Social Influence: Conformity Flashcards
What is conformity
- Conformity: when behaviour of individual/small group is influenced by larger/dominant group.
- 3 types of conformity:
-> internalisation
-> compliance
-> Identification
What is internalisation
- going along with the majority and believing in their views.
-> accepted and internalised views and behaviours, they are your own too. - may happen if in an unfamiliar situation -> don’t know the correct ways to behave
-> may look to others for info of how to behave.
-> This influence is called informational social influence (ISI).
What is compliance
- compliance -> going along with the majority, even if you don’t share their views.
-> you do this to appear ‘normal’ -> deviating may lead to exclusion or rejection from the group.
-> influence is called normative social influence (NSI).
What is identification
- Conforming to what’s expected of you to fulfil a social role.
-> changing you behaviour to fit a role in society (e.g. a nurse) or imitating behaviour of role model.
Explain the features of Sherif’s experiment on ISI
- Method: a lab experiment with repeated measures design. Used the illusion of an auto kinetic effect, where a stationery spot of light, viewed in a dark room appears to move.
-> ppts falsely told the light would move.
-> estimate how far it moved. - Results: alone, ppts develop their own estimates (personal norms) which varies.
-> once in a group, estimates tend to converge and became more alike.
-> when retested alone, estimates more like group estimates than their original guesses. - Conclusion: Ppts developed a group norm (group estimate).
-> ppts use info from others to form own estimates -> ISI.
Evaluate Sherif’s experiment on ISI
(+) A lab experiment -> strict control of variables -> possible to estimate cause and effect.
-> can be replicated.
(+) repeated measures design -> participant variables were kept constant.
(-) lacks ecological validity -> artificial situation.
(-) limited sample size -> ppts were male -> unable to generalise.
(-) ethics -> deception, ppts told light was moving when it didn’t.
Explain the features of Asch’s experiment on the effects of NSI
- Method: a lab experiment with independent groups.
-> ppts matched line lengths (1, 2, or 3) with standard line. - Each group only had one real participant -> others were confederates.
- Each participant went last or second to last so heard the other’s answers before giving theirs.
- Results: In control groups, ppt gave the wrong answer 0.7% of the time. In critical trials, participants conformed 37% of the time.
-> 75% conformed at least once. - Conclusion: Despite the task being easy -> ppts conformed due to NSI.
Evaluate Asch’s experiment on the effects of NSI
(+) lab experiment -> high control -> minimises extraneous variables.
-> easy to replicate.
(-) Artificial situation -> lacks ecological validity.
-> may have been less likely to conform if the answer had real life consequences.
(-) ethics -> participants were deceived and embarrassed when found true nature of the study.
What were the situational factors in the different variations of Asch’s experiment
- group size
- unanimity / social support
- task difficulty
Explain how groups size was a situational variables in Asch’s variations
- Only 2 confederates -> ppts conformed on only 14% of critical trials.
- 3 confederates -> conformity rose to 32% -> little change to conformity rates after -> no matter how large the majority was.
- small majorities were easier to resist than larger ones.
-> but influence does not keep increasing with the size of the majority.
Explain how unanmity and social support are a situational factors in Asch’s variations
- Rather than confederates forming a unanimous majority -> one of the confederates agreed with the ppt.
-> having a fellow dissenter, broke the unanimity of group.
-> Easier to resist pressure to conform.
-> conformity fell to 5.5%.
Explain how task difficult is a situational factor in Asch’s variations
- when line lengths became more similar -> conformity levels increased.
-> more likely to conform if less confidence.
Explain how confidence and expertise is a factor in conformity (Asch)
- When Asch debriefed ppts, found a common factor of confidence in those who hadn’t conformed.
-> with confidence, they were able to resist group pressure. - Perrin and Spencer: replicated Asch study with engineering students as ppt.
-> conformity was lower.
-> had confidence in their skills.
Explain how gender may not be a factor in conformity (Eagly and Carli)
- Until the mid 70s, there was a common view that females conform more than males.
- Eagly + Carli: meta-analysis of conformity.
-> found sex differences but these differences were inconsistent.
-> clearest difference they found was in Asch-like studies where there was group pressure from an audience.
Explain how gender may be a factor in conformity (Eagly)
- Argued men + women’s different social roles explain difference in conformity.
-> women focused on group harmony -> more likely to agree. - Independence was a valued male attribute -> maintaining their own opinion under pressure fits the perceived male social role.
What are social roles
- behaviours society expects from you.
-> E.g. women with a baby expected to look after and love their child.
-> these are behaviours that fulfil the social role of a ‘mother’. - when we accept a role -> we ‘internalise’ them to shape our behaviour.
Explain the features of Zimbardo’s SPE
- Method: male students randomly assigned to role of prisoner or guard and behaviours were observed.
- Prisoners ‘arrested’ and given uniforms and numbers.
-> guards also wore uniforms and sunglasses. - Results: Initially guards try asserting their authority and prisoners resist by sticking together.
- Prisoners became more passive + obedient -> while guards invent harsher punishments.
- Experiment abandoned -> participants became distressed.
- Zimbardo also became ‘corrupted’ by role of superintendent.
- Conclusion: social roles were adopted to quickly -> claims this shows that social roles can influence our behaviour.
-> seemingly well-balanced people became more aggressive.
Evaluate Zimbardo’s SPE
(+) controlled observation -> good control of variables.
(-) artificial environment and only male college students -> can’t be generalised to real-life -> eco validity.
(-) ethics -> ppts became very distressed.
(-) observer bias -> Zimbardo was superintendent -> admitted to personally becoming involved.
(-) Zimbardo’s conclusion doesn’t explain why only some participants acted according to their assigned roles.
Explain Orlando’s experiment of the Mock Psychiatric Ward
- Similar to the SPE on social roles.
- set up mock psychiatric ward -> 29 members of a hospital volunteer to be ‘patients’ -> another 22 staff were involved but asked to carry out normal roles.
- Soon ‘patients’ start behaving like real patients -> difficult to distinguish between real and fake.
-> signs of depression and withdrawal -> 6 tried to escape. - Mock patients reported they felt anxious + despairing.
-> felt they lost their identity.
(+) study led to increased effort by staff to respect patients.
Explain Reicher + Haslam’s BBC prison study
- Method: Controlled observation in mock prison.
-> ppts randomly assigned to 2 groups: 5 guards, 10 prisoners. - One of the prisoners would become a guard after 3 days.
- Results: Guards failed to identify with their role -> felt uncomfortable with the inequality of the situation.
- after 1 prisoner was promoted -> prisoners became much stronger group.
- System collapsed due to the unwillingness of guards and strength of the prisoner group.
- Conclusion: ppts didn’t fit their expected social roles, suggests these roles are flexible.
evaluate Reicher + Haslam’s BBC prison study
(-) criticism for being made for TV -> many including Zimbardo argued elements were staged and ppts played up to the cameras.
(-) artificial situation.
(+) good ethics -> ethics committee, were not deceived, informed consent.
