Social Influence Flashcards
Asch
Comparison lines study
75% of participants conformed at least once.
Participants only conformed to avoid rejection (NSI)
variations: group size, unanimity and task difficulty.
Perrin & Spencer (contradicts Asch)
repeat Asch’s study: engineering students
Found conformity was less
Suggests: ‘Asch effect’ not consistent, not fundamental
Zimbardo
Prison Study
Guards: enthusiastic, threatening, harassing
Prisoners: depressed
Everyone: conformed to roles
Milgram
Obedience study: electric shocks 40 males: 15 - 400 volts but prompts were given 300 volts: none 450 volts: 65% Variables: Proximity, location, uniform
Bickman (supports Milgram)
3 confeds in uniform
complied in uniform: 92%
complied not uniform: 49%
Shows: legitimate authority
Ardono
Developed F-Scale measure authoritarian personality
Found: 450 volts = 65%
had high scores of F scale
results: dispositional
Moscovici
Colour Slides
2 confeds in large room w/ participants
Confeds: green 36 slides = 8% conformity
24 slide = 1 % conformity
Minorities consistent to achieve conformity (ISI)
Bond and Smith (group size)
Meta-analysis: cross-cultural studies
Conformed: indian teachers in Fiji = 58% (collectivist)
Belgian students = 14% (individualist)
Both cultures emphasise opposite things
Kim and Markus (support for Bond and Smith)
Found: failure to conform = positive in individualist
negative in collectivist
50% greater in collectivist
Parks (Application to Social Change)
Example of disobedient role model as she disobeyed laws in the American civil rights movement
Crutchfield
Found people w/ greater self-esteem and intelligence are less likely to conform
Eagly (Individual differences)
Women = greater conformity
Studies on “masculine” content
Men seen as more knowledgable
.˙. v/ knowledgable = less affected by influence
De Young et al (Individual differences)
Considered personality dimensions,
individuals w/ higher conscientiousness/agreeableness = more conformist than low scorers
Deutsch and Gerard
Extended Asch’s research
used several conditions to show importance of NSI
same judgement of other group members available
.˙. groups diffs focus on NSI: Face-to-face situation, Anonymous Situation
Sherif
Auto-kinetic effect
Spot of light in dark room (seemed to move but was still
Groups of 3 = common estimate
Ambiguous situation = look to others who seem to have more knowledge
Reicher and Haslam
BBC - Similar to Zimbardos Prison Study Guards: did not conform to roles Prisoners: increasingly identified Results saw by everyone = reduced mundane realism .˙. encouraged to behave calmly
Internalisation
accepting the majority views as your own
Compliance
going along with things even if you disagree with them
Identification
doing whats expected of you to fulfil a role
Group size
Asch: 2 confeds, participant conform 14%
3 confeds, participant conformed 32%
bigger the group the very small majorities resisted
Unanimity
Asch: the participant had a confed supporter, conformity rates dropped 5.5%
Task Difficulty
Asch: more difficult more conformity
