Social Influence Flashcards
Types of conformity: Compliance:
Superficial type of conformity, individual conforms publicly but privately disagree. E.g. bullying
Types of conformity: identification:
Individual adopts the views/behaviours of a group both publicly and privately.
Sense of group membership.
Has elements of compliance and internalisation (due to desire of acceptance )
Not permanent, no conformity when away from group
Types of conformity: internalisation:
Conversion or true change of private views to match a group.
The attitudes become a part of the individuals own beliefs.
Not dependant on group presence.
Conformity test: Asch 1951: outline the amount of trials overall, how many were rigged and how many were correctly conformed:
18 total trials.
6 incorrectly unanimous.
12 correctly unanimous.
Conformity test: Asch 1951: how many participants:
123 total participants.
Conformity test: Asch 1951: how many never conformed? (%)
26%
Conformity test: Asch 1951: how many conformed incorrectly at least once? (%)
74%
Conformity test: Asch 1951: how many conformed every time? (%)
5%
Conformity test: Asch 1951: some reasons for not conforming: (3 reasons)
- conformed due to desire to not be a minority
- did not want to upset experimenter
- some doubt of their own perception
Conformity test: Asch 1951: what were the group sizes tested and their corresponding conformity rate?
Group no. %
1 3%
2 13%
3 33%
Conformity test: Asch 1951: by what percentage did dissenters drop the % rate of conformity?
37% down to 5.5%
Conformity test: Asch 1951: why do dissenters have such a radical affect on conformity?
They break the chain of unanimity, no matter where they occur in the line of answers.
Conformity test: Asch 1951: what individual differences could affect conformity?
Lower self esteem: leads to a higher level of conformity.
Conformity test: Asch 1951: what type of experiment was it?
Laboratory experiment.
Conformity test: Asch 1951: why was Asch’s study not an accurate reflection of conformity in a natural situation?
It was an unreal task.
Conformity test: Asch 1951: what did Asch’s study lack?
Ecological validity.
Conformity test: Asch 1951: why did Asch’s study lack ecological validity?
It was a lab exp hence it could not present a real life situation.
Also, the unrealistic task would present an issue because no one is asked to measure a line on a daily basis.
Conformity test: Asch 1951: who did a variation?
Perrin and Spencer (1980)
Conformity test: Asch 1951: in Perrin and Spencer’s variation why were there lower levels of conformity?
Lower levels due to the use of engineering students who tend to be more confident in ability to measure.
Define normative social influence:
Is based on a desire to be liked by other members of the group. We conform so that others will accept and approve of us. This type of influence only produces public compliance.
Define informational social influence:
Informational social influence is based on the desire to be right and involves looking to others for the most appropriate ways to think or behave when we are unsure. It can result in private acceptance of the group’s position as well as public compliance.
Zimbardo: stanford prison experiment (1973): how many initial possible participants? How did they apply?
There were 75 they were volunteers.
Zimbardo: stanford prison experiment (1973): how many participants were selected and after what?
24- they had been judged to be emotionally stable, physically healthy and normal to average.
Zimbardo: stanford prison experiment (1973): what happened to begin with?
Rebellion, quelled by guards.
Zimbardo: stanford prison experiment (1973): what did all guards display at some point?
All guards displayed abusive behaviour at least once- authoritarian style punishments.
Milgram- what did he do ?
40 male vols
Role of punishment in learning was to be studied (deception - ethical issue)
Experimenter - would tell part to continue no matter what objection was brought up
Part - normal vol
Student - Confederate who would play along until the scream would start playing over the speaker to part
Teacher had to ask students questions and then if the answer was wrong they would shock them
Milgram- findings
65% gave shocks to and including 450
Only 12.5% stopped at 300
Milgram- ethical issues
Harm to parts due to mental damage possibly occuring e.g. trauma
Deception
Not a true right to withdraw
3 parts had a seizure
Milgram- validity
Ecological validity lack due to lab exp
unrealistic situation/ no mundane realism
Lack of internal validity milgram bad
Demand characteristics due to part working out real aim
It was carried out at a prestigious university no one would be hurt badly there
There is internal validity milgram
Real objective study in believable setting
Parts did protest prior to continuing after getting assurance of who wo
Lack of external validity milgram
Yale - cannot be generalised
Artificial
There is external validity milgram
Ecological in the run down office people still went to 400v
Other milgram experiments and percentages
Run down office 48 % Vs the 65% of original
Teacher in ro
