Social Influence Flashcards
What is Social Influence?
Social influence refers to the process by which an individual’s attitudes, beliefs or behaviours are modified by the presence or actions of others. Commonly studies forms of social influence include conformity and obedience.
What is conformity?
Conformity is the process of yielding to majority influence.
Myers (1999) defines it as “a change in behaviour or belief as a result of real or imagined group pressure”.
What are the types of conformity?
Compliance
Internalisation
Identification
What is Compliance?
Superficial type of conformity where people conform publicly but privately disagree.
Publicly conforming to the behaviours or views of others but privately maintaining one’s own view. For example, if you are with a group of friends who say a particular film is fantastic, you might go along with this even if you thought it was awful. This results from a NORMATIVE SOCIAL INFLUENCE - wanting to be liked and accepted by others.
What is Internalisation?
Where people change their beliefs permanently.
This is when there is a real change of private views to match those of the group. For example, someone being converted to a particular religion because they truly believe the answers being provided by that religious faith. This may be the result of an INFORMATIONAL SOCIAL INFLUENCE - looking to others who we think may be correct to help us make up our own minds.
What is Identification?
Where people change their beliefs (sometimes temporarily) to fit in with a group.
This is adopting the views or behaviour of a group both publicly and privately because you value membership of that group (identify with them). However this is only temporary and not maintained on leaving the group. For example, new students at university might often enthusiastically adopt the dress and behaviour codes of their new student groups, but when they leave and move into employment they often change the way they dress and behave again.
What are the explanations for conformity?
Normative Social Influence (NSI)
Informational Social Influence (ISI)
What is Normative Social Influence (NSI)?
The motive underlying NSI is the need to be accepted by other people. We want others to like and respect us, and being rejected is very painful. People therefore have the power to reward or punish us with their approval or disapproval. One way of ensuring their approval and acceptance is to agree with them. However, this doesn’t necessarily mean we do believe what they say. NSI is likely to lead to compliance. This was illustrated in the Asch experiment. The participants said the wrong answer in order to be liked and accepted by the majority. They said the wrong answer to fit in with the majority.
What is Informational Social Influence (ISI)?
We all have a basic need to feel confident that our ideas and beliefs are correct (need for certainty). This is the motive behind ISI. When we are unsure about something, we tend to seek other people’s opinions: if we know what they think, we’re in a better position to form our own opinions. This is more likely to happen in situations we’re not familiar with (such as deciding who to vote for in your first election) or in ambiguous situations (such as watching a film and not knowing what to make of it). Asking friends who they are voting for or what they made of the film helps you to make up your own mind. ISI was demonstrated in Sherif’s experiment. Participants were unsure about how far the light moved and looked to others for guidance. If we conform to ISI, it’s very likely that we believe the opinions we adopt and therefore will demonstrate internalisation.
What are the evaluating points of the explanations for conformity?
+There is much research support for ISI. For example, Lucas et al (2006) asked students to give answers to mathematical problems that were easy or more difficult. There was greater conformity to incorrect answers when they were difficult than when they were easier. This was most true for students who rated their mathematical ability as poor. This shows how people will conform when they are in situations where they don’t know the answer, supporting ISI.
-There are individual differences in the ISI and NSI explanations. They do not affect everyone’s behaviour in the same way. For example Asch found students were less conformist than other types of people. Also people who are less concerned about being liked are less likely to conform than those who are concerned about this.
+There is support for the NSI explanation. Asch found when asking his participants why they conformed, that they said this was due to not wanting to be disapproved of or disliked by the group, supporting NSI. Asch also found that in a variation where participants could write down their answers instead of saying them aloud, conformity dropped to 12.5%.
-Some researchers argue that these explanations are not necessarily separate explanations and that they can often occur together. For example, in one of Asch’s variations one confederate gave the correct answer reducing conformity. The reason for conformity being reduced was probably because the participant felt they wanted to be approved of by this confederate (NSI) and because they felt this one person may have the correct information (ISI).
Who did research studies into conformity?
Sherif (1935)
Asch (1951)
According to Sherif how has internalisation/informational influence been studied?
This study investigated the emergence of group norms using the autokinetic effect (an optical illusion where a light in a totally dark room appears to move). Each participant was given a series of trials and asked to judge how far the light moved. They were then placed in groups of three and asked to announce their estimates aloud.
According to Sherif what study found out about internalisation/information influence?
What one study has found out about internalisation/informational influence.
When participants were tested individually, they gave very similar estimates each time they were asked. However, between participants there was considerable variation. When the same participants worked in groups of three, their estimates converged until a group norm emerged. The study showed that when faced with an ambiguous situation, the participants looked to others in the group for guidance, i.e. they experienced informational influence.
What are the evaluation points about Sherif’s research study into conformity?
- Asch argued that the experiment did not test for true conformity (i.e. there is an informational influence rather than just compliance) because Sherif’s autokinetic effect was an ambiguous task where there was no clear right or wrong answer. Because of this, Sherif’s subjects may have experienced an informational influence.
- Sherif’s experiment has also been criticized for lacking external validity. The laboratory setting is unnatural and the task itself is not something people would normally be asked to do.
How did Asch (1951) study into compliance/normative influence?
Asch aimed to investigate whether individuals would yield to majority influence (provided by confederates deliberately giving the wrong answer) and give the wrong answer when comparing the lengths of lines, in a situation where the participant would be sure that their own opinion was correct – a situation that was highly unambiguous
A participant is seated with a group of 6-8 others who are in fact confederates of the experimenter, although this is unknown to the participant. The group is shown a display of three vertical lines of different lengths, labelled A, B and C. They are then shown another display containing only one line and asked to judge which line out of A, B and C is the same length as the new line. The displays are so arranged so that there can be no possible doubt as to the correct answer. Each person gives their answer in turn, the participant always being last or next to last. On 12 out of the 18 trials the confederates were instructed to give the same wrong answer. These were known as the critical trials. The participants were observed for conformity. The participants were all white and male
What was found in Asch’s (1951) study about compliance/normative influence?
On trials where all the confederates gave the correct answer ( the control ) the error rate amongst the participants was 0.7%. However, in the critical trials this rose to 32% - the participants gave the wrong answer in 32% of the trials. 74% of participants conformed at least once.
Participants reacted in great surprise on the critical trials rubbing their eyes in disbelief, giggling and looking at the others for some solution to the mystery. In post experiment interviews participants gave reasons for their conformity including:
a) I thought my eyes had deceived me
b) I didn’t want to spoil the experiment (i.e. demand characteristics)
c) I did not want to be ridiculed by the rest of the group and feel like an outsider
Asch concluded that even when faced with a task where the correct answer is not in question, the need to fit in with the majority can cause an individual to give the same answer as the preceding confederates on a significant number of occasions. However, it must be remembered that the majority of participants still continued to give the correct answer.
According to Asch what variables affected conformity?
Asch conducted a number of variations on his original experiment, that suggest conformity can be affected.
- Group Size- When the majority consisted of only 2 people, conformity dropped to 12.8%. Increasing the size of the majority did not cause conformity to go beyond 32%. This could be due to suspicion on the part of the participant.
- Unanimity- If one confederate in the group gave an answer that was different from the other confederates’ answers, conformity by the real participant dropped to 5%.
- Task Difficulty- Conformity increased as the task became more difficult.
What are the evaluation points of Asch’s (1951) study into compliance/normative influence?
-The experiment and variations lack ecological validity, behaviour produced may not be representative of that in the real world. Not often do people sit around making judgements on a simple task for which the answer is obvious but everyone else is unanimously giving the incorrect response. However the experimental method can be defended – Asch’s set up created a situation which allowed the power of pure group pressure to be studied. Everything else that might encourage conformity (eg. knowing the people, having an ambiguous task) had been stripped away. This would be impossible to study outside the laboratory.
-The experiment and variations lack population validity because the sample used was unrepresentative. Firstly, only white Americans were studied, therefore the research is ethnocentic. There are large cultural differences in rates of conformity. Collectivist cultures show much higher levels than individualistic ones. This suggests the research is culture biased.
Secondly, only males were studied in the original experiments. It is therefore beta biased research (assumes that females would have behaved the same even though they didn’t study them.) This makes the experiment androcentric and gender biased.
-The results from Asch’s experiment and variations may be a product of the time in which they were found and may not be applicable to Western society today. The relatively high levels of conformity in Asch’s experiments may reflect America in the 1950’s. This was the McCarthy era when non-conformity was discouraged and’ witch hunts’ took place into un-American activities. Nicholson et al (1985) replicated Asch with British and American students and found much lower levels of conformity
-Asch’s work has been criticised for being unethical. Participants did not provide full informed consent, because they were misled. They were also put in an embarrassing position. However, if p’s were informed of the true aims, and purpose of the confederates, a true measure of conformity would not have been obtained.
-Asch has also been criticised for lacking experimental validity some participants reported that they conformed because they didn’t want to ruin the experiment. However most p’s were taken in by the deception as they showed signs of embarrassment.
-The % of participants conforming was actually quite low. Some have argued therefore that Asch’s research was actually a study of anti-conformity.
Who studied into conformity to social roles?
Zimbardo’s (1973) Stanford Prison Experiment.
What did Zimbardo (1973) want to investigate?
Zimbardo wanted to investigate how readily people conform to the expectations they have about social roles. He was interested in finding out whether the brutality reported among guards in American prisons was due to the sadistic personalities of the guards or had more to do with the prison environment.
How did Zimbardo conduct his Stanford Prison Experiment?
He used well-adjusted, healthy male volunteers, who were paid $15 a day to take part in a two-week simulation study of prison life. Volunteers were randomly allocated to the roles of prisoners or guards. Local police helped by ‘arresting’ nine prisoners at their homes, without warning. They were taken, blindfolded to the ‘prison’ (actually the basement of Stanford university), stripped, sprayed with disinfectant, given smocks to wear and their prison number to memorise. From then on they were referred to by number only. There were three guards, who wore khaki uniforms, dark glasses and carried wooden batons. No physical aggression was permitted.
What happened during Zimbardo’s (1973) Stanford Prison Experiment?
The guards, who were permitted to devise most of the rules, harassed the prisoners and conformed to their perceived roles so well that the study had to be discontinued after six days. Prisoners rebelled against the guards after only two days. Guards stopped the rebellion using fire extinguishers. Some prisoners became depressed and anxious; one prisoner had to be released after only one day. Two more prisoners had to be released on the fourth day.
What did Zimbardo (1973) conclude in his Stanford Prison Experiment?
Zimbardo concluded that the ‘prison environment’ was an important factor in creating the guards’ brutal behaviour (none had shown such tendencies before the experiment.) He believed that people will readily conform to the social roles they are expected to play and that such roles shape a person’s attitudes and behaviour.
What are evaluation points of Zimbardo’s (1973) Stanford Prison Experiment?
+The study had high levels of control over some variables, for example selection of participants. Zimbardo selected emotionally stable individuals who were randomly assigned to the roles of prisoner or guard. This helped to rule out individual personality differences affecting the results.
• It has been argued the participants were merely play-acting rather than genuinely conforming to a role. Their performances were based on their stereotypes of how prisoners and guards are supposed to behave. For example one of the guards claimed he based his role on a brutal character from a film he had seen. This would also explain why the prisoners rioted because they thought that was what real prisoners did. However data gathered by Zimbardo showed that 90% of the prisoner’s conversations were about prison life. This seems to suggest that the situation was real to the participants suggesting it had high internal validity.
• Zimbardo could be accused of exaggerating the power of the situation to influence behaviour and minimising the role of personality factors (dispositional influences). For example only a minority of the guards (about a third) behaved in a brutal manner. Another third were keen on applying the rules fairly. The rest actively tried to help and support the prisoners, sympathising with them and offering them cigarettes and reinstating privileges. This suggests that Zimbardo’s conclusion that participants were conforming to social roles may be over-stated. The differences in the guards’ behaviour indicate that they were able to exercise right and wrong choices, despite the situational pressures to conform to a role.
• A partial replication of the Stanford prison simulation experiment in 2006, found very different findings to Zimbardo’s. It was the prisoners who eventually took control of the mock prison and subjected the guards to a campaign of harassment and disobedience. This suggests that the power of the situation may not be the only factor causing conformity to social roles. For example, it’s believed the prisoners had bonded as a group and shared a social identity making them stronger whereas the prison guards did not.
• The experiment has been criticised as being unethical, due to the humiliation and distress caused to the prisoners. This was made worse by the fact that Zimbardo appeared to lose sight of the harm being done as he played the role of the prison ‘chief superintendent’ during the experiment.
What is obedience?
When someone tells you what to do normally to do with authority and hierarchy.
Obedience is the result of social influence where somebody acts in response to a direct order from an authority figure. It is assumed that without such an order, the person would not have acted in this way. Obedience may sometimes be destructive, as when people comply with the orders of a malevolent authority.
What is the differences between conformity and obedience?
1.
Conformity: No one tells use what to do. There’s no explicit requirement to act in a particular way.
Obedience: The authority orders us to do something. There is an explicit requirement to act in a particular way.
2.
Conformity: The people that influence are our peers, i.e. our equals. They influence us by example leading to everyone’s behaviour becoming similar.
Obedience: The people that influence has greater authority. They influence us by direction leading us to behave in ways that are different to the authority figure’s.
3.
Conformity: We conform because of our need to be right or liked. We don’t usually like to admit we have been influenced.
Obedience: We obey because we accept the hierarchical nature of society. We don’t mind admitting that we obey people in authority.
What did Milgram (1961) study into?
Obedience.
How did Milgram (1961) investigated obedience?
Milgram wanted to find out whether ordinary Americans would obey an unjust order from a person in an authority figure and to discover whether it was situational or dispositional factors that led a person to obey.
40 male volunteers, each paid $4.50, were deceived into thinking they were giving electric shocks. The participants were told that the study concerned the role of punishment in learning. The genuine participant always had the teacher’s role and a confederate played the role of the learner, whose task was to memorise pairs of words. When tested, the learner would indicate his choice using a system of lights. The teacher’s role was to administer a shock every time the learner made a mistake. The teacher sat in front of the shock generator that had 30 levers, each of which indicated the level of shock to be given. The participant watched the confederate ‘learner’ being strapped into a chair in the adjoining room with electrodes attached to his arm. To begin with, the ‘learner’ gave the correct answers but then began to make mistakes. Each time he made an error he was to be given an electric shock administered by the participant. Shocks started at 15volts and rose in 15volt increments to 450volts. If the teacher hesitated in administering the shocks, the researcher would issue a series of prods:
‘Please continue’
‘The experiment requires that you continue’
‘It is absolutely essential that you continue’
‘You have no choice, you must go on’.
What did Milgram find out about obedience?
All participants went to 300 volts.
65% of participants went to the end of the shock generator. That is, they believed they had administered the full 450 volts.
Most participants found the procedure very stressful and wanted to stop, with some showing signs of extreme anxiety. Although they dissented verbally, they continued to obey the researcher who prodded them to continue giving the shocks.
Milgram concluded that under certain circumstances, most people will obey orders that go against their conscience. When people occupy a subordinate position in a hierarchy, they become likely to lose feelings of empathy, compassion and morality and are inclined towards blind obedience. This suggests it is situational, rather than dispositional factors, that lead to crimes of humanity. That is, it is not evil people who commit atrocities; rather it is ordinary people who are just obeying orders.
