Social Influence Flashcards
Compliance
type of conformity
conformity to a group without accepting their view
they change their attitude publically but not privately
only temporary
Internalisation
type of conformity
conforming to a group whilst accepting their views as correct
private and public change in attitude and behaviour
more permanent as their views are internalised
Identification
type of conformity
adopting the attitude in order to be associated with a group
change in private and public attitudes until prolonged separation from the group
therefore, fairly permanent
Normative social influence (NSI)
explanation for conformity
conformity to gain approval or avoid disapproval
explains why compliance occurs
we must believe we are under surveillance by the group
Informational social influence (ISI)
explanation for conformity
conforming because we believe the majority to be right
explains why internalisation occurs
the human desire to be right suggests ISI is more likely if the answer in unclear
Asch - aim
to see if individuals conform to group majority
Asch - procedure
125 males students carried out 18 trials where answer was obvious
in each group of 6 only 1 was a P the other confederates. in 12 trials, confederates all gave same wrong answer
had to say which line was the same as the standard line
there was a control condition without confederate distraction = mistakes made 1% of the time
Asch - findings
33% conformity rate on 12 critical trials and individual differenes discovered
25% never conformed
50% did on 6 or more trials
1 in 20 conformed on all 12 critical trials
when interviews, found majority followed compliance
Asch - conclusion
majority of people follow compliance
Asch - Group Size
Variable affecting Conformity in Asch’s study
group with 1 other person = conformity 3%
with 2 = 13%
with 3 or more = 32% (doesn’t increase much after this)
small minority influence not exerted
Asch - Unanimity
Variable affecting Conformity in Asch’s study
if another P/confederate goes against majority = 5.5% conformity
P’s give different answer to majority and true answer 9%
influence of majority depends on unanimity (break in unanimity =reduction)
Asch - Task Difficulty
Variable affecting Conformity in Asch’s study
Line task more difficult - conformity increased
informational social influence plays greater role when task was harder
Haney et al - Aim
The standard Prison Experiment
to see if ordinary people would conform to a social role
Haney et al - Procedure
The standard Prison Experiment
mock prison was set up
24 male college volunteers assigned the roles of either guard or prisoner
guards had uniforms, clubs , whistles and reflective glasses
prisoners were blind folded, stripped, made fun of and only referred to as their ID number
prisoners were allowed 3 meals and supervised toilet rips a day and 2 visitors per week
Haney et al - Findings
The standard Prison Experiment
over first few days guards because increasingly abusive towards prisoners
woke prisoners in middle of night to carry out activities
some guards volunteered to do extra hours with no pay
they appeared to forget it wasn’t real
5 prisoners had to be released early due to extreme reactions - symptoms appeared after 2 days
study ended after 6 rather than 14 due to intervention of another psychologist who reminded researcher how unethical it had become
Milgram - aim
to see if people obey orders form an authority figure in order to understand Nazi behaviour
Milgram - procedure
40 male Ps ages 20-50 told carrying out a study on how punishment effects learning
P = teacher
Confederate = ‘learner’
P’s read out word pairs and if leaner repeats them wrong told to give an electric shock
shocks 15v - 450v increased by 15 each time
learner would play a tape of their reaction and sometimes asked to stop
if the teacher asked researcher in white to stop told ‘you must finish’
Milgram - findings
65% continued to 450v
100% continued to 300v
12.5% stopped after 300v when learner gave first objection
however, participants did show extreme tension (sweating, trembling and biting lips, hysterical laughter)
after interviewed and asked why obeyed
Milgram - conclusion
people do obey authority figures despite feeling what they are doing is not right
Proximity
situational factor in obedience
teacher and learner in same room = 40% obedience
teacher must place hand on shock plate = 30%
experimenter not in room = 21% (some continued giving weakened shock and saying they were increasing
Location
situational factor in obedience
at Yale uni and gave confidence in integrity of researchers
moved to run down offices - 48% gave 450 instead of original 65%
Uniforms
situational factor in obedience
in original baseline study researcher wore white coat
in other experiment white coat experimenter called away and replaced by a man in casual clothes
20% obedience
Agentic state
see ourselves as an agent carrying out another person’s wishes - feel no personal responsibility for own actions
opposite = autonomous state
move form autonomous to agentic state = agentic shift (occurs as a way of maintaining self image
binding factors reduce moral strain of obeying immoral disorder by shifting responsibility to the victims or denying damage
Legitimate authority figure
we obey those at the top of a social hierarchy
Legitimate authority figure perceived to be in position of social control
for argentic state to occur must take orders from LAF
for authority to be perceived as legitimate, must occur within sort of institutional structure
