Social Influence Flashcards
Define conformity
Change in person’s behaviour/opinion as a result of real or imagined pressure from a person/group
Define compliance
- Superficial + temporary
- Publically go along w/ group but privately disagree
- Change only lasts as long as group is present
Define identification
- Moderate
- Act same as group bc value it + want to be part of it
- Don’t agree w/ everything majority believes
Define internalisation
- Deep
- Take on majority view bc we accept it as correct
- Leads to permanent change even if group is absent
Define informational social influence
- Agree w/ majority bc accept it as correct + want to be correct
- Leads to internalisation
- Occurs when: situation is ambiguous
Define normative social influence
- Agree w/ majority bc want to be accepted + gain social approval
- Leads to compliance
- Occurs when: need social approval + w/ familiar people
Evaluate ISI
(+) Research support - Lucas et al, students ans maths problems (easy/hard). More conformity when hard esp w/ students who rated maths skills as poor.
(-) Individual diff - Perrin + Spencer found engineering students conformed less. More knowledgeable = less influenced by majority
Evaluate NSI
(+) Research support - Asch asked ppts why they agreed w/ wrong ans - felt self-conscious + afraid of disapproval
(-) Individual diff - nAffiliators (people w/ greater need for social relationship) are more likely to conform
Outline Asch’s procedure into conformity
- Recruited 123 American male students - each tested individually w/ group btw 6-8 confed
- Each trial ppts identified length of standard line
- Each participated in 18 trials
- 12 critical trials- confed gave wrong ans
Outline Asch’s Findings + conclusion
- Ppts gave wrong ans 36.8% of the time
- 25% ppts never gave wrong ans, 75% at least once
- Most said they conformed to avoid rejection (NSI) + privately disagree w/ majority (compliance)
What were the variables that Asch changed in his study?
- Group size
- Unanimity
- Task difficulty
Outline how group size affected conformity in Asch’s research
- No. confed varied btw 1-15
- Conformity:
- W/ 2 : 13.6%
- W/ 3 : 31.8% - adding more made little diff
Outline how unanimity affected conformity in Asch’s research
- Added accurate/inaccurate dissenter
- presence of dissenter: dec 25% - enabled ppts to behave more independantly
Outline how task difficulty affected conformity in Asch’s research
- Made task harder by making lines similar in lengths
- Conformity inc when difficulty inc
- ISI plays greater role when task becomes harder - situation more ambiguous so look to others for guidance
Evaluate Asch’s study
(+) High degree of control - Manipulated lines to make task harder. Variables easy to manipulate
(-) Experiment was artificial - Task was trivial so no reason not to conform. Low ecological validity
(-) Ethical issues - ppts decieved, told visual line judgement task.
(-) Cultural bias - Smith + Bond suggest conformity rates higher in collectivist (37%) than individualist (25%)
Outline the procedure of Zimbardo’s study into conformity to social roles
- Set up mock prison in Stanford uni
- 24 emotionslly stable students determined by psychological testing - randomly assigned roles
- Prisoners arrested at homes + blindfolded, strip searched, deloused + issued no. + uniform (deindividuated)
- Guards uniform : wooden club, handcuffs, keys + mirror shades. Told they had complete power over prisoners
Outline Zimbardo’s findings + conclusion
- 2 days : prisoners rebelled against treatment
- Guards became abusive towards prisoners
- Prisoners became passive + accepting
- Both P + G conformed to social roles
- Supposed to last 2 weeks but ended after 6 days
- 5 prisoners released early bc extreme reactions to situation
Evaluate Zimabardo’s study
(+) Conducted ethically - approved by ethics comittee + ppts debriefed
(+) Real world application - explains Abu Ghraib (Iraq prison). Suggests situation factors influence people’s behaviour
(-) Lack realism - acting based on stereotypes. Results lack validity
(-) Unethical - Zimbardo became the superintended. Unable to protect ppts
Define obedience
Form of social influence in which an individual follows direct orders
Outline Milgram’s procedure
- 40 male ppts aged 20-50 (unskilled to professional) through newspaper ads - said memory study
- Drew lots, Mr Wallace was always the learner while ppts was teacher + experimenter wore lab coat
- Learner in another room
- Ppt would give series of inc electric shocks if ans was wrong.
- Started at 15v upto 450v. At 300v learner pounded on wall + gave no response (told treat as wrong ans)
- if teacher unsure, prods given
Outline the prods given to the teacher (ppt) by the experimenter
- ‘Please continue’
- ‘The experimenter requires that you continue’
- ‘It is absolutely essential that you continue’
- ‘You have no other choice, you must go on’
Outline Milgram’s findings and conclusions
- 100% uptil 300v
- 65% uptil 450v
- Ppts were seen to sweat, tremble + groan
- 3 ppts had full blown uncontrollable seizures
- Prior to study Migram asked psy students to predict ppts behviour, said 3% would continue to 450v
- Ppts debriefed + assured behaviour was normal. Follow up questionnaire showed 84% reported they’re glad to have participated
Evaluate Milgram’s study
(+) High external validity - Hofling et al 21/22 nurses willing to give lethal injection following phone instructions from ‘doctor’
(+) Supporting study - French TV show 80% gave 450v to apparently unconsious man
(-) Low internal validity - ppts didn’t believe shocks were real due to calm demeanor of experimentor
(-) Unethical - ppts were decieved
Define situational variables
External factors that influence level of obedience
Give the 3 factors that Milgram changed to test for explanations for obedience based on situational variables
- Proximity
- Location
- Uniform
Outline Milgram’s research into variation of proximity
- Proximity variation - teacher + learner same room : 40%
- Touch proximity variation - force hand on plate : 30%
- Remote-instruction proximity variation - instructed over the phone : 20.5%, pps also pretended to give shocks/gave weaker shocks
Outline Milgram’s research into variation of location
- Run down building rather than prestigious Yale uni
- 47.5%
Outline Milgram’s research into variation of uniform
- OG: experimenter wore lab coat
- Experimenter called away, taken over by member of public
- 20% - lowest of variations
Evaluation Milgram’s research based on situational variables
(+) Replicated in other culture - 90% obedience in Spanish students, findings not limited to American males
(+) Control variables - altered variable 1 at a time, control gives certainty that change in obedience due to variable manipulated
(-) Lack internal validity - pps likely to realise procedure is fake bc of extra manipulation
(-) Replication in Western countries
Define social-psychological factors
Give examples
- Concerns w/ influence of others on individuals behaviour
- Eg.
- Agentic state
- Legitimacy of authority
Describe the agentic state as a factor affecting obedience
- AS : feels no personal responsibilty for action
- Autonomous state : responsible for actions
- Agentic shift occurs when we perceive someone as authority figure + want to maintain +ve self image
- Binding factors : aspects that allow person to ignore/minimise damaging effect + reduce moral strain
Describe legitimacy of authority as a factor affecting obedience
- For authority to be perceived as legitimate, must occur w/in instututional structure eg. military
- Accept authority figure bc allows society to function smoothly
- Consequence: grant people to punish others
Evaluate the agentic state as an explanation for obedience
(+) Research support - Blass showed students film of Milgram’s study + asked to identify responsible for harm, blamed experimenter
(-) Doesn’t explain all research findings - Hofling : nurses should’ve shown anxiety bc understood role in destructive process but not the case
Evaluate legitimacy of authority as an explanation for obedience
(+) Account for cultural diff - countries differ in obedience to authority, aus: 16% + germans : 85% reached highest voltage - cross-culture research inc validity of exp
(+) Explain real life - My Lai, soldiers given orders to rape + kill, assumed orders given by hierarchy as legal
Define dispositional explanations
Give an example
- Any explanation of behaviour that highlights importance of individual’s personality
- Authoritarian personality
Outline the authoritarian personality as an explanation for obedience
- Exaggerated respect for authority + submissive
- Contempt for inferior
- Conventional attitudes towards race + gender
- Forms in childhood through harsh parenting (conditional love) - creates resentment + hostility that can’t be expressed to parents so displaced to those socially weaker
Outline Adorno’s study into the authoritarian personality
- 2000 middle class white Americans
- Measured by potential for fascism scale (f-scale) eg. “obedience + respect for authority is the most important virtue for children to learn”
- Authoritarians (scored high) identified w/ strong people + contemptuous of weak, conscious of own + others status
Evaluate the authoritarian personality as an explanation for obedience
(+) Research support - Milgram found high authoritarianism in obedient pp than disobedient
(-) Research uses correlation - doesn’t mean AP causes obedience, might be 3rd factor
(-) Exp based on flawed methodology - F-scale is comedy of methodological errors: worded in same direction so might just measure tendency to agree
(-) Limited exp - Mil germans displayed obedience but all diff personality
What are the 2 explanations for resisting social influence?
- Social support
- Locus of control
Define social support
Perception that a person has assistance available from other people + part of supportive network
Outline social support as an explanation to resisting social influence
- Enables us to resist pressures from majority
- Conformity: breaks unanimity
- Obedience: disobedient peer acts as role model, can base behaviour on
How long does the effect of social support last?
Not long
Explain what is meant by locus of control
- Person’s perception of personal control of their own behaviour
- Measured on scale of high ext. one end + high int other end
- High ext: result of ability + effort
- High int: controlled by fate + luck
Why do internals show greater resistance to social influence?
- Person who takes personal responsibility for actions are more likely to base decisions on own belief
- More self confident, higher intelligence + less need for social approval - traits lead to greater resistance
Evaluate social support as an explanation to resistance to social support
(+) Research supporting role of dissenter in resisting comformity - Allen found independence inc w/ dissenter in Asch study, even when wearing thick glasses + vision problems - breaks pressure
(+)Research supporting role of dissenter in resisting obedience - Gamson found higher levels of of rebellions (29/33) than Milgram (pps in groups)
Evaluate LOC as an explanation of resistance to social support
(+) Research support linking LOC + resistance to obedience - Holland repeated Milgram’s study + measured LOC, 37% int didn’t continue to highest + 23% ext
(-) Resreach not supporting link - Twenge et al meta analysis found American became more independent but more ext
Define minority influence
- Form of social influence where by minority persuade others to adopt their beliefs + behaviours
- Leads to internalisation
- Involves: consistency, commitment + flexibility
Outline the role of consistency in minority influence
- Makes others rethink their own view - ‘maybe they’ve got a point if they all think this way + keep saying it’
- Synchronic consistency - people saying same thing
- Diachronic cinsistency - saying same thing for some time
Outline the role of commitment in minority influence
- Gains attention through extreme activities
- Augmentation principle: majority pays more attention
- ‘Wow, he must really believe in what he’s saying, i ought to consider his view’
Outline the role of flexibility in minority influence
- Repeating the same argument is seen as rigid + off putting
- Should adapt + accept reasonable counter arguments
Outline Moscovici’s study into minority influence
- Procedure:
- Group of 6 viewed 36 blue-green slides varying in intensity + stated if slide is green/blue
- 3 conditions: confed consistently said green, confed inconstistent + control group (no confed)
- Findings: 1) same wrong ans 8.42% of trials, 32% gave wrong ans at least once 2) 1.25% 3) 0.25%
Evaluate minority incluence
(+) Research supporting consistency - Moscovici
(-) Research uses artificial task - far removed from how minorities change majority opinion in real life, jury : matter of life + death - low eco val
(-) Majority + minority not so distinct - real life there is more involved in diff. than group size. Minority are commited to cause bc have to face hostile opposition - lab based MI doesn’t represent real world
Q: Impact of social inluence on social change
Lessons from (minority influence/conformity/obedience) research have shown that..
Define social influence
Process by which individuals/groups change each others opinions + behaviours. Include: conformity, obedience + minority influence
Lessons from minority influence research shows that…
- eg. civil rights movement
- Attention: marches drew attentions to segregation
- Consistent: showed consistency of message
- Deeper processing: many people accepted status quo + thought about unjustness
- Augmentation principle: freedom riders got on buses - got beaten + suffered mob violence
- Snowball effect: Civil rights activists gradually got attentions + civil rights act passed - minority to majority
- Social cryptomnesia: Have memory that change happened but not how
Lessons from conformity research shows that…
Lessons from obedience research shows that…
- Milgram: disobedient role models
- Zimbardo: once small instruction obeyed, harder to resist bigger one - gradual commitment
Evaluate the effects of social influence in social change
(+) Research support for role of NSI - Nolan hung messages saying residents are trying to reduce energy usage, sig dec compared to control group w/ no ref. to other people
(-) Minority considered deviant - influence dec, majority avoid agreeing to avoid being seen as deviant
(-) Methodological issues w/ evidence to social change - artificial - low eco val
