Social Influence- Conformity Flashcards
Types of conformity
Compliance
Internalisation
Identification
Compliance
Privately disagreeing, publicly agreeing
Temporary conformity
To avoid disapproval
Internalisation
Privately agreeing, publicly agreeing
Permanent conformity
Believing in the groups norms
Identification
Privately agreeing, publicly agreeing
Temporary
When part of a group to feel accepted
Conformity
Adopting behaviours, attitudes or values of a group in reaction to social influence
Explanations for conformity
Social influence
Types of social influence
Normative social influence
Informational social influence
Normative social influence
Emotional process
To avoid disapproval and appear normal
Keeps group harmony
Which conformity is linked to normative social influence
Compliance
Informational social influence
Cognitive process
To not be incorrect or cause damage
Using others as a source of information
Which conformity is informational social influence linked to
Internalisation
Asch (1951)
P- 123 US male volunteers, one participant sat with 6-8 confederates. Had to do a verbal line judgement task. On 12/18 trials, all confederates gave the same wrong answer
F- Participants agreed with confederates on 37% of trials.
75% conforned at least once
5% conformed every time
25% never conformed
Strengths of Asch (1951)
Highly controlled- lab study limits extraneous variables
Weaknesses of Asch (1951)
Mundane realism- task was artificial
Cultural bias in sample- findings can only apply to this specific group
Asch variations
Group size
Task difficulty
Unanimity of majority
How did Asch change group size
Variations ranged from 1-15 confederates.
Found that conformity rate was highest (32%) with 3 confederates, then it plateaued and fell after around 8 confederates
Explains normative social influence
How did Asch change task difficulty
Made the lines closer together.
Found conformity increased significantly compared to the 33% in the original study.
Explains informational social influence
How did Asch change unanimity of majority
Condition 1- ‘ally’ said the right answer, conformity decreased to 5%
Condition 2- ‘ally’ said the other wrong answer, conformity decreased to 9%
Supports normative social influence
Zimbardo (1971)
P- 21 American, male, uni students made up a volunteer sample. They were randomly allocated to be a guard or prisoner. Guards were given a uniform, sunglasses and a baton. Prisoners were arrested from their homes, blindfolded, stripped, deloused and given smocks to wear. They were placed in a mock prison in Stanford uni’s basement. On the first day, prisoners tried to rebel so the guards asked Zimbardo (the superintendent) what to do. He said it was their prison so their choice.
F- 5 participants left early due to distress. The experiment was terminated after 6 days due to another psychologist’s input. Prisoners became “zombies” and the guards became aggressive and controlling.
Strengths of Zimbardo (1971)
Supporting research- Abu Ghraib
Procedure- random allocation
Weaknesses of Zimbardo (1971)
Ethical issues- right to privacy, informed consent, protection from harm
Sample- biased
Investigator effects- Zimbardo acting as the ‘superintendant’
Counter research- Haslam and Reicher
Haslam and Reicher (2006)
P- Participants randomly allocated as a prisoner or guard. Researchers were not involved in the study and ethics committees/psychologists were consulted. The setup did not attempt to mimic a prison, but the ‘guards’ had more power, better food etc.
F- Divides occurred within the different groups- some guards were uncomfortable with their power, some prisoners wanted to be guards. Some participants were promoted/demoted and rebellions were formed but not executed. The study ended after few events happened.
