Social Influence Flashcards
COMPLIANCE
The lowest level of conformity.
Person changes their public behaviour but not their private beliefs.
Usually short term and result of normative social influence.
IDENTIFICATION
Middle level of conformity.
Person changes public behaviour and their private beliefs, but only while they’re in the presence of the group they are identifying with.
Usually short term and result of normative social influence.
INTERNALISATION
Deepest level of conformity.
Person changes their public behaviour and private beliefs.
This is long term and a result of informational social influence.
INFORMATIONAL INFLUENCE
The desire to be right.
Person conforms because they’re unsure of the situation or lack knowledge.
JENNESS- after participants engaged in a group discussion, they were provided with another opportunity to estimate the number of beans in a glass bottle.
Nearly all participants changed their original answer to conform more closely to the group answer.
This is due to Informational Social Influence, as they believe the groups estimate is more likely to be correct than their own.
NORMATIVE SOCIAL INFLUENCE
The desire to be liked.
Person conforms to the group so that they don’t feel left out or appear foolish.
ASCH LINE STUDY- Found that real participants in his line-matching experiment would conform to the majority view (75% conformed at least one time), even if the answer would obviously incorrect. They wanted to fit in, or avoid ridicule.
Variations of Asch’s line study-
GROUP SIZE
GROUP SIZE
Asch found when increasing size of majority group, conformity levels increased.
Two confederates- 12.8%.
Three confederates- 32%.
However, increasing the group size further did not make a significant difference to the rate of conformity.
Variations of Asch’s Line study-
UNANIMITY
If one of the confederates dissented and gave the correct answer, conformity levels dropped from 32% to 5%.
Variations in Asch’s Line study-
TASK DIFFICULTY
TASK DIFFICULTY
Asch found as he made the line judgment task more difficult, conformity levels increased as participants were more likely to believe the confederates were correct.
This is a shift from normative social influence to informational social influence.
STANFORD PRISON EXPERIMENT
ZIMBARDO 1973
Results-
Prisoners and guards quickly identified with their social roles: within days prisoners rebelled and the guards dehumanised the prisoners.
The experiment was terminated after just 6 days.
Conclusion-
guards and prisoners conformed to their social roles. this experiment supports the situational explanation of behaviour rather than the dispositional one.
MILGRAMS SHOCK STUDY
1963
to what extent an individual will obey, even when orders go against their moral principles.
Results-
All of participants went to at least 300volts
65% continued to the full 450volts
Study shows that inhumane, immoral acts can be committed by ordinary people.
Situational factors led people to lose their autonomy and become agents of an authority figure.
Variations of Milgram’s Shock study
- Milgram’s experimenter wore lab coat- when wearing normal clothes, obedience dropped.
- first conducted at Yale uni, when conducted in run down office block, obedience decreased.
- proximity(closeness) of authority figure- when distant, easier to resist orders- when instructed via telephone with authority in separate room, obedience decreased.
AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
first identified by Adorno el al.
Refers to a person who has extreme respect for authority and is more likely to be obedient to those who hold power over them.
F-scale
found many correlations between the authoritarian personality and prejudice.
-used 2000 white males- lacks generalisation.
AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
Elms and Milgram
-to see if obedient participants in shock study were more likely to display authoritarian personality in comparison to the disobedient participants.
Results
- Obedient participants scored higher on F-scale
- Obedient participants were less close to their fathers.
- Obedient participants admired the experimenter in Milgram’s experiment.
LOCUS OF CONTROL
the extent to which people believe they have control over their lives.
Proposed by Rotter.
People with an internal locus of control believe that what happens in their life is largely the result of their own behaviour, and are more likely to resist pressure to conform or obey.
SOCIAL SUPPORT
One way in which people can resist the pressure to conform or obey is if they have an ally as social support. Having an ally can build self confidence and allow individuals to remain independent.
Asch variation of Line study- unanimity
When one confederate gave correct answer conformity dropped from 32% to 5%.
MINORITY INFLUENCE
CONSISTENCY
minority influence is more likely to occur if the minority members share the same belief and retain it over time.
This draws attention off majority onto minority.
MINORITY INFLUENCE
COMMITMENT
minority influence is more likely to occur if the minority shows dedication to their position.
typically involves some form of personal sacrifice- shows majority that minority is not just acting out of self-interest.
MINORITY INFLUENCE
FLEXIBILITY
minority influence is more likely to occur if minority is willing to compromise. this means they cannot be viewed as dogmatic and unreasonable.
MINORITY INFLUENCE
COMMITMENT STUDY, MOSCOVICI
Female participants shown 36 differently shaded blue slides
- 2 confederates, 4 participants
- when confederates were consistent, 8% of participants said slides were green, when not consistent, 1% said slides were green.
MINORITY INFLUENCE
FLEXIBILITY, NEMETH
participants had to agree on amount of compensation they’d give a victim of ski-lift accident.
- group 1 minority argued low rate and refused to change position. (inflexible)
- group 2 minority argued low rate but compromised, offering a slightly higher rate.
- Inflexible- minority had little to no effect on majority.
- flexible- majority members were more likely to compromise.
highlights importance of flexibility and questions consistency. suggests a balance between the two.
SOCIAL CHANGE
the ways in which a society (rather than an individual) develops over time, replacing former beliefs, attitudes and behaviours with new norms and expectations.
PROCESSES THAT EXPLAIN SOCIAL CHANGE
Consistency- displaying consistency of viewpoint and intended outcome is beneficial in bringing about social change.
Deeper Processing- the more people think about the issue at hand rather than blindingly accepting it, the more they will be able to challenge the existing social norms to bring about change.
drawing attention- minority influence more likely to occur if willing to compromise.
SNOWBALL EFFECT
once minority begin to persuade people of their beliefs, this triggers a snowball effect. more and more people adopt minority opinion.
AUGMENTATION PRINCIPLE
the will to act with consequences or not to act with consequences.
An action that shows extreme belief.
SOCIAL CRYPTOMNESIA
when people can remember a change but not how it came about.
THE AGENTIC STATE
Person obeys the authority when they believe that the authority will take responsibility for the consequences of their actions.
Variation of Milgram shock study-
participant asked a confederate to press the switch instead of themselves.
90% went to maximum 450volts. shows when there’s less personal responsibility, obedience increases.
Oliner & Oliner 1998
non jewish survivors of WWII, compared those who resisted orders and protected Jewish people from Nazis with those who had not. found 406 rescuers are more likely to have internal locus of control compared to the 126 who had simply followed orders. supports idea that high internal locus of control makes individual more likely to resist following orders. however there are other factors that may have caused individuals to follow orders in WWII.
Spector 1983
used Rotters locus of control scale to determine whether locus of control is associated with conformity.
-157 students, found that students with high internal locus of control were less likely to conform compared to students with high external locus of control but only in situations of normative social influence. There was no difference in informational social influence. suggests the desire to be liked is more powerful than the desire to be right, when considering locus of control.
