Social Influence Flashcards
(42 cards)
Agentic state
Explanation imposed by Milgram.
Where an individual carries out orders of an authoritative figure, acting as their agent.
Factors needed to make a minority a majority
Consistency
Commitment
Flexibility
Overtime, this will have a snowball effect and the minority will become a majority as more and more conform.
Factors affecting conformity
As shown by Asch’s research:
Group size (larger group, more conformity)
Unanimity/social support (more support, less conformity)
Task difficulty (higher difficulty, more conformity)
Types of conformity - “someone publicly agrees but their private beliefs remain the same”
Compliance
Types of conformity - “someone adopts the behaviours of those around them because the membership/identity is desirable”
Identification
Types of conformity - “when someone genuinely accepts the belief of a group and adjusts their behaviour to fit with this”
Internalisation
Normative social influence
The desire to be liked or fit in with a group. We conform because it is seen as the ‘normal’ thing to do and hence we will be accepted. It is an emotional process - relates to fear of rejection.
Informative social influence
The desire to be right. Because of this desire we look towards others to gain information on how to behave. It is a cognitive process as we have to think logically about who we believe to be right.
Aims of Asch’s research
To establish the extent that group pressure can influence an individual to conform to the groups way of thinking.
Procedure of Asch’s research
P’s seated around table.
All shown a ‘reference’ line, and another card with three more lines on it.
P’s asked to publicly declare which line is same length as reference line (designed to be easy).
All but one are involved in aims of experiment so give the same answer that is obviously wrong.
Innocent p is the penultimate, so has pressure to conform (despite knowing answer is wrong).
Findings and conclusions of Asch’s study
The innocent participant would almost always conform to the rest of the group. This is an example of Compliance (private views don’t change just wants to fit in) and Normative social influence (the desire to be liked).
We can conclude that a group exerts a strong influence over a minority to conform.
Positives of Asch’s study
Simplicity of task makes influence of conformity clearer.
Most ethical issues were protected.
Lab study - control over variables makes results more reliable.
Negatives of Asch’s study
Carried out on male Americans, ungeneralisable.
Lab study - lacks external validity.
Unethical to deceive the participant and cause them confusion.
Stanford Prison experiment - procedure
P’s self-volunteered. Separated into ‘prisoners’ and ‘guards’. Classic arrest procedure was acted out, prisoners were strip-searched and deloused. Given uniform and number by which they would be called. Stripped of identity.
Guards - told to do whatever they felt necessary, complete power over prisoners.
Prisoners - told to follow the guards orders.
Guards wore uniform with handcuffs and keys. Gave them identity/power in comparison to prisoners. Mirror shades deliberate so when shouted at, prisoners would see their unwell selves being looked down on. Made to feel worthless and inferior.
Stanford Prison experiment - behaviours/findings
Guards - punished prisoners for small deeds / constantly harassed them / became more brutal as experiment progressed / played prisoners against one another to obtain satisfaction at being able to punish them for their aggression / abused power.
Prisoners - ripped uniforms and messed up rooms in rebellion / shouted and swore / refused to comply / refused to eat / one withdrew claiming he was mentally damaged.
Experiment stopped after 6 days. Guards took on roles with such enthusiasm that behaviours became a threat.
Stanford Prison experiment - conclusion
Systems create bad behaviours, rather than behaviours creating the systems.
Our schemas create expectations of how we should behave in a given situation. So when in a position of apparent authority, we manipulate our actions to fit the role.
Stanford Prison experiment - evaluation
:) = gives us some insight into the role of schemas when conforming to a role. Better understanding of behaviours into situations such as WW2.
:( = lacks external validity (guards and prisoners fake, not real prison) / Sample unrepresentative (male students, majority white, middle class, self-volunteered so all had extravert personalities) / man admitted to faking breakdown so validity of results is questionable.
Authoritarian personality
Someone’s level of submission/obedience to an authority figure.
Said to be determined by parenting during youth.
Milgram’s study - aims
To investigate obedience (being influenced by one person and feeling as though you have no choice but to obey as they have the authority) and the factors affecting it.
Study was based on the interest of how the Nazis obeyed Hitler’s commands in the war.
Milgram’s study - procedure
- Males, self-volunteered, aged 20-50.
- There was a rigged draw between p’s in which confederate would always end up as learner and genuine participant always the teacher.
- Also an experimenter (actor) in lab coat who over looked experiment.
- Learner strapped into electrode chair in different room.
- P’s lead to believe it was genuine but no shocks were actually given to learner.
- P’s (teachers) required to ask questions that learner would deliberately get wrong.
- Wrong answers caused an increase in shock (starting 15 volts up to 450 volts).
- Learner would appear to be in great pain.
- When looking to experimenter for guidance, teacher would receive prompts: “please continue” etc.
Milgram’s study - findings
12.5% stopped at 300 volts. No one below this.
65% continued until highest voltage (450v).
P’s showed great discomfort: groaning, sweating, tension, and 3 even had seizures.
Milgram’s study - conclusions
Shows the strength of obedience and the impactive role of an authoritative figure when influencing behaviour.
Milgram’s study - negatives
- P’s were hugely deceived
- V unethical, a lot of distress caused
- Consented to an incorrect brief (lead to believe it was a memory experiment)
- 3 p’s actually had seizures.
Factors affecting obedience (variations of Milgram’s study)
Uniform - gives figure more authority making someone feel obliged to comply. When experimenter switched to ‘member of public’ obedience dropped 20%.
Location - the more prestigious the location the higher the rates of obedience due to feeling of legitimacy. In office location only 48% went to 450v.
Proximity - closer to person = feel more responsible so less likely to obey. Further away from person = feel less responsible so more likely to obey.
Closer to authoritative figure = more likely to obey, etc.
Verbal influence = people will conform to the verbal opinions of others and be more or less likely to obey based on what they are saying. Informative social influence - the desire to do what is right.
