Social Influence Flashcards
What is social influence?
The effect of other people on an individuals behaviour or opinions
what are the definitions of conformity, obedience, majority influence, minority influence and independent behaviour
conformity - an individual changes their behaviour or opinions because of pressures from a group
obedience - an individual does what an authority figure tells them to
minority influence - a minority persuades an individual to go along with minority instead of majority
majority influence - a majority persuades an individual to go along with majority instead of minority
independent behaviour - when an individual resists the pressures to conform or obey
experiment to test conformity
Asch (1951, 1955)
procedure: 123 american students were shown two white cards simultaneously. on one card was a ‘standard line’ and on the other were 3 ‘comparison lines’ of which one was identical to the ‘standard line’. the ppts were asked which line matched the standard line.
the test: unknown to the ppt, all other people in the test were confederates, who were told to all say the same incorrect answer.
results: the control group (all ppts) made 3 mistakes out of 720 trials (0.4%)
the test group gave an incorrect answer 37% of the time, and 75% conformed at least once.
conclusion: the control showed the ppts were conforming and not just getting the wrong answers.
when interviewed after, ppts said they were under NSI. this is called the Asch effect.
so proud of you marty
Asch’s variations (4 variations)
1: group size
baseline test had 8-12 per group. in this variation Asch changed group size.
results of conformity per number of confederates:
1 - 4%
2 - 14%
3 - 32%
4+ - around 35%
conclusion: a small majority is not sufficient for conformity, but a majority of more than 3 does not add to conformity rates
2: unanimity
Asch introduced a confederate who disagreed with the majority
results: conformity was reduced to 9%
conclusion: influence of majority depends to some extent on the group being unanimous
3: task difficulty:
Asch made the line-judging task more difficult by making the lines more similar lengths
results: conformity increased
conclusion: ISI plays a greater role when the task becomes harder.
4: secret answer
here, the ppt had to right now their answer (confederates still spoke their answer)
results: conformity dropped by 2/3
what are the 3 types of conformity, their definitions and whether they link to NSI or ISI
compliance:
the individual conforms publicly but disagrees privately. NSI
Identification: the individual changes their views to fit in with a group, and believes their view privately too. however the changed belief is temporary. NSI or ISI
internalisation: the individuals opinion is permanently changed both publicly and privately. ISI
What are the two explanations for conformity?
Normative social influence: the desire to be liked / to fit in / to be accepted
informational social influence: the desire to have the correct view. individuals follow the majority because they think it is more likely to be correct.
marty you’re doing amazing omg
experiment to demonstrate conformity to social roles
Zimbardo (1973) - Stanford Prison Experiment
procedure: Zimbardo set up a mock prison. They selected students who were deemed ‘emotionally stable’ and randomly assigned them the role of prisoner or guard. prisoners were ‘arrested’ for greater mundane realism. the social roles were divided: prisoners had regulated routines. they had to follow rules enforced by the guards. the prisoners names were not used, only their numbers.
guards had their own uniform complete with a club, handcuffs, keys and mirror shades. they were told they had complete power over the prisoners.
results: after the guards behaviour became a threat to the prisoners’ well being, the experiment was stopped after 6 out of 14 planned days.
within 2 days the prisoners rebelled, and the guards reacted by using fire extinguishers. the guards punished and harassed the prisoners. after the rebellion the prisoners became subdued and depressed. the guards behaviour was aggressive and some appeared to enjoy the power they had.
conclusions: situations have great influence of people’s behaviour. everyone conformed to their roles - including volunteers who agreed to play other roles such as ‘chaplain’.
evaluation of Asch’s study
strengths:
- double blind procedure used
- high internal validity due to well controlled lab setting
weakness:
- low ecological validity because it was an artificial task that may not apply to real life situations e.g Fishe (2014) said the groups used ‘did not feel very groupy’
- low population validity as only men were used in the study
- low temporal validity. Perrin and Spencer repeated Asch’s study in 1980. only 1 student conformed out of 396 trials. this could show how social roles have changed since the 1950’s to become a much less conformist time
- cultural differences may affect validity: US is an individualist country, and when the study was done in collectivist cultures, the conformity rate was much higher.
experiment to show obedience
Milgram (1963)
procedure: recruited 40 male ppts and told them it was a study about memory. they were offered some money if they took part and were given it before the experiment took part. ppts took part in a rigged draw for their role. a confederate was always the ‘learner’, the ppt was always the ‘teacher’. the learner sat in another room and the teacher was told to give him a list of words and to repeat them back. if the learner was incorrect, the teacher was to give him an electric shock of increasing intensity from 15 volts to 450 volts. (these were not real). at 300 volts the learner screamed in pain, and after 315 volts the learner did not respond again.
results: before the experiment, psychology students predicted that only 3% would continue to 450 volts.
0% stopped before 300 volts
12.5% stopped at 300 volts
65% continued to 450 volts. ppts showed many signs of extreme tension.
milgram’s 4 variations
using variations made the observation a lab experiment to test effect of authority on obedience
1) milgram moved from Yale to a run down office. obedience dropped to 47%
2) experimenter gave orders over the phone. obedience dropped to 20%
3) teacher could see learner. obedience rate was 40%
4) experimenter did not wear lab coat (uniform). obedience was 20%
marty is so so clever
experiment that supports milgram’s findings
Hofling (1966)
procedure: a confederate phone nurses working on the ward and told them to administer an overdose of a drug to a patient. they were told to do this without the doctor’s permission.
findings: 22 other nurses were asked what they would do in this situation. 21 said they would not administer the drug
however in the experiment,
21/22 nurses went to deliver this drug
conclusion: the findings confirm that milgrams experiment has good ecological validity. it confirms that people will take orders from those above them in a social hierarchy, even when they know the action will cause harm.
2 explanations for obedience, and an example from Milgram’s experiment
1) Binding factors: prevent you from escaping a situation
Milligram: ppts feared appearing rude
2) buffers: something that removes you from the effect of your actions
Milgram: learner was placed in a different room
definitions of agentic state, autonomous state and legitimate authority
agentic state: a mental state where we feel no personal responsibility for our actions because we feel we’re acting for an authority figure
autonomous state: person acts according to their own principles and therefore feels a sense of responsibility for their actions.
legitimacy of authority: an explanation for obedience where we are more likely to obey people that we perceive to have authority over us
cross cultural replications of Milgram findings relative to legitimate authority
cross cultural replications of obedience studies tend to support legitimate authority theory.
results of replications reflect the country’s attitudes towards authorities.
e.g., Germany, Mantell (1971) - obedience is high (85% went to top of volts)
australia, Kilham and Mann (1974) - obedience is low (16% went to top of volts)
conclusion: this shows that in some countries authority is more likely to be perceived as legitimate, and in those places, obedience rates tend to be much higher
ilysm marty
legitimate authority relative to war crime
Kelman and Hamilton (1989)
‘legitimate authority can explain war crimes as the power hierarchy within military situations is very structured and few people break out of it. this means many people follow inhumane and destructive orders almost without question.’
