validity → controlled and standardised → can be replicated → found similar results
❌ lacks temporal validity → high conformity rates due to cultural conditions → people less likely to conform now → replication with British students , less confirmed
❌ lacks population validity → all male, american, college →can’t generalise, lacks external validity
❌ethical issues → deception, can’t give informed consent
Conformity to social roles: Zimbardo (A01)
- Fake prison, basement of Stanford, 24 male students volunteers, random allocation to roles
-prisoners give realistic arrest, deloused, no name
-pps quickly adapted to their assigned roles
-guards became sadistic and dominant, prisoners, submissive and stressed
-study stopped on the 6th day
CONCLUSION
supports situational explanation to social influence rather than dispositional
personality tests showed there was no difference between personalities
social influence: Zimbardo ( A03 )
❌ lacks ecological validity → can’t generalise → lacks external validity, Zimbardo took part, experimenter bias
❌ ethical issues → harm to pps (humiliated/starved) and deception
❌lacks population validity → all american, male, volunteer, students, small sample size, cant generalise, low external validity
Explanation for obedience: Milgram ( A01 )
- Milgram argues in the right situation, people show obedience to authority figure
- Agentic state → state of mind where person believes they have no responsibility for their actions, they’re acting as an agent of the authority figure
- shift from autonomous state ( feeling personally responsible) to agentic state is called ‘agentic shift’
-Legitimacy of authority → through agents of socialisation, we learn our position in the social hierarchy and who to obey. This can be identified through uniform
Milgram’s experiment and situational variables affecting obedience ( A01 )
- 40 male volunteers, told it was a ‘memory test’
- pps given ‘teacher role’ introduced to ‘professor’ in lab coat
- learner strapped to chair with electrodes attached
- shocks ranged from 15-450V
- after 315V, ‘learner’ made no noise, suggesting they were unconscious
- if learner refused 4x the study would end
FINDINGS
100% - 300V 12.5% stopped at 300V 65% - 450V
proximity : professor gave instructions on phone → obedience dropped to 21% no agentic shift
location : rundown building → obedience dropped 48% due to lack of LOA
uniform : normal clothes → obedience dropped 20% due to lack of LOA
Milgram’s experiment and situational variables affecting obedience ( A03 )
❌ ecological validity: lab conditions → can’t generalise → lacks external validity
❌ low population validity → only 40 males → not representative → low external validity
❌ ethical issues → deception → can give fully informed consent → harm of participants
✅ although they were told they couldn’t leave they weren’t physically restrained. Follow up found 84% were glad they participated
Dispositional explanation for obedience: Authoritarian personality ( A01 )
- Adorno argued high obedience in WW2 was dispositional due to authoritarian personality unlike Milgram’s who said certain situational factors were capable of extreme obedience
-people with authoritarian personality may have had their obedient personalities shaped by strict parenting with harsh parenting, they displaced hostile feelings onto minority groups - people with authoritarian personality have respect for people of higher status and have fixed stereotypes for people
- Adorno’s F scale - measures authoritarian personality
dispositional explanation for obedience : authoritarian personality ( A03 )
✅supporting evidence : used pps from Milgram’s experiment, people ho were fully obedient and went all 450V scored higher on the F scale - higher score on authoritarianism
❌correlation does not imply causation: no variables were controlled or manipulated, hard to draw conclusions that harsh parenting caused authoritarian personality, possible more factors are involved e.g. education level
explanations of resistance to social influence : social support ( A01 )
👥social support : seeing others resist social influence reduces pressure to conform/obey increases the individuals confidence
explanations of resistance to social influence : social support ( A03 )
✅ research support: variation of Milgram’s study, ‘teachers’ provided with social support, obedience rate dropped from 65% to 10%
❌ even in Milgram and Asch’s variations with social support some people still obey (10 and 5.5%) suggesting there may be dispositional factors such as locus of control and authoritarian personality involved
explanations of resistance to social influence : locus of control ( A01 )
locus of control: (Rotter) personality scale from high internal to high external
LOC refers to the factors people believe control their actions
internal LOC - sees themselves as responsible, this enables them to resist social influence
external LOC - sees factors such as luck and date as controlling their lives so they feel like they don’t have power to change their lives therefore they’re less able to resist social pressure
minority influence ( A01 )
initial rejection the views/beliefs of majority and turn to the views of minority
**consistency ** -minorities are more effective if members of the minority repeat the same message over time
commitment - if minors makes a sacrifice for their view, shows their genuine and committed
flexibility - consider commuter arguments and alternatives
