Social Influence Flashcards
Define social influence
Process by which attitudes and behaviour are influenced by the presence or implied presence of others.
Define majority influence
Change in behaviour and attitudes in response to group pressure
Sherif studies (1936)
Autokinetic effect
groups of 3- 2 similar 1 diffe4rent- the different one conformed to the other 2 and even internalised this group norm when tested individually.
Autokinetic effect (optical illusion)- moving flashing light, participants asked to guess distance movement, the p’s converged on group norm- this norm was then internalised and used even when alone- therefore using group norm as a frame of reference.
Tested individually- estimates varied considerably
Groups of 3- 2 which were similar and 1 that was different- conformed to the other 2- group norm!
Asch study (1951)
123 participants
7-9 confenderates
33% conformity rate
5% ALL TRIALS
think (C) CONFORMITY- ASCH 33% AND CRUTCHFIELD- the question booth yes or no 30%
Crutchfield- question booth- 30%
hypothesis: ambiguous task lead to group norm, unambiguous tasks will be INDEPENDENT of group norm. this was not the case…
Visual discrimination- groups of 7-9 male p’s (confederates)- only 1 REAL participant- to match lines with test line. ALONE: 99% success rate: 12 trials. 123 participants.
Results: 25% independent (no mistakes) 50% conformed on 6 or more trials 23% conformed on some trials (1-5) 5% conformed on ALL trials
33% conformity rate
Explanations for Asch results?
P’s reported feelings of anxiety, self-doubt, self-consciousness, fear of disapproval.
They either: assumed they were wrong, went along anyway, believed that wrong answers were right
Variation of Asch study
Reversal- only 1 confederate gave wrong answer- were ridiculed. Participants gave anonymous answers- conformity down by 12.5%
Differences in conformity…
Crutchfield- question booth 30%
Personality tests conducted- Submissive, feelings of inferiority, inhibited.
Submissive, inhibited, feelings of inferiority
Feelings of inferiority, submissive, dishinibted, less mature social relationships
Individuals more likely to conform with:
Low self-esteem
High need for social support
High anxiety, inferiority
Crutchfield 1955- The question booth- other answers (often wrong) were displayed on screen, p’s had to answer true or false to a question. Found same conformity rate of 30%… Administered personality test on conformist individuals- found that:
tended to be: ‘intellectually less effective’, submissive, inhibited, have feelings of inferiority and have less mature social relationships.
Women slightly more likely to conform
Cultural differences- Collectivist cultures more likely to conform- Smith et al 2006-
What are the situational factors surrounding conformity?
Group size
Asch- increase in conformity with group size- peak at 15
Effect of size depends on motivation.
Group unanimity- Conformity reduced if group not unanimous from 33-5.5%- dissenters and deviates also reduce conformity
What is informational influence? INTERNALISATION
accept information from another as evidence about reality, its the desire to be correct- internalisation, long change
Influence to accept information from another as evidence about reality. Desire to be correct. Internalisation- accepts the view of the group and adopt them as the individual (e.g. Sherif auto kinetic study- COGNITIVE CHANGE
Normative social influence? SUPERFICIAL CHANGE
Influence to conform with the positive expectation of others (norms) to gain social approval or to avoid social disapproval (asch- SUPERFICIAL CHANGE)
Social Identity Theory (SIT)
the portion of an individual’s self-concept derived from perceived membership in a relevant social group.
Dual process perspective- influence due to dependence or for social approval.
Referent informational influence- people conform because they are group members- they conform to NORMS not people- conformity only with in-group.
Reasons for resisting conformity?
No stake in non-conformity- Hornsey- Minority issue then counter-conformity
Confident in own judgment, didn’t care what others thought.
Believed the majority was right but still said what they saw- being true to their own perceptions.
IMPORTANTLY- still troubled by the experience- they were relieved to find out they were in fact correct.
Trying to make sense of an odd situation
Obviousness of answer may account for conformity
P’s had no stake in outcome- conformity was less when meaningful- HORNSEY 2003- if people find themselves in a minority on a social issue that is important to them – a social justice issue for example – then conformity is negligible, and in fact counter-conformity is more apparent
There was resistance- 1/4 of p’s never conformed.
Obedience to authority- varying obedience- YALE university
ALL to 300v
65% to 450v (highest level)
Immediacy (proximity) of ‘victim’-
never seen or heard 100% shocked to the limit!
P’s held victim down- 30% shocked to the limit
Proximity of Authority: Experimenter absent- 20% obedience Experimenter gave no instructions- 2.5% 1 disobedient peer- 10% 2 OBEDIENT peers- 92%
Legitimacy of authority- uniform- 70%
non-uniform- 50%
Recent replication of Milligram’s study
Only up to 150v ( good predictor of final obedience)-
Obedience slightly higher- 70%
ESSENTIAL- Contrary to expectations- p’s who saw confederates refuse instructions obeyed just as often.
Men and women did not differ- this was 92% in Milgrams original study!!
Some evidence surrounding individual differences in empathic concern and desire for control (locus of control) affected p’s responses. Burger (2009)- Empathy did not make a significant difference to obedience.
****However, in the base condition, those who stopped at 150V or sooner did have a significantly higher locus of control
Recent attempts at explanation
Agentic state
proximity
location- Yale University
Uniform (legitimacy of authority)
Cultural tendencies to identify with social systems:
- people viewed according to roles
- Milgram’s p’s viewed people as learners rather than citizens
Them and us- villagers in Chambon associated with the persecuted.
