Social Influence Flashcards
Zimbardo Conclusion and Evaluation
Guards and prisoners adopted social roles quickly - our social role can influence our behaviour.
+ good control - lab study
- low ecological val (can’t generalise)
- incentives, deception, volunteer sample, right of withdrawl
Haslam and Reicher (2006) BBC Prison Study
Repeat Zimbardo study
15 males
Daily tests to measure levels of depression, compliance with rules and stress
The results didn’t support Z as guards didn’t like authority - participants didn’t fit into social roles, roles are flexible?
Demand characteristics - knew they were on TV
Good ethics, offered counselling afters
Study for conformity to social rules?
Zimbardo (1973) Stanford Prison Experiment
18 male normal participants, 6 days
Guards and prisoners
Results:
Guards asserted authority and prisoners resisted together
Guards gave nastier punishments and prisoners became passive and obedient
Experiment abandoned early as prisoner became distressed
Types of conformity
Compliance
Identification
Internalisation
What is compliance?
Adjust behaviour to be accepted in a group
Private views stay same
Public opinions and behaviour change
Left group - go back to original
What is identification?
Change public and private views to be a member of a group
Once leave group permanently, they’ll adopt new behaviours
What is internalisation?
True conformity
Change public and private views permanently
Does not depend upon group membership
E.g. Religion
Explanations of conformity
Informational social influence - desire to be right
Normative social influence - desire to be liked
Study for informational social influence
Jenness (1932) Participants guess privately Participants discuss as group Group prediction made Participants make a second prediction privately
Second prediction converged to group prediction
Study for Normative Social Influence?
Asch (1951)
123 Male undergraduate participants with 6 other actors
Correct answers were always obvious
Actual participant answered last
In 12 of 18 trials actors answered wrong
In the 12 trials there was a 32% conformity rate to wrong answer
Quantitative data
Evaluating studies
G eneralisability R eliability A pplication V alidity E thics S ample
Asch variations
Group size: 32% conformity rate (One actor - 3% conformity)
Unanimity: 5 actors in agreement, 1 actor correct - 6%
Task difficulty: made lines more similar - increased
Explanations for obedience study
Milgram (1961)
Yale University - wanted to explain Holocaust
40 men
Volunteer sample (newspaper advert)
Participant - teacher / confederate - learner
Participant taught leaner word pairs, wrong answer = shock, increases after every wrong answer
300v - learner pounded wall, no more response
Experimenter said continue
Results of Milgram (1961)
68% to 450v
100% to 300v
Every participant showed sign of distress/not wanting to continue
Study for situational variables affecting obedience?
Bickman (1974) Asked to pick up litter in NY by actor as a: Milkman - 14% Civilian - 19% Security guard - 38% Good ecological val Real behaviour - don't know in study Opportunity sampling - unrepresentative
Obedient Nurses Study
Hofling et al (1966)
21/22 went to deliver drug after unknown doctor tang to tell them to.
Explanations for Obedience
The agentic shift
Legitimacy of authority
Situational variables affecting obedience
Proximity (Milgram learner moved to same room as participant)
Location (Milgram’s study repeated in Bridgeport)
Uniforms (Bickman)
Dispositional variables affecting obedience
The authoritarian personality explanation
What is the Agentic Shift?
Move from working autonomously to acting as someone’s agent - not taking responsibility of actions.
Milgram variation: instructions down telephone, obedience from 68% to 20%
Milgram variations
Original - 68%
Telephone - 20%
Location (Bridgeport, market research) - 47%
Proximity - 30%
Social support (two actors refused to carry on) - 10%
Milgram and Elms (1966)
Did Milgram’s study then gave participants the F-scale questionnaire.
Highly obedient - higher f-scale score than those who disobeyed.
The Authoritarian Personality
Adorno et al (1950)
Over-strict parenting results in a child being socialised to obey authority unquestioningly.
Argued strict parenting also results in prejudice -
Child feels constrained = aggression, child is afraid to show aggression to parents as discipline so hostile to others they see as weaker, usually minor groups.
2 psychological reasons people do not conform or obey
Finding social support
Having an internal locus of control
Research support for social support
Asch (1956)
Put in a dissenter (always disagrees with majority)
Conformity dropped from 32% to 5.5%
Locus of Control study
Rotter (1996)
External LoC - believe what happens to them is due to external factors (luck/fate)
Internal - what happens is as a result of their own behaviour.
Studies linking to LoC and Independent Behaviour
Shute (1975)
Tested for loc by questionnaire, put in groups of people who are conservative of drug laws, participants with internal loc conformed less.
Schurz (1985)
Milgram’s study but ultrasound not shocks, loc test beforehand.
Little diff between int/ext, but int felt more guilty after.
3 factors to encourage minority influence
Consistency - moscovivi
Commitment - rosa parks sat on white bus (arrested)
Flexibility (nemeth 1986)
Minority Influence study
Moscovici
Investigate consistency
2 confederates 4 real participants
Shown 36 slides of clearly diff shades of blue, asked to say colour
Confederates said all green (first part) then 24 blue and 12 green (2nd part)
Part 1: consistent - 8.42% Inconsistent - 1.25%
Minorities must be consistent to influence
Flexibility Study
Nemeth (1986)
Groups of 3 participants and 1 confederate had to decide how much compensation to pay victim of a ski-lift accident.
Confederate not flexible with low amount - no effect on majority
Confederate offer slightly higher - majority went lower
Why do people yield to minority influence?
Group membership-Normative social
Consistency-Informational social influence
The snowball effect-Resisting obedience
Having an internal LoC-The agentic shift
Minority has shown sacrifice-Resisting conformity
Obedience to authority
Evaluation of Milgram (1961)
G - no urgent reason to follow orders, Nazi fighting for country
Low ecological and temporal val
R - follow up studies found similar results, unethical to repeat study as deceiving participants and not let them finish, many know study.
A - people now know not to follow orders if harmful.
V - demand characteristics, many participants didn’t believe it could be a real study
E - some psychological and physical harm, no right to withdraw (prompts), didn’t consent to actual experiment, deception
