Social Influence Flashcards
What is conformity?
The tendency to change what we do (behaviour) or think and say (attitudes) in response to the influence of others or social pressure. This pressure can be real or imagined.
What study did Sherif (1936) on on conformity?
He argued that people use the behaviour of others to decide what to do, especially when they are unsure or lacking in confidence about how to act. Each participant was taken individually to a dark room and asked to focus on a single spot of light- the autokinetic effect- and were asked to estimate how far the light moved and in what direction This is an example of an ambiguous task as the light does not actually move so there is no correct answer. In the second condition, each participant returned to the laboratory several days later to repeat the perceptual task. This time they were placed in groups of 3, comprising individuals with quite different estimates. Again, they were asked to estimate the distance and direction of the ‘moving light’ many times.
What was the result of Sherid’s (1936) study on conformity using the autokinetic effect?
They found that individuals changed their individual views and converged or agreed on similiar answers. Those with high estimates lowered them and those with low estimates increased their judgement, so by the third trail each individual group member produced a very similiar answer. Sherif noted that a ‘group norm’ was formed by members.
What is the autokinetic effect?
An optical illusion in which a stationary spot of light in a dark room appears to move.
What is a norm?
An unwritten rule about how to behave in a social group or situation that members accept as correct.
WHat study did Rohrer et al (1954) do on conformity?
Using sherif’s method, it was found that group norms formed in this experiment persisted, so that when participants were re-tested up to one year after, they continued to use the group answer rather than reverting to their own individual views. This shows the power of the group to influence behaviour even when the group no longer exists.
What did Kelman (1958) argue about conformity?
He argued that we can distinguish between three different types or levels of conformity:
- Compliance
- Identification
- Internalization
What is compliance?
It is the most superficial type of conformity. Here, the person conforms publicly with the views or behaviours expressed by others in the group but continues to privately disagree. Their personal views on the subject do not change. Compliance is also used to describe the process of going along with the requests of another person while disagreeing with them.
What is identification?
A deeper type of conformity, which takes place when the individual is exposed to the views of others and changes their view publicly and privately to fit in with them. In order to do this, the person identifies with the group and feels a sense of group membership. The person identifies to be like the person or group they admire. However, when identification takes place, the change of belief or behaviour may be temporary.
What is internalisation?
This is the deepest level of conformity. WHen the views of the group are internalised, they are taken on at a deep and permanent level, and they become part of the person’s own way of viewing the world or their cognitive system. People can internalise the views of a larger group (majoritiy influence) or of a small group or individual (minority influence). Internalisation is also known as conversion.
What is majority influence?
This takes place when a person changes their attitudes, beliefs or action in order to fit in with a larger group.
What is a confederate?
‘non participants’ working for the experimenter who have been briefed to answer in a particular way. The real participants believes the confederate is simply another naive participant.
What was the aims of Asch’s (1951) study on compliance?
Asch believed that conformity was a rational process in which people work out how to behave from other people’s actions. Sherif had found that people will change their views in an ambiguous situation when they are unsure of the ‘correct’ response. However, Ash wished to assess what would happen when people were confronted with a majority who were plainly wrong in their judgements, to see if they would change their own views to conform to the majority.
What was Asch’s (1951) study on compliance?
In the original study, he recruited 123 male students and asked them to take part in a ‘task of visual perception’. They were placed in groups of between 7 and 9, and seated around a large table. The experimenter showed them 2 cards, one of a standard line and the other showing 3 comparison line. Participants were asked to call out in turn which of the three comparison lines matched the standard line in length- to which there was an easy and obvious answer. There were a total of 18 trials for each group. However, Asch used confederates who were instructed to give the wrong answer in 12/18 trails (called critical trials). In six trails the gave the incorrect answer of a long line and, in six, a shorter line was incorrectly identified. The real participant was seated second to last or last around the table to they were exposed to the same wrong answer repeatedly before giving their own view.
What was the results of Asch’s (1951) study on compliance?
The overall conformity conformity rate (i.e. the number of trails in which naive participants gave the same wrong answer as the confederates) was 37%, just over 1/3
5% (1/20) of the participants conformed on every critical trial. These could be seen as the most conformist.
25% remained independent, they gave the correct answer on all 12 critical trails.
Why did the participants in Asch’s (1951) study on compliance claim they conformed?
After the study, Asch asked the participants why they had answered in the way they did. Some felt that their perceptions may have been inaccurate and doubted their eyes, whereas others knew that the rest of the group were wrong but conformed because they did not wish to stand out from the group. As the trails progressed, participants became increasingly anxious and self-conscious regarding their answers and some reported feelings of stress.
What were the strengths of Asch’s (1951) study on compliance?
1.The laboratory experiment was highly controlled, allowing the research to therefore establish cause and effect.
What were the weaknesses of Asch’s (1951) study on compliance?
- The artificial groups caused it to lack validity, as the people were amongst strangers, whereas in real-life situations conformity usually takes place when people are in groups with whom they have lasting ties.
- Asch’s research can be criticised as being situatied within a particular historical and cultural context- 1950’s America.
- Informed consent could not take place
- The participants in Asch’s study experienced stress and temporary discomfort, although it is unlikely that they suffered lasting damage.
What is minority influence?
This takes place when an individual or small group of people influence the majority or larger group to change their attitudes or behaviour towards an issue.
What are some real-life examples of minority influence?
- Galileo saying the earth travelled round the sun
- The suffragettes
- Gay rights compaigners
What experiment did Serge Moscovici (1969) do into minority influence?
Groups of 6 people were brought together, with 4 real (naive) participants and 2 confederates. They were shown a series of 36 slides of different shades of blue and asked to name aloud the colour of the slide. In one condition (the consistent condition), the confederates called all 36 slides green. Under this condition, just over 8% of real participants moved to the minority position. In the second (inconsistent condition) the confederates called 24-36 slides green and the move to the minority position was around 1.25 %. This study suggests that minorities should be consistent in order to exert influence.
What study did Clark (1989/99) carry out into minority influence?
They carried out a series of studies using the 1954 film 12 angry men, in which a single juror (the actor Henry Fonda) believes that a defendent is innocent of killing his father and sets out to convince the rest of the Jury that the young man is innocents. Participants were asked to play the roles of jurors and to make up their minds about the guilt or innocence of the young man.
What did Clark (1989/99) want to test in his study into minority influence?
- That the minority could exert its influence through the information presented and the persuasive nature of the minority’s arguments.
- That the minority could influence the majority through changes in behaviour or ‘defections’. Seeing other people change their view can have a powerful effect on the individuals own beliefs.
What happened in the first study Clark (1989/99) did on minority influence?
In the first study, he used 220 psychology students, 129 women and 91 men. They were given a 4-page booklet with a summary of the plot of 12 angry men. The book contained evidence for the defendent’s guilt (that he had purchased and used a rare knife, that he had been seen by two eyewitnesses). Clark varied whether ot not the students were given information about Henry Fonda’s defence and the counter-arguments. He found that a minority juror only led people to change their minds when they could provide counter-evidence to the charge. If they did not provide evidence, people did not move from the majority position.
What happened in the other study Clark (1989/99) did on minority influence?
Clark focused on the impact of behaviour, or people defecting to the minority position. Student participants were given a 3-page summary of the Jury’s discussion in the film. They contained the main counter-arguments presented by the minority juror (that the defendent had been able to produce an identical ‘rare’ knife, that the man could not have seen or heard the murder due to old age and disabilities so took too long to get to the window, the old woman wasn’t wearing glasses and had very bad eyesight). Clark presented different scenarios to the students in whcih he showed varying numbers of defectors from 1-6. Clark asked the students to use a 9-point scale to give their opinion of whether or not the man was guilty.
What was the results of Clark’s (1989/99) second study (defectors) on minority influence?
He found that participants were influenced by the number of defectors to the ‘not guilty’ position. When they heard the 4 or 7 jurors had changed their mind to agree with Henry Fonda they were more likely to adopt the ‘not guilty’ position themselves. 7 defectors had no more influence than 4. Clark argued that after 4 people have changed their minds,a ‘ceiling of influence’ is reached, meaning that more defectors do not produce more influence.
What are the strengths of Clark’s (1989/99) study on minority influence?
- The participants were not misled, and were subjected to little by way of stress or discomfort.
- The task was a simulation of a realistic situation in which social influence takes place- that of jury decision making
What are the weaknesses of Clark’s (1989/99) study on minority influence?
- The costs of making an error for participants in this research were much lower than in real-life jury service, where it is likely that decisions would be accompanied by much more soul searching. It is questionable how far the results of this role-play can be generalised to real-life jury service.
What study did Zimbardo (1971) do into identification (conformity)?
Working at stanford university he set up a mock prison in the basement of the university over the summer vacation. He wished to see if the brutality found in many American prisons at the time was a consequence of the personality of the guards or identification with the social roles in which they were placed. He recruited 24 male students from volunteers, selecting those who were most stable. He randomly allocated each student to the role of prisoner or guard. Prisoners were arrested at their homes early on Sunday morning, taken to the prison, search, de-loused and dressed in smock uniforms. THey were referred to by number. The guards were given uniforms, a ‘night stick’ or truncheon and dark glasses. They were instructed to keep the prisoners under control but to use no physical violence.
What was the results of Zimbardo’s (1971) study into identification (conformity)?
Within a day the prisoners rebelled and ripped of their numbers. THe guards responded by locking them in their cells and confiscating their blankets. As the experiment continued, the punishments imposed by the guards escalated. Prisoners were humiliated, deprived of sleep and made to carry out roll-call in the night. One, who went on hunger strike in protest, was force ded and locked in a dark cupboard. The prisoners rapidly became depressed and passive with some showing serious stress-related reactions to the experience. The role play, which had been intended to go on for 2 weeks, was called off after 6 days. The findings were interpreted as showing the power of the situation to influence conformity, and how ordinary, stable individuals can abuse power and behave in violent, anti-social ways if placed in a situation that facilitates this.
What study was carried out in 2006 by Stephen Reicher based on Zimbardo’s research?
A study carried out and broadcast on tv in a series called The Experiment. Volunteers responded to an advert in the national papers asking ‘How well do you really know yourself?’ and 15 males aged between 22-22 were selected from 500 applicants, following a battery of psychological tests. The were randomly allocated to roles of 9 prisoners and 6 guards and placed in a purpose-built prison at Elstree film studies.
What was the results of the study carried out in 2006 by Stephen Reicher based on Zimbardo’s research?
The guards were unwilling to impose authority over the prisoners who rapidly took control of the prison. Following the breakdown of authority in the prison, both groups attempt to establish a fair and equal social system. When this failed, a small group of prisoners took power in the prison and the experiment was called off. Reicher and Haslam have suggested that the findings of their study indicate that tyranny may become acceptable when law and order established by the group breaks down and groups experience feelings of powerlessness.
Why did Zimbardo (20060 argue against the results of Stephen Reciher’s study?
He argued that there are substantial differences between the two studies, notably that most of the prisoners in Reicher and Haslam’s study were much tougher and more streetwise in comparison to his own prisoners. In this ‘prison’ all participants wore microphones and were constantly aware that they were being filmed, rather than being observed through hidden cameras as in Zimbardo’s study.
What do the differences in Zimbardo’s and Stephen Reicher’s experiment suggest?
The finds indicate that research can only really be understood within the social and cultural context that it takes place. Social roles in the twenty-first century are less clearly defined and authority is seen in a different light from in the 1970’s.
How did Asch study how the size of the majority affects conformity?
Asch manipulated the size of the group of confederates carrying out the conformity trail by using 1,2,3,4,8,10 and 15 in the group.
- Conformity was low when there was one confederate and one real participant, with only 3% changing their view (Note, this condition in not majaroity influence)
- Conformity climbed to 33% when there were 3 confederates and 1 real participant. It did not increase much beyond this regardless of group size.
- In some conditions, a greater majority of 15 led to slightly lower levels of conformity, perhaps because participants became increasingly suspicious
- IN a final version, when one confederate agreed wih the real participant, conformity dropped dramatically, implying that people are able to to remain independent in a group situation when they have a small amount of support.
What did Stang (1976) demonstrate about conformity?
That conformity seems to be at its maximum with a three-to-five person majority.
What did Perrin and Spencer (1981) argue about Asch’s original study?
They argued that Asch’s classic studies of conformity reflected the social and historical aspects of 1950’s America where pressures to conform were very strong.
What study did Perrin and Spencer (1981) carry out into conformity in contrast to Asch?
25 years later, they replicated Asch’s study using the same line task with different groups. In one condition, 33 male students were used. In another, 20 male students who were on probation were used. In this condition, the confederates used were probation officers who supervised the young people and carried out the sentence. They also studied 16 young, unemployed West Indian men with a mean age of 19 years. The found striking differences in conformity to Asch ‘s original study and between the different groups involved.
What were the results of Perrin and Spencer’s (1981) study into conformity?
- IN male students not on probation, conformity was almost non-existent, with only 1/396 trials producing a conforming response.
- The young men who were on probation showed very similiar rates of conformity to those found by Asch, implying that conformity still takes place when people are placed with those who have power or authority over them.
- High rates of conformity were found when young West Indian participants were placed in groups with a majority of confederates who were white. Not that this study was carried out in 1981, where racial equality was much less well established in the UK.
What study did Lalancette (1990) carry out into conformity?
Using a modified version of Asch’s task, which is more ambiguous and has a less obvious answer, he used 40 students. Like Perrin and Spencer, he found no evidence of conformity and concluded from this that the conformity effect shown in Asch’s study was an ‘unpredictable phenomenon, not a stable tendency of human behaviour’.
What do the findings of Perrin and Spencer (1981), and Lalancette (1990) show in contrast to Asch’s original experience?
Together, the finding of these studies suggest that conformity is much lower in the Western world today than it was in the middle of the last century.
What are individualistic cultures?
Those where personal independence and achievement are valued. Examples of individualistic cultures are North America and Germany.
What are collectivist cultures?
Those where there is a high degree of independence between people. Examples of collective cultures are Japan, China and Israel.
What study id Smith and Bond (1993) carry out into conformity?
They carried out a meta-analysis of research, using Asch’s method for studying conformity in a number of different cultures. They found significant variations in the level of conformity in different places. Conformity was highest in Fiji, an island in the Pacific, at 58% on critical trails. The lowest rate of conformity was found in Belgium, at 14%. One explanation for this refers to the differences between individualist and collectivist cultures. Belgium is an individualist culture, whilst Fiji is highly collectivist. They also compared the average conformity rates for individualistic and collectivist cultures, and found the rate was just over 25.3% in individualist cultures, and 37.1% in collectivist cultures.
What did the findings of Smith and Bond (1993) into conformity suggest?
That the characteristics of the culture and the qualities that are valued and encouraged as children are brought up may be a significant influence on how much people are prepared to conform with others. In individualist cultures, autonomy, independence and individuality is valued, whereas in collectivst cultures more importance is attached to the social group and interdependence is stressed.
What does early research into conformity by Crutchfield suggest about modern technology?
They suggested that people who were unable to see each other were less prone to conforming with the (invisible) majority.
What study did Cinirella and Green (2005) do into conformity in relation to modern technology?
They investigated cross-cultural differences in conformity, comparing face to face communication and computer meditated communication. They found the expected cultural differences in face-to-face communication, with conformity being higher in collectivist than individualist cultures. However, in computer mediated communication there were no cultural differences implying that conformity is less likely when people are unable to see each other.
Who developed the ‘dual-process dependency model’?
Deutsch and Gerard (1955)
Who put forward the social identity approach?
Hogg and Abrahams (1988)
What two reasons for conformity does Deutsch and Gerard (1955) suggest in the dual-process dependency model?
- Normative social influence
2. Informational social influence
What is meant by normative social influence in the dual-process dependency model?
The person conforms because of their need to be accepted by and belong to the group. This may be because belonging to the group is rewadring and the group has the power to punish or even exclude those who do not fit in and toe the line. They may personally and privately continue to disagree but conform on the surface (compliance)
What is meant by informational social influence in the dual-process dependency model?
Different motives and needs drive this type of social influence. In many social situations, people may be unsure of how to behave, or unclear as to what they think or feel about an issue. In this case they may conform with others and copy their actions because they do not know what to say. In this case, the drive for conformity is the need to be right. If the majority are acting in a particular way than conformity may be a sensible decision.
Why is the dual-process dependency model named that way?
This approach has become known as the dual-process dependency model as it suggests that people conform of two reasons (dual) because of their dependency on other people. The two types of dependence are social approval (acceptance) and information.
Why has the dual-process dependency model been criticized?
This explanation has been criticised as it does not acknowledge the importance of a sense of belonging to a group. Many studies have shown how conformity to group norms can persist long after the group no longer exists. As participants in an experiment cannot fear group exclusion, this implies that factors other than dependency on the group may be important.
What is referent informational influence?
The pressure to conform with the norms set by a group because we have defined ourselves as a member of that group.
What are social identity approaches to why we conform based on?
On referent informational influence and the importance of relationships and emotional ties with other group members, as well as being based on Tajfel and Turner’s social identity theory.
What study did Tajfel (1971) do on social identity?
His minimal group experiments were the first to show the importance of group membership and belonging. Teenage boys aged 14-15 living in Bristol were randomly allocated to one of two groups on the basis of their preference for one artist or another. They then played a game in which they were able to allocate points that could be exchanged for money, to their own and the other group. THe boys consistently choose to allocate more points to their own group, even when they could gain more points and rewards by allocating equal amounths. Tafjel argued that there was a tendency to favour one’s own group and discriminate against other out-groups.
What did Tajfel suggest from his findings on his 1971 study on social identity?
He suggested that as well as a personal identity, we each have a social identity. People define themselves by the social groups they belong to. These groups serve as reference groups to us and have powerful influences on our behaviour.
What is the meta-contrast principle?
The tendency for group members to see strong similarities between themselves and other members of their groups and to see large differences with other social groups.
Why do people conform according to social identity explanation?
People classify themselves as belonging to particular social groups. This process of self-categorisation leads members to feel part of that group and to see strong differences between themselves and other groups (The meta-contrast principle) Groups provide norms or rules to regulate the behaviour of members. These norms are internalised or taken in as ideas or standards about ways of behaving by members. Group members use the norms of their group to regular their behaviour when they are with the group, but can also refer to group norms and abide by them when other group members are not there.
What are the strengths of the social identity explanation for conformity?
- Helps to explain why people may often conform to group norms in the absence of the group (Rohrer’s study showed this)
- Supported by studies (Hogg and Turner)
What study did Hogg and Turner (1987) do on conformity which supports the social identity explanation?
They asked for participants private responses to a conformity task similar to that of Asch. Private responses remove the need for participants to conform for normative reasons as others cannot show disapproval or rejection when they do not see the response. Under these conditions, people only conformed when the majority consisted of members of their ‘in-group’ rather than an ‘out-group’, supporting the idea that we conform with members of our own reference group.
What two ways did Clark (1989) argue that a minority can exert influence?
- By providing persuasive arguments
2. By showing defecting behaviour
Why is it important for a minority to provide persuasive arguments?
People listen to what is said and change their views if they are convinced by the evidence presented. In Clark’s 1989 study, majority members were likely to adopt the minoritiy verdict when the sole dissenter could produce evidence to change their minds, but unlikely when they could not. This shows clearly that information is an important part of minority influence.
Why is it important for a minority to show defecting behaviour?
Minorities can produce change through their behaviour. When people see others changing their views and adopting a minority viewpoint, they are more likely to follow, perhaps without examining the arguments themselves.
What two explanations have been put forward for minority influence?
Latane and Wolfe’s (1981) social impact theory and Tanford and Penrod’s (1986) social influence model.
What premise is social impact theory based on?
That both minority and majority influence involve a number of people that they divide into sources (people who provide the influence) and targets (people who may be influenced). Latane refers to social influence as a ‘series of forces operating in a social field.’
According to social impact theory, what does the impact, or amount of influence depend on?
- Strength, namely the importance, power or status of the person/people providing the influence.
- Immediacy, namely the psychological, physical or social distance of the person providing the influence
- The number of people providing the influence. Latane and Wolf argue that as the influence increases in number it gathers progressively more influence, thus three people have more impact than two etc.
What does Latane and Wolf as the number of people trying to influence others increases?
As the number of people increases, the impact made by each person gets less and less, which Latane and Wolf call a ‘negatively accelerating positive function.’ A single individual taking a minority position will produce lots of impact and influence. When they are joined by a second person arguing the same, their personal impact is slightly less and each one after that has a lesser effect.
What example did Hogg and Vaughan (2003) give to explain Latane and Wolf’s ideas about what happens when the number of people arguing the same increases?
Switching on a single light in a dark room has a dramatic effect. Switching on a second light has slightly less impact although it may still have an effect. By the time the tenth light bulb is switched on the effect in minimal.
What study did Hart, Stasson and Karau (1999) do to test social impact theory?
They measured the impact of strength and immediacy on social influence. They placed participants in groups of three, consisting of two naive participants and one confederate who argued for a minority position. Their task was to rate 40 university applicants for places. Immediacy was manipulated by having the confederate 4 feet away (high immediacy) or 10 feet away (low immediacy) and strength was manipulated by having the confederate acting as a student (low strength) or as an expert (high strength)
