Social Influence Flashcards
Three Types of Conformity
Compliance - agree in public but disagree in private
Identification - convinced by others. Often temporary
Internalisation - Agree both publicly and privately
Explanations for Conformity
Normative Social Influence (NSI) - gain approval and avoid rejection
Informational Social Influence (ISI) - believe others are right and not wanting to be wrong
Asch Study (1956)
Aim: Show whether people conform in unambiguous situations
Method: Used 123 male Uni students. Shown three lines alongside a comparison line. Asked to match one of the three to the comparison. Answer was unambiguous
Results : 37% provided wrong answers in clinical trials. 75% conformed at least once
Conclusion: Results were affected by NSI. Rate of wrong answers was increased by normative pressure, even when they were aware they were complying
Zimbardo’s theory
Wanted to show has mutually agreed roles that people follow without thinking. Had a theoretical idea of deindividuation leads to disinhibition
Stanford Prison Experiment (1973)
Aim: To see whether people conform to set social roles easily
Method: 24 male subjects, 12 prisoners & 12 prison guards. Used a volunteer sample.
Results: Study stopped after 6 days, instead of the full 2 weeks. Violent behaviour from guards. Long terms symptoms of various mental disorders among prisoners.
Conclusion: conformity to social roles is powerful
Milgram’s theory
Interested in the ‘German Question’ and wanted to help prove against the judgement that was present against German people at the time. Believed that anyone under their circumstances could easily be persuaded to commit evil and immoral acts.
Stages in Milgram’s Theory
Autonomous State- Your actions are under you own control
Agentic State- You’ve deferred responsibility over to someone else
Agentic Shift- The point at which you lose sense of responsibility
Legitimacy of Authority - Features or qualities of a person that makes us obey them
Milgram’s Study (1963)
Method: Actor brought in with participant. Assigned as learner &teacher. The teacher enters seperate room and told to administer shocks from 15-450V to the learner if they provide a wrong answer to questions.
Results: 100% went up to 300V ( the point at which the actor was unresponsive). 65% went up to the full 450V
Variations of MIlgram’s Study
Location: Study was repeated in an office building instead of a university. Obedience dropped to 45% administering 450V
Uniform: Researcher wore police uniform and obedience increased to 72%. Business suit decreased obedience to 45%. Dressing as a tramp caused 52% obedience
Proximity: Teacher and learner were placed in the same room and obedience dropped to 30%
Elms & Milgram study (1966)
- Used the participants from Milgram’s original study
- Used MMPI and F-scale to explain their personalities and how it affects their decisions
- Concluded that the more their personality matched RWA, the more obedient their behaviour
NSI & ISI
Asch (1956)
Social Role Conformity
ZImbardo (1973)
- deindividuation & disinhibition
Situational Obedience
Milgram (1963)
Autonomous State
Agentic State
Agentic Shift
Dispositional Obedience
Elms & Milgram (1966)
Evaluation of NSI & ISI
- Lacks internal validity due to potential demand characteristics
- Lacked internal validity due to potentially unconvincing confederates
- Lacks historical validity due to cultural changes and the dated theory Asch presented. This means it has weak reliability
Evaluation of Social Role Conformity
- Lacked significant ethical consideration as there was a lack of privacy, right to withdraw, protection from harm and avoidance of deception.
- It lacked mundane realism as it was in the basement of a university. This decreased internal validity
Evaluation of Situational Obedience
- Lacked ethical consideration as one participant suffered from a heart attack due to the stress.
- Lacked mundane realism as it was a lab study carried out in a university. Cannot truly judge obedience in the real world. Decreases internal validity
- The variations showed that the original study lacked internal validity as the dispositional factors cause results to not fully support his theory
Evaluation of dispositional Obedience
- There were ethical issues as many suffered from the original study and may have found it difficult to be reminded of their experience.
- There has been multiple studies carried out that found similar results to Elms & Milgram which increases external validity
- Lacked internal validity as there were multiple extraneous variables (like education level) that could’ve have affected the results rather than authoritarianism
Locus of Control
Rotter
External Locus of Control: have a sense that things are out of their control and are ruled by external forces
Internal Locus of Control: display independence in thought and behaviours. Believe they are in control of their own lives
Resistance to Social Influence
Rotter ( Locus of Control)
Moscovici
- Green & blue slides of different shades
- 8% gave wrong answers when minority were consistent
- 1.5% gave wrong answer when minority were inconsistent
- All female sample
- Lab study
Behavioural Styles
CCF
Consistency: minority must adopt a consistent and clear approach as it leads people to reassess their situation and consider the issue
Commitment: This suggests certainty, confidence and courage in the face of the majority. Persuades majority members to take them seriously
Flexibility: They must negotiate their position with the majority rather than try and enforce it
Process of Social Change
- Cognitive Conflict
- Consistency
- Deeper Processing
- Augmentation Principle
Minority Influence
Moscovici
CCF
