Social Influence Flashcards
Describe social influence
Implicit/explicit pressure that causes a temporary/permanent change in another person’s attitudes / behaviour
Define obedience
When a person changes their attitudes or behaviour due to an explicit order. It occurs within a hierarchy.
Define conformity
When a person changes their attitudes/behaviour due to implied pressure from another. It occurs amoungst people with equal status. Theres 3 types: compliance, identification and internalisation
Explain Kerman’s 3 types of conformity and mention who supported each.
- Compliance:
- short-term change in public behaviour but private remains the same. Occurs easily to temporarily fit in or avoid group conflict. Only lasts while the person is in the presence of the majority group. It’s the shallowest form as its only public change.
-supporting research evidence = Asch - Identification:
-lasting change in public and private attitudes to show group membership. Occurs moderately easily to show a sense of belonging to the majority group. Only lasts while they “identify” with the majority group. It’s a deeper form of conformity causing genuine and lasting change in public and private attitudes.
-supporting research evidence = zimbardo - Internalisation:
- permanent change in public and private attitudes as they agree with the majority group. Doesn’t occur easily as it involves meaningful change. Deepest form of conformity as it involves genuine and permanent change in public and private attitudes
-supporting evidence = Jenner’s
Describe the explanations for conformity
Dutch and gerrard suggested a 2-process theory of conformity:
Normative social influence (NSI):
-when we conform to be liked or accepted. Change public behaviour as worried about rejection/social exclusion. It’s emotional, not cognitive. NSI may lead to compliance as it results in short-term change in public attitudes and behaviours that only remains in the presence of the majority group.
Informative social influence (ISI):
-we conform because we want to be correct and believe others hold the correct answer. Change public and private attitudes and behaviours. Often occurs in ambiguous situations. ISI is cognitive as its to do with how you think. It’s most closely linked to internalisation as it results in long-term change no matter the presence of the majority group.
Discuss jenness’ ISI study
- 101 students made private & independent estimations of the number of white beans in a jar. This was an ambiguous task. Participants then discussed their estimations in a large group, before agreeing upon a group estimation. They then made a second private & independent estimation. The difference between the first and second private estimation was recorded.
- it was found the second private estimation moved closer to the group estimation. It was also found females were more likely to conform.
-to conclude, jenness provides strong research evidence for internalisation: participants changed their estimation as they publicly and privately agreed, as shown by the changed 2nd private estimation. It also provides research for ISI: participants changed their estimation because they wanted to be right and believed others held the correct answer. The task was ambiguous so participants felt uncertain.
Evaluate research into ISI from Jeness
- a limitation of research conducted by Jeness is that it has low ecological validity. This is when findings cannot be generalised to a variety of real-life settings, decreasing external validity of research. This is because the procedure used a highly controlled laboratory setting and asked participants to make a judgement that’s not like everyday situations. Therefore findings may tell us very little about real life conformity.
-another is that it has low population validity which is when findings of a study cannot be successfully generalised to wider populations, decreasing external validity of the research. This is because the procedure only used 101 psychology students meaning it’s difficult to apply the finding beyond this small sample.
Discuss research conducted by Asch into NSI
-123 American students were informed they were taking part in a ‘visual perception’ study. They were tested in groups of 7-9 people, where only 1 was a ‘genuine’ participant and others were confederates. Participants faced a screen and asked were asked to judge 3 comparison lines to see which was the same as a standard line. All those taking part had to make their judgment publicly and in order, where the genuine participant was either last or penultimate. Although the task was unambiguous , confederates were instructed to answer “wrong” on 12/18 trials. Participant conformity rate was recorded by the number of times they gave the obvious wrong answer.
-They found they conformed in 36.8% of trials. 5% in every trial, 75% in at least one. Interviews after showed they knew they were giving the wrong answer to fit in.
-aschs’ research showed evidence for complaince as they showed short-term public changes in their behaviour , even though they privately disagreed, in order to avoid conflict. Asch’s research shows evidence for NSI: they showed short-term public changes to be liked as they feared rejection/social exclusion.
Evaluate research into NSI by Asch
-a limitation of the research into NSI from Asch is that its historically biased. This is when the research is affected by the time in which it’s performed. For example when factors such as how important conformity is to people will affect their behaviour. This is because Petrin and Spencer found just one conforming response in 396 trials when the study was conducted using engineering students, but similar levels to Asch when youths on probation were studied. This suggests conformity isn’t consistent over time and setting and more likely perceived costs of not conforming are high. In these cases, in 1950’s America when individuality was less accepted r in the behaviour of youths wanting to demonstrate good behaviour.
-another is that it has demand characteristics which is when participants are likely to perceive the demands of the study, decreasing the internal validity of the research as behaviour is more likely to be unnatural. This is because the task was trivial and artificial meaning there was no reason for not conforming and the participants were asked to behave individually without direct interactions of groups in everyday life. Therefore the findings may tell us very little about conformity in situations where the consequences of conformity are important and where we interact with groups more directly.
- a final limitation is that it has low population validity which is when findings only apply to certain groups, lowering external validity. This is because Asch studied men and Neto has argued women may be more conformist because theyre more concerned about social relationships. Furthermore, Smith and Bond suggest conformity rates are higher in collectivist cultures as theyre more concerned with the needs of the group, compared to th individualist cultures of the US where Asch conducted his research therefore the results only apply to Northern America men.
Evaluate the 2-way process model of ISI and NSI
- a strength of the two-way process model is that it has strong research to support it, from Lucas who found Participants were more likely to conform to answers to more difficult questions. Similarly, Asch found participants were afraid of disapproval. This shows people conform in situations where they don’t feel they know the answer (ISI) or because they want to fit in (NSI)
- a limitation of the two-way process model is that individual differences affect conformity; people who care more about being liked will be more affected by NSI than others. These are known as affiliators and McGhee and Teevan found people with greater need for social relationships, were more likely to conform. This suggests that desire to be liked explains conformity in some people more than others, and therefore the two-process model may not fully explain conformity.
-another is that its overly simplistic as it states conformity is either due to NSI or ISI however its often both involved. This is because Asch found conformity was reduced when one of the confederates said the obviously right answer so didn’t conform. This reduced effect of NSI and ISI. Therefore it’s not always possible to be sure whether conformity is due to ISI or NSI and it may. Be the 2 processes don’t operate independently of each other .
Describe Asch’s variations affecting conformity
- Group size:
- in the original there were 6-8 confederates. He then used , 1,2,3,4,8,10, and 15 and found 1=3% conformity rate, and 4+ = 35% and further increasing group size didn’t change beyond his original findings. He concluded that conformity rates increase as group size increases as participants experience more social influence. - Unanimity:
- confederates answered unanimously in his original but in the variation, 1 confederate gave the correct answer. With this, conformity = 5%. He concluded it shows social influence is reduced when the supportive confederate gave the correct answer. This gave them freedom to show more independent behaviour. - Task difficulty:
-in the original it was unambiguous so in his variation, the lines were more similar in length. With this, conformity was as high as 57% concluding this is because participants experienced ISI as well as NSI doubling social influence and increasing conformity due to the task being ambiguous.
Discuss zimbardos research into social roles
-zimbardo conducted research using a mock prison and volunteer sampling at Stanford university. He randomly assigned 24 male participants to roles of prisoners or guards once they’d been assessed as emotionally stable and without a criminal record. They were deindividualised and guards were instructed to keep prisoners under control without physical violence. Zimbardo acted as head of the prison and the observation was planned for 14 days. They found participants quickly conformed to their social roles. Guards psychologically harmed prisoners with sleep deprivation and degrading cleaning. After 2 days prisoners rebelled ripping uniform but then became passive showing significant signs of stress. Some prisoners were released for this and 1 went on a hunger strike. The experiment was stopped after 6 days.
-zimbardos research provides evidence we conform to social roles as they conformed to behaviours and attitudes of ‘prisoners or guards’. It also provides evidence for identification as participants changed their behaviour to show membership to either the prisoner or guard group. They displayed change in public and private attitudes only while identifying with the group.
Evaluate zimbardos research
- a strength of zimbardos mock prison research is that it had high control over extraneous variables. This is when the procedure doesn’t include uncontrolled variables that could affect the dependent variable lowering internal validity. E.g. in the selection of participants, only those who were emotionally stable could take part and they were randomly assigned role of prisoner or guard. They rules out individual differences in personality as an explanation of the findings and behaviour therefore must be due to the situation they were in. This increases internal validity so we can be confident in making conclusions about influences of social roles on behaviour.
- however a limitation is that it has demand characteristics which is when participants perceive the demands of the study and act accordingly. Buanuazizi and Movahed argued participants were play-acting rather than conforming. Their behaviours were based on stereoptypes. However zimbardos data showed it was very real to participants and 90% of conversations were about prison life. One believed the prison was real but run by psychologists, increasing internal validity as it was real to them.
-a final limitation is that it lacks research support. Reacher and Haslam found very different results when the partially replicated the study, in that the prisoners eventually took control. They used social identity theory to explain it, the guards failed to develop a shared social identity as a group whereas prisoners did and rejected the limits of their role. This suggests behaviour and brutality of guards in zimbardos study were due to a shared social identity as a group, and not conformity to social roles.
Describe Milgram’s research into obedience
- milgram used 40 male participants recruited from a local newspaper. They were told they were taking part in a ‘memory and learning’ experiment. They were individually greeted by the ‘experimenter’ (a confederate in a white lab coat). The participant was paired with a middle aged man (another confederate) called Mr Wallace. They were told they were randomly assigned the role of teacher or learner but really the participant was always the teacher. They watched the learner get strapped into an electric chair, and instructed to teach them word pairs. If the learner made an error they had to administer an electric shock starting from 15v and increasing by 15v each time up to a lethal maximum of 450v. The teacher was given a shock to show them it was real and then placed in a different room where they could hear but not see the confederate. The learner had a set of pre-recorded responses which were mostly incorrect and as the shocks increased the learner became more dramatic. If the teacher objected the experimenter responded with verbal prompts.
-it was found 65% obeyed to the max 450v and 100% up to 300v. Participants continued to obey the authority figure despite arguing with him to stop.
-concluding people show very strong levels of obedience to an authority figure even when orders go against moral codes.
Evaluate Milgram’s research into conformity
- a strength of Milgram’s research is that the artificial relationship between the ‘experimenter’ and the ‘teacher’ wasn’t different to obedience in wider settings. This is because it simply involved a person of lower status following instructions of someone of an authority figure. Howling and Bickman found in their own field experiments, participants were highly likely to obey simply because someone was perceived to have legitimate authority e.g. nurses following instructions of a doctor they thought was real. Therefore although the experiment was artificial, the process can be generalised to wider settings.
- a limitation is that his research has low internal validity; meaning the study didn’t accurately measure what it intended to measure. This is because critics such as Orne and Holland argued participants behaved how they did because they perceived the shock as fake. Perry’s research supports this. This suggests that the study may. Not have been measuring obedience, as participants would have found it easier to obey the instructions knowing there were no genuine consequences. But in interviews after the study, 70% of participants said they thought the shocks were genuine. Sheridan and Kings research supports this as they found people behaved the same way when they repeated it with real shocks.
-another limitation is that participants may not have been showing obedience to the experimenter, but instead social identification. This is when a person agrees with a group they identify with, in this case the experimenter and the scientific purposes of the study and so they behave accordingly. When obedience rates fell, it was because they identified less with the science and more with the victim; Hallam and Reicher looked at how the participants behaved with prompts and argue the first 3 all appeal for the participant to help and identify with science. The fourth demands obedience and each time it was used the participant stopped. This means the study may not tell us about obedience, but how we show social identification. The participants didn’t administer the shocks due to obedience, rather due to identification with the scientist.
-
Discuss Hoffling’s research into obedience to authority
-nurses were telephoned by either an unknown ‘doctor’ or ‘nurse’ and asked to administer a dangerous dose of an unknown drug. This broke hospital rules as nurses need signed authorisation from a known doctor to do so. 21/22 nurses obeyed the unknown doctor but none obeyed the nurse. People show strong levels of obedience, even in everyday settings with high mundane realism. Authority is only likely to an authority figure as they only obeyed a doctor
Evaluate Hoffling’s research into obedience to authority
- a strength of Hoffling’s research into obedience to authority is that it has high external validity due to its high mundane realism, which is when the procedure seems life-like. This is because nurses were ordered to administer a dangerous dose of an unknown drug in their own working environment, making it very easy to generalise the findings to an everyday real life situation.
-another is that it has high control over variable, making the study high in reliability. This is when the procedure of a study can be easily replicated and consistently produces similar findings. This is because variables like the script in the call and type of drug prescription were all standardised. This means the study can be easily replicated and therefore, is reliable.
Discuss explanations for obedience
—> situational explanations for obedience: situational factors suggest an external explanation caused by the environment. E.g. uniform, proximity and location
—> dispositional explanations for obedience: factors suggest an internal explanation caused by a person’s personality characteristics. E.g. authoritarian personality
—> social-psychological explanations for obedience: looking at the influences of others on an individuals behaviour. E.g. agentic state , legitimacy of authority.
Discuss Adornos dispositional explanation for obedience
Authoritarian personality = a cluster of personality traits making it more likely for someone to obey. These include:
-> Highly conventional views on society, family, sexuality and education. Right-wing political beliefs
-> aggressive and hostile, especially to those of a lower status, minority groups and those who choose an unconventional lifestyle.
-> unquestioning respect for authority and belief in the importance of power, meaning they’re more likely to obey.
It’s tested by the F-scale: this measures the authoritan personality, 30 questions to assess conventional beliefs ,hostility and respect for authority.
Harsh parenting including physical punishment can cause an unquestioning respect for authority and creates anger.
Evaluate Adornos dispositional explanation for obedience
- a strength of Adorno’s dispositional explanation for obedience is that there’s convincing research evidence to support it from Elms and Milgram who found that the most obedient participants in Milgram’s original study scored higher on the F-scale. This shows that obedience is more likely in people who have an authoritarian personality as their childhood experiences gives them a strong respect for authority so they’re more likely to obey. This suggests the authoritarian personality is a valid explanation for obedience. However, this link shows correlation, not causation, so there could be a 3rd factor involved e.g. Human and Sheatsly found obedience and authoritarian personality may be caused by a lower level of education. As such, we cannot conclude having an authoritarian personality causes obedience.
-a limitation is that the f-scale is politically biased. Christie and Jahoda suggest that the f-scale measures tendency towards right-wing ideology. They point out that extreme right-wing and left-wing philosophies have a lot in common and both insist on complete obedience to political authority. This suggests that Adorno’s theory isn’t a complete explanation for obedience to authority as it doesn’t explain obedience to left-wing authoritarianism.
-another is that it uses correlation, not causation. This means its not possible to conclude having an authoritarian personality causes high levels of obedience. Adorno measured many variables and found significant correlations between them. E.G. they found that authoritarian personality was strongly correlated with prejudice towards minority groups. However, this only shows there is a relationship between those variables, not that one is causing the other; Adorno cannot claim harsh parenting causes this personality type.
Discuss situational explanations for obedience (milgram’s variations)
-uniform:
-> people are more likely to obey if the authority figure is wearing a uniform as its a symbol of authority which increases the authority figures social influence. In Milgram’s original study, the experimenter wore a white lab coat as a symbol of authority. In a variation where the experimenter was called away at the start and role was. Taken over by someone in everyday clothes, obedience rate dropped to 20%
-location:
->people are more likely to obey in high status locations, with high levels of perceived authority as it adds to the authority of the authority figure, increasing obedience. In a variation where Milgram conducted his experiment in a rundown building conformity dropped to 47.5%
-proximity:
->people are more likely to obey if the authority figure is close by as it makes them close enough to exert their authority. In a variation, teacher and leaner were in the same room and obedience dropped from 65% to 40%. In another, the teacher has to force the learners hand down onto a shock plate and obedience further dropped to 30%. In a remote instruction variation, the experimenter left the room and gave instructions over the phone and obedience dropped to 20.5%
Evaluate situational explanations for obedience
- a strength of Milgram’s research into uniform as an explanation for obedience is that it has convincing evidence to support it from Bickman who found 92% of pedestrians obeyed an order when a confederate was dressed in a guards uniform, compared to 49% when dressed in a jacket and tie. This shows obedience is most likely when the uniform of the authority figure increases their social influence , suggesting uniform is a valid explanation for obedience.
-another is that his findings have been replicated in other cultures, suggesting his research is valid across cultures and applies to women too. E.g. Miranda et al found over 90% obedience in Spanish students; however Smith and Bond note the majority of replications have been carried out in western societies , which aren’t culturally dissimilar from the USA . This means it is inappropriate to conclude that Milgram’s findings about the effect of situational variables on obedience apply to people globally.
-finally, a limoitation of Milgram’s variations is that they lack internal validity, which is when the procedure doesn’t measure what it intended to measure. Orne and Holland suggested many o the participants would have worked out that the procedure was faked. E.g in the variation where a member of the public replaced the experimenter, even Milgram recognised this was so contrived that the participants are likely to have worked it out. Therefore it’s unclear whether the results shown are due to obedience or to participants seeing through the deception and act accordingly.
Discuss social psychological explanations for obedience
Agentic state:
-Milgram became interested in obedience following the trial of Adolf Eichmann for war crimes, he was in charge of death camps and his defense was that he was obeying orders. This led milgram to suggest obedience to authority occurs because an individual doesn’t take responsibility and instead believe theyre acting on behalf of someone else.i.e theyre an agent. In this agentic state, people are more likely to obey so they give up free will as they believe theyre not responsible for their own actions. They feel anxiety when theyre wrong but feel they have to obey.
Autonomous state:
-the opposite of an agentic state- a person feels free to behave how they wish to and feels responsible for their actions. When someone perceives someone else as a figure of authority, an agentic shift occurs where the individual defers to the person in authority. Milgram argues people stay in the agentic state to minimise the affect of their behaviour.
Legitimacy of authority:
-people are more likely to obey if the person giving orders has a high level of legitimate authority as it increases their social influence, which people respect as they fear punishment if they don’t obey. Most societies are structured in a hierarchal way , meaning people in certain positions have authority over others e.g. police officers. It’s legitimate because it’s agreed by society and we accept this because it allows society to function smoothly as we trust those with power to inflict punishment appropriately. We learn this via our upbringing and problems only occur when legitimate authority becomes destructive.
Evaluate social psychological explanations for obedience
- a strength of agentic state as an explanation for obedience is that it has convincing evidence to support it from Milgram, who interviewed participants after his experiment and found that they didn’t feel responsible for their actions as they believed they’re were working on the experimenters behalf. For example, one said “well youre responsible.. i hope you know what you’re doing”. Showing obedience is most likely when people enter the agentic state as they feel theyre carrying out someone else’s work, suggesting it’s a valid explanation for obedience.
-a strength of legitimacy of authority as an explanation for obedience is that it can explain real-life obedience. Kerman and Hamilton have suggested that the my lai massacre during the Vietnam war can be explained by the authority of the US army. As the army has authority recognised by the US law, soldiers assume their orders are legal, even if they seem barbaric. Suggesting, legitimacy of authority is a valid explanation for obedience.
- a strength of legitimacy of authority as an explanation for obedience is that it illustrates cultural differences in obedience, studies show that countries differ in the degree to which people are obedient to authority. E.G. Kilham and Mann found only 16% of Australian participants gave the max voltage shock but Mantel found 85% of German participants did. Showing authority is likely to be perceived as legitimate in some countries more than others, reflecting the structure of different societies and how children are raised to perceive authority figures. Findings like this from cross-cultural research increase external validity of the explanation.
- a limitation of agentic state as an explanation for obedience is that it doesn’t explain all research findings; e.g. it doesn’t explain why some people didn’t obey. It also cannot explain findings from Hofflings study; the agentic state explanation would suggest that the nurses in the study should have shown anxiety as they placed the responsibility on the doctor because they were aware of their role. However, this was not the case suggesting that agentic state can only account for some situations of obedience.
