Social Influence Flashcards
What are the 3 types of conformity, and can you explain them?
1) Internalisation = genuinely accepting groups norms publicly and privately.
2) Identification = publically changing opinions; even if we don’t privately agree (identify with group).
3) Compliance = ‘going along with others’ in public but privately not changing opinions.
What are the two explanations for conformity?
1) Informational Social Influence (ISI)
- a desire to be right, e.g. going along with the majority if you are unsure of answer
- ambiguous or new situations.
2) Normative Social Influence (NSI)
- a desire to behave like others and not look foolish.
- behaving in the right way = social approval.
- unfamiliar and familiar situations.
Give:
(i) 1 evaluative strength for ISI
(ii) 1 evaluative limitation for ISI
(i) Research support:
- Lucas et al. (2006) - studied students on maths problems, the harder they got, the more conformity there was
= want to be right, as they’re unsure in their own ability, so conform.
(ii) Individual differences:
- Asch found students were less conformist than other participants (28% to 37%).
- Perrin + Spencer (1980) found this with engineering students
Give:
(i) 1 evaluative strength for NSI
(ii) 1 evaluative limitation for NSI
(i) Research support:
- Asch found some would give a wrong answer because they felt self-conscious and were afraid of disapproval.
= conformity fell to 12.5% when they wrote it down.
(ii) Individual differences:
- people who care more about being liked are called nAffiliators.
- McGhee + Teevan (1967) - found nAffiliators were more likely to conform
In what years did Asch carry out his studies?
1951, 1955.
Explain Asch’s (1951) procedure?
- 123 American male students.
- Each ‘tested’ with 6-8 confederates.
- Identified length of a standard line
- Confederates gave wrong answers together, some of the time
Describe Asch’s (1951) findings?
- Naive participants gave wrong answers 36.8% of the time when all the confederates gave wrong answers; ‘Asch effect’.
- 25% never gave a wrong answer, so 75% conformed at least once.
- Most said they conformed to avoid rejection (NSI) and they trust their own opinions privately (compliance)
What was Asch’s (1955) study about?
Variables affecting conformity
What were the 3 variables affecting conformity?
Group size, unanimity, task difficulty.
Describe Asch’s (1955) procedure
1) Group size varied between 1-15 confederates.
2) Confederate introduced who was dissenting but inaccurate or a truthful confederate.
3) Changing task difficulty; line lengths similar.
Give the findings of Asch’s (1955) study?
- Group size - conformity peaked at 3 confederates, 32%.
- Unanimity - dissenting confederate reduced conformity as the naive participant could behave independently.
- Task difficulty - conformity increased increased when the task was more difficult.
Critically evaluate Asch’s conformity research
1) ‘Child of the times’
- Perrin + Spencer (1980) found just 1/396 conformers in UK engineering students
- 1950s a more conformist time.
2) Situations and tasks were artificial:
- may have responded to demand characteristics.
- trivial tasks, not like everyday tasks.
- generalising?
3) Findings only apply to certain groups:
- only men tested by Asch.
- Neto (1995) - women might be more conformist as they care more about social relationships.
- America and individualistic culture, higher in collectivist?
4) Findings only apply to certain situations:
- William + Sogon (1984) - found conformity was higher when the majority were friends not strangers.
- Asch effect varies depending on circumstances.
Who did research into conformity to social roles?
Zimbardo
Describe Zimbardo’s (1973) SPE procedure?
- Mock prison set up in basement of Stanford Uni.
- 24 emotionally stable students who were randomly assigned roles.
- Prisoners arrested in their homes
- Blindfolded, given numbers.
- Guards were told they had complete power over prisoners.
What were the findings and conclusions of Zimbardo’s (1973) study?
F- Prisoners rebelled within two days after being constantly harassed.
F- After the rebellion was put down, prisoners became subdued, depressed etc.
F- 3 prisoners were released early due to psychological disturbance.
F- 1 went on hunger strike; was put in the hole.
F- Study stopped after 6 days instead of intended 14.
C- Revealed power of the situation on people’s behaviour.
C- All conformed to social roles.
C- The more they identified with the role, the more aggressive they were.
Give a strength of the SPE
Some control over variables:
- chose emotionally stable to play roles, randomly assigned which meant that the results were down to situational pressures.
How would Banuazizi + Mohavedi (1975) criticise the SPE
SPE lacks realism:
- participants were play-acting, performances reflected stereotypes.
- One guard based his behaviour off the film Cool Hand Luke.
How would Fromm (1973) criticise the SPE
Underestimates dispositional influences:
- only 1/3 behaved brutally
- showed they could exert moral control over their actions.
Apart from Fromm and Banuazizi + Mohavedi’s limitations, give another limitation of the SPE.
Contradictory evidence:
- Reicher + Haslam (2006) found prisoners took control, possibly as the guards didn’t share a social identity but the prisoners did.
What was the procedure for Milgram (1963) study?
- 40 male participants, ages 20-50 and of differing levels of profession.
- Participant = teacher, Confederate = learner.
- Given an electric shock every time a wrong answer was given.
- Shocks went from 15V to 450V.
- Different prods were given by the experimenter, e.g. ‘please continue’.
What were the findings of Milgram’s (1963) study?
- No one stopped below 300V
- 12.5% stopped at 300V
- 65% went to 450V
What were the conclusions of the Milgram’s study?
- Milgram etc surprised; prediction of less than 3% would go to 450V.
- Participants debriefed to assure them that their behaviour was normal.
- 84% glad to have taken part.
- 74% felt they had learned something.
How does Milgram’s study;
(i) Lack internal validity
(ii) Have good external validity
(i) Orne + Holland (1968) suggested participants guessed the electric shocks were fake –> testing obedience?
However….
- Sheridan + King (1972) found 100% of females and 54% of males gave what they thought was a fatal shock to a dog (study actually used real shocks).
(ii) Lab based relationship reflects wider-life authority:
- Hofling et al. (1966) - 21/22 nurses obeyed orders from doctors who gave unjustified demands.
A part from good external validity, positively evaluate Milgram’s study
Replications
- French documentary - 80% gave the 450V to an apparently unconscious man
= reliable.
A part from internal validity, critically evaluate Milgram’s study
Ethical issues:
- participants believed that they were randomly assigned.
- some showed trauma, some even had seizures.
- betrayal –> damage to psychologists and their research.
What are the 3 explanations for obedience based on situational variables, and what results back this up?
1) Proximity - obedience fell the closer the proximity of the teacher and experimenter.
- Same room = 40% to 450V
- Telephone instructions = 20.5% to 450V
2) Location - changed to run-down building
- Obedience fell to 47.5%
3) Uniform: lab coat worn as a symbol of authority.
- Variation had someone else put on the coat; wearing everyday clothes
- Obedience fell to 20% –> visual authority strongest?
