Social Influence Flashcards
Conformity
A form of social influence where people adopt the behaviour, attitudes and values of other members of a group
Types of conformity
Compliance
Internalisation
Identification
Compliance
Agreeing publicly, but not privately
Behaviour stops as soon as pressure stops
Explained by NSI
Internalisation
Deepest type of conformity
Agrees both publicly and privately
Explained by ISI
Identification
Confirm because we value and identify with the group
Publicly and privately accept the behaviour
Temporary - not maintained when individuals leave the group
Explanations for conformity
ISI
NSI
ISI
Results from our need to be correct
Turning to others when uncertain and conforming as they have more knowledge
Happens in unfamiliar and ambiguous situations, where the group is believed to be experts
NSI
Result of need to be liked and seem as part of the group
Humans are social species with a fundamental need for social companionship
The individual must believe they are under surveillance from the group
Why did Asch do variations of his original study
Methodology was varied slightly in order to investigate what factors lead to an increase or decrease in conformity
Consent
All ppts need to give informed consent to say that they agree to take part in the study
Deception
Psychologists should avoid misleading/lying to ppts about the nature of the study.
Not always possible
Confidentiality
All ppt’s data must be kept private and confidential. Ppt must be told at the beginning of the study if this isn’t possible
Debriefing
Ppt’s must be told the true nature of the investigation and get told that they can withdraw their data at any point
Withdrawal
Ppts have the right to withdraw at any time
Mustn’t be made to feel like they can’t
Protection
Researchers have a responsibility to protect ppts from physical and mental harm
Any negative effects should be dealt with after the study
External validity
Whether the findings of a study can be generalised to situations and people other than those in the study e.g. other population, location, time
Ecological validity
A specific type of external validity referring to generalisations beyond the immediate setting to the real world
Internal validity
Whether the variables which were manipulated in the study cause the results, or it was due to other circumstances (demand characteristics)
Social roles
The ‘parts’ people play as members of various social groups
Characteristics of authoritarian personality
Hostile to those of an inferior status
Obedient and servile to those of an higher status
Highly conventional attitudes towards sex, race and gender
Have traditional values in terms of religion, family, love of country
Inflexible in their outlook
Origin of the authoritarian personality
Extremely strict discipline Expectation of absolute loyalty Impossibly high standards Severe criticisms of perceived failings Conditional love
What type of conformity does minority influence lead to
Internalisation - it affects the private behaviour first
Processes of minority influence
Consistency (within group and over time)
Commitment
Flexibility
Snowball effect
When the minority gains followers
Tipping point
When the minority becomes the majority
How does social change occur
The snowball effect
The tipping point
Conformity then takes over (ISI/NSI)
Governments then make laws and obedience takes over
Research support for ISI
Sherif
Negative points of explanations of conformity
NSI can’t be used to universally explain behaviour -> nAffiliators/ Teevan and McGhee -> individual differences
ISI doesn’t affect everyone the same way -> Perrin and Spencer (1980) - 1/396 conformed - > high self efficacy
ISI and NSI proposed differently but work together -> unanimity variation reduces NSI and ISI -> not possible to be sure which is causing conformity
Asch’s method (1951)
123 male US undergrads asked to take part in perception test - matching ‘standard’ line to substantially diff. comparison lines
Groups of 7-8
Naive ppt sat second to last
Gave answers orally
Confederates asked to give correct answer first 6 times - 18 trials
Asch’s results
Average conformity rate on critical trial - 33%
25% never conformed
50% conformed 6+
5% conformed all 12
Mistakes made only 1% of the time in control condition
In post-study ppts said it was compliance and NSI
Group size variation
Asch altered the number of confederates from 1 to 7/8 increasing by 1 at a time
How did the results change with the group size variation
Very little conformity with 1/2 confederates
However, with 3+ the wrong answer rate rose to 31.8%
Further increase did not increase the level of conformity substantially - size of majority is only important to a point
Unanimity variation
Wanted to know whether the presence of another non-conforming person would affect the naive ppt
Did this by introducing confederate who gave diff. answer (some correct and some incorrect)
How did the results change with the unanimity variation
Conformity levels dropped significantly from 33% to 5.5% (right answer) and 9% (wrong answer) when unanimity was disturbed
Task difficulty variation
Asch made the task harder by making the stimulus line and comparison lines more similar
How did the results change with the task difficulty variation
Conformity increased (ISI?) Shows that situational differences (task difficulty) and individual differences (self-efficacy) are both important in determining conformity
Weaknesses of Asch’s research
Application is limited due to cultural differences in conformity —> 14% - Belgium, 58% - Fiji (individualistic vs. collectivist)
Ecological validity —> trivial and artificial, consequences not as severe
Findings were exaggerated —> 67% didn’t conform»_space; 33%
Only applies to certain situations —> with strangers, answered aloud
Lacks generalisability —> not representative
Method of Zimbardo’s SPE (1971)
Set up mock prison in psych dept.
Screened volunteers through extensive psychological testing, chose 24
Prisoners arrested at home, blindfolded, strip searched, deloused and numbered
Zimbardo was prison superintendent
Zimbardo’s results
Rebellion on day 2
Increasingly sadistic; woke up prisoners at night, made to do menial tasks, sexually degraded
8612 asked to leave, asked to be informant
4 prisoners broke down
Study terminated after 6/14 days
Weaknesses of Zimbardo’s research
Unethical, exacerbated by dual role —> violated protection by not thinking as psychologist
Lack of realism —> David Eschelman (Cool Hand Luke)
Exaggeration, down-playing dispositional influence —> 1/3 - brutal, 1/3 - fair, 1/3 - helped prisoners
Lack of replicability —> Harlass and Reicher (2006) - opposite findings
Strengths of Zimbardo’s research
Ppts thought situation was real — 90% of convos were based on prison life
High level of control — had complete control (screening and random allocation - no bias)
Proximity variation
Learner and teacher sat in same room
Touch proximity - teacher forced learners hand on electric plate
Experimented in other room, giving instructions over the phone
How the results changed
Obedience dropped to 40% - same room
Obedience dropped to 30% - touch
Obedience dropped to 21% - phone
Location variation
Studies moved from Yale to run down office - obedience dropped to 48%
Uniform variation
Experimented wore everyday closures as opposed to a grey lab coat - obedience dropped to 20%
Weaknesses of Milgram’s original research
Lack of internal validity - Orne and Holland (1968); ppt’s didn’t believe shocks were real
Unlikely, really stressed - ppts ‘stutter, tremble, groan’, 3 had ‘uncontrollable seizures’
Issues in terms of generalisability - only conducted on men
Relevance of research has been challenged (atrocities of WW2) - carried out 50 years ago, times change
Violated ethical guidelines - 4th prod ‘you have no other choice’
Strengths of Milgram’s research
Criticised for lacking external validity due to artificial lab conditions, however research by Hofling suggest that the artificial nature had little impact on the results - 21/22 nurses
Weaknesses of Milgram’s variations
Influence of uniform supporter by Bickman (1974) - ppt’s 2x as likely to obey security guard than confederate in ordinary clothes
Variations susceptible to internal validity - more likely to work out aim (more manipulation)
Hofling contradicts effect of proximity - 21/22
Support ‘obedience alibi’ - proves situational explanations, criticised by David Mendel
Strengths of Milgram’s variation
High level of control - only altered one variable at a time, able to find conclusion
Social-psychological factors affecting obedience
Agentic state
Legitimacy of authority
Weaknesses of social-psychological factors affecting obedience
Agentic shift cannot be used to explain other findings (Hofling) - nurses should’ve shown high levels of anxiety, passed responsibility to doctor
Not as quick as agentic state, more gradual and irreversible - Lifton found that Auschwitz doctors changed from medical professions to those capable of torture
Ethical implications of ‘obedience alibi’ - David Mendel (unfair to survivors of holocaust)
Strengths of social - psychological factors of obedience
Agentic state supported by Blass and Schmitt (2001) - students shown Milgram’s experiment all blamed him
Legitimacy of authority explains cultural differences - 16% Australia, 85% Germany
Influence of legitimate authority supported by research into aviation accidents - Tarnow (2000) - 19/37 accidents caused by ‘lack of monitoring’
Adorno’s research
Interested in nazi Germany
Didn’t believe that situational factors alone could explain atrocities
Study of >2000 middle-class, white Americans
Developed F-Scale (higher score, more obedient)
Weaknesses of Adorno’s research
Overly deterministic Flaws with F-Scale - questionnaire, acquiescence bias Correlation doesn’t equal causation - tested serveral variables, 3rd variable (education) Lacks external validity - sample used
Strengths of Adorno’s research
Link between obedience and Authoritarian personality demonstrated by Milgram and Elms (1966) - those who scored higher went to a higher voltage
Locus of control
Extent to which individuals believe they can control events affecting them
It is a continuum
Internals
Rely less on opinions of others
Better able to resist social influence
Believe we control events in our lives
Everything is consequence of abilities and effort
Externals
Approach things with a more passive and fatalistic view
Things are determined by external factors, ‘just happens’
Less likely to display independent behaviour
More likely to accept influence of others, obedient
Strengths of LOC
Research by Holland (1967) - measured whether Milgrams ppts were internal or external (37% internals continued, 23% external)
Weaknesses of LOC
More recent research by Twenge et al (2004) - analysed data over 40 year - more resistant yet more external
Impact of resisting conformity is limited to NSI - Spector (1983) found correlation between externals and NSI- no link with ISI (LOC insignificant in conformity)
Role of LOC exaggerated - Rotter (1982) LOC only comes into play in new situations, previous experiences more important
Social support
Perception of assistance and solidarity from others
Effect of social support on conformity
Supports in resisting conformity
Supports view that resistance isn’t just motivated by following what someone else says but it enables someone to be free of the pressure of the group
Effect of social support on obedience
Research supports the role of dissenting peers in resisting obedience
Strengths of social support
Research support by Gamson - 29/33 groups rebelled when oil company wanted to produce a smear campaign
Historical real life examples - Rosenstrasse protest
Synchronic consistency
When all members of the group say the same thing
Diachronic consistency
When the group says the same thing over some time
Consistency in Suffragettes
Movement lasted 17 years (1897-1914)
Focused only on women’s right to vote
Commmitment
Minorities engage in extreme activities at risk of themselves to draw attention
Augmentation principle - majority group members pay more attention
Weaknesses of social support
Not enough to resist social influence, needs to be ‘valid’ - someone needs to have the knowledge, skills or abilities
Impact of social support is dependant on response order - Allen & Levine (1969); support was significantly more effective in position 1 than 4
Commitment in Suffragettes
Hunger strikes
Vandalism, bombing, burning - risk of imprisonment
Christabel Pankhurst shouted at politicians and got arrested for obstruction and assault
Flexibility
Being extremely consistent can be dogmatic
Off putting to majority and unlikely to cause conversion
Minority should accept valid and reasonable counter-arguments
Flexibility in Suffragettes
Emeline instructed Suffragettes to stop when WW1 started to support govt. Only wanted white middle-class women to vote - aligned with other ideals
Moscovici et al (1969)
4 ppt’s 2 confederates shown 36 different slides which were clearly diff. shades of blue and asked to announce colour aloud
Confederates answered green 36/36 times and had 8.25% effect on majority
Confederates answered green 24/36 times and had 1.25% effect on majority
Strengths of minority research
Research to support flexibility - Nemeth and Brilmayer (1987)
Minority opinion more effective at changing minds than a majority, as it leads to deeper thought - Martin et al (2003)
Process of social change
Drawing attention Cognitive conflict Consistency of position Augmentation principle Snowball effect Social cryptonmesia
Drawing attention
Civil right marches drew attention by providing social proof of the problems (segregation)
Weaknesses of minority influence
Still difficult to convince people of the value of dissent
All research in this area involves artificial tasks - all lack external validity
Limited real life application - majorities have more power and status, face hostile opposition
Cognitive conflict
Minority create conflict between what majority group members currently believe (status quo) and the position advocated by the minority
Majority think more deeply
Consistency of position
Many marches took place in 1959s-60s. Showed consistency in message and intent
Augmentation principle
Number of incidents where individuals risked their lives (Rosa Parks). Makes the majority take minority seriously as they’re willing to sacrifice everything
Social cryptonmesia
People have a memory that change occurred but don’t remember how it happened
