Social Influence Flashcards
Conformity
A change in a person‘s behaviour or opinions as a result of real or imagined pressure from a person or group of people
Internalisation
A deep type of conformity where we take on the majority view because we accept it as correct
It leads to a far-reaching and permanent change in behaviour, even when the group is absent
Identification
A moderate type of conformity where we act in the same way with the group because we value it and want to be part of it. But we don’t necessarily agree with everything the majority believes
Compliance
A superficial and temporary type of conformity where we outwardly go along with the majority view, but privately disagree with it. The change in our behaviour only lasts as long as the group is monitoring us
Informational social influence
An explanation of conformity that says we agree with the opinions of the majority because we believe it’s correct. We accept it because we want to be correct as well. This may lead to internalisation
Normative social influence
An explanation of conformity that says we agree with the opinion of the majority because we want to be accepted, gain social approval and be liked. This may lead to compliance
Types of conformity
Internalisation
Identification
Compliance
Explanations for conformity
Informational social influence
Normative social influence
Conformity: types and explanations evaluation points
Research support for ISI
Individual differences in NSI
ISI and NSI work together
Research support for ISI evaluation of explanations for conformity
Lucas 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 rather than when they were easier ones. This was most true for students who rated their mathematical ability as poor.
The study shows that people conform in situations where they feel they don’t know the answer, which is exactly the outcome predicted by the ISI explanation. We looked at other people and assume they know better than us and must be right
Individual differences in NSI evaluation of explanations for conformity
Some research shows that NSI does not affect everyone’s behaviour in the same way.
For example people who are less concerned with being liked are less affected by NSI than those who care more about being liked. Such people are described as nAffiliators. These are people who have a greater need for affiliation – a need for being in a relationship with others.
For example, McGhee and Teevan found that students high in need of affiliation were more likely to conform
This shows that the desire to be liked underlies conformity for some people more than others. Therefore there are individual differences in the way people respond
ISI and NSI work together evaluation of explanations for conformity
The idea of Deutsch and Gerrard’s to process approach is that behaviour is either due to NSI or ISI. But the truth is that, more often, both processes are involved
For example, conformity is reduced when there is one other dissenting participant in the Asch experiment. This dissenter may reduce the power of NSI or may reduce the power of ISI
This shows that it isn’t always possible to be sure whether NSI or ISI is at work. This is the case in lab studies, but is even truer in real life conformity situations outside the lab. This casts serious doubt over the view of ISI and NSI as two processes operating independently in conforming behaviour
Group size- Asch’s research
Asch increased the size of the group by adding more Confederates, thus increasing the size of the majority. Conformity increased with group size, but only up to a point, levelling off when the majority was greater than three
Unanimity- Asch’s research
The extent to which all the members of the group agree. In Asch’s studies, the majority was unanimous when all the Confederates selected the same comparison line. This produced the greatest degree of conformity in the naive participants
Task difficulty –Asch’s research
Asch’s line judging task is more difficult when it becomes harder to work out the correct answer. Conformity increases because naive participants assume that the majority is more likely to be right
Asch’s research procedure
He tested conformity by showing participants 2 large white cards at a time. On one card was a standard line and on the other card were three comparison lines. One of the three lines was the same length as the standard and the other two were always substantially different. The participant was asked which of the three lines match the standard.
The participants in the study were 123 American male undergraduates. Each naive participant was tested individually with a group of between six and eight Confederates,. The naive participant was not aware that the others were Confederates
On the first few trials all the Confederates gave the right answers but then they started making errors. All the Confederates are instructed to give the same wrong answer. Altogether each participant took part in 18 trials and on 12 critical trials the Confederates gave the wrong answer. The trial was one occasion identifying the length of the standard line
Asch’s research findings
the naive participant gave a wrong answer 36.8% of the time. Overall 25% of the participants did not conform on any trials, which means that 75% conformed at least once. The term Asch effect has been used to describe this result – the extent to which participants conformed even when the situation is unambiguous
when participants were interviewed afterwards most said they conformed to avoid rejection (NSI)
Asch’s variations
Group size
Unanimity
Task difficulty
Conformity: Asch’s research evaluation points
A child of its time
Artificial simulation and task
Limited application of findings
A child of its time evaluation of Asch’s research
Perrin and spencer repeated Asch’s original study with engineering students in the UK. Only one student conformed in a total of 396 trials. It may be that the engineering students felt more confident about measuring lines than the original sample and therefore were less conformist. But it is also possible that the 1950s were an especially conformist time in America, and therefore it made sense to conform to established social norms. But society has changed a great deal since then, and people are possibly less conformist today.
This is a limitation of his research because it means that the Asch effect is not consistent across situations and may not be consistent across time, and so it is not a fundamental feature of human behaviour
Artificial situation and task evaluation of Asch’s research
Participants knew they were in a research study and may simply have gone along with the demands of the situation (demand characteristics). The task of identifying lines is relatively trivial and therefore there was really no reason not to conform. Also, although the naive participants were members of a group, it didn’t really resemble groups that we are part of in every day life. According to Fiske, Asch’s groups were not very groupy
This is a limitation because it means that the findings do not generalise to every day situations. This is especially true where the consequences of conformity might be more important, and we interact with other people in groups in a much more direct way
Limited application of findings evaluation of Asch’s research
Only men were tested. Other research suggests that women might be more conformist, possibly because they are more concerned about social relationships than men. The men in his study were from the United States, an individualist culture i.e. where people are more concerned about themselves rather than the social group.
Similar conformity studies conducted in collectivist cultures (such as China) have found that conformity rates are higher. This makes sense because such cultures are more oriented to group needs
This shows that conformity levels are sometimes even higher than Asch found. His findings may only apply to American men because he didn’t take gender and cultural differences into account
Social roles
The parts people play as members of various social groups
Everyday examples include parent, child, student and so on
These are accompanied by expectations we and others have of what is appropriate behaviour in each role, for example caring, obedient etc
The Stanford prison experiment procedure
Zimbardo set up a mock prison in the basement of the psychology department at Stanford university. They advertised for students idling to volunteer and selected those they deemed emotionally stable after testing.
The students were randomly assigned roles of guards or prisoners. To heighten the realism of the study, the prisoners were arrested in their homes by the local police and were then delivered to the “prison”. They were blindfolded, strip searched, dell used and issued a uniform and number
The social roles of the prisoners and the guards were strictly divided. The prisoners’ daily routines were heavily regulated. There were 16 rules they had to follow, which were enforced by the guards who worked in shifts, three at a time. The prisoners’ names were never used, only their numbers
The hue arcs, to underline their role, had their own uniform, complete with wooden club, handcuffs, keys and mirror shades. They were told that they had complete power over the prisoners.
