Social influence (Easy) Flashcards
What does conformity mean?
A change in behaviour or belief as a result of real or imagined group pressure
What are the explanations of conformity?
NSI, ISI
What are the types of conformity?
Compliance, identification, internalisation
Who suggested the types of conformity?
Kelman (1958)
Define Compliance:
Agree in public
Disagree privately
Does not change the beliefs privately
Temporary
Define identification
Conform to group
Something about the group we value
Publicly change opinion
Even if we don’t agree
Define Internalisation:
Agrees publicly
Agrees privately
Longer lasting effect
Who proposed the explanations for conformity?
Deutsch and Gerard (1955)
What did Deutsch and Gerard (1955) propose?
Two-process theory
Two central human needs
Normative social influence
Informational social influence
Define NSI
Individual wish to be liked by majority
Go along with majority, concerned about rejection
Following the crowd to fit in with the norm
Emotional rather than cognitive process
Temporary change, usually with strangers
Stressful situation, need for social support
Define ISI
who has better info? you vs rest of group
Follow majority to be right
cognitive process
Permanent change
Happens in situations that are new.
Crisis situations, decision to be made quickly.
Assume group=right
Give me research support for NSI, +ve AO3
Asch (1956) study supports NSI: ppts conformed to majority’s incorrect answers to avoid disapproval.
Post-experimental interviews reveal conformity driven by desire to fit in.
Removing public pressure reduces conformity: Asch demonstrated a drop to 12.5% when participants wrote down answers instead of saying them aloud.
Give me research support for ISI, -ve AO3
Jenness (1932) supports ISI
Ppts made independent judgments about jelly beans in a jar.
After group discussion, they made another individual estimate.
Second estimates moved closer to the group estimate.
Females typically conformed more.
Shows ISI in unfamiliar, ambiguous situations, as participants believe they gain knowledge from the group and are more likely to be correct.
However,
Lacks ecological validity.
Estimating the number of beans in a jar is a mundane task
X social consequences.
? about whether similar levels of ISI would be displayed in tasks with more significant social consequences.
For example, hearing evidence in a court case from an ‘expert’ barrister.
Further research examining ISI in real-world settings is needed to generalise these results beyond the laboratory.
What study will you use when talking about conformity to social roles?
Zimbardo’s research, Stanford prison study
Define social roles
The part people plays as members of a social group
Behaviour change to fit the expectations to fit role
Give me the aims of Zimbardo’s study
How the taking on social roles would lead to conformity to roles
test the disposition hypothesis
Method of the Stanford prison study
Basement of Stanford University
Participants randomly allocated to ‘prisoner’ or ‘guard’
Guards told not to use physical punishment
What were the sample for the Stanford Prison experiment:
21 male student volunteers
middle class
white
passed psychological testing
‘Prisoners’ collected from home and were fingerprinted, blindfolded, searched and given a uniform (role of identification)
What was the purpose of the uniforms?
De-individuation, loss of identity. More likely to conform to perceived social roles.
Results of the Stanford prison study
Guards humiliated and punished prisoners
Prisoners began to show signs of mental and emotional distress
Riots on the second day
Prisoners later on became passive and helpless
Guards became aggressive in authoritarian way
5 Prisoners had been released earlier
The experiment was stopped 6 days instead of the planned 14 days
Conclusion of Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment:
Rejects the dispositional hypothesis
Readily conformed to social roles they were expected to play
Social roles shaped their attitudes and behaviour
Give a limitation for Zimbardo’s prison study, other research contradicting findings -ve AO3
Reicher and Haslam’s 2006 replication of the Stanford Prison Experiment refutes Zimbardo’s findings
Ppts X conform to roles automatically.
Guards didn’t assert authority
prisoners resisted collectively
Power dynamics shifted + prison system collapsed.
This challenges Zimbardo’s notion of automatic social role conformity.
Give me another limitation of Zimbardo’s prison study, to do with individual differences -ve AO3
Individual differences (personality) influence conformity to social roles.
In Zimbardo’s experiment, guard behaviour varied widely:
from extreme sadism in 1/3 -> few guards who provided support, sympathy, cigarettes, and reinstated privileges for prisoners.
Indicates that situational factors X sole cause of conformity.
Dispositional factors like personality also contribute.
Implies that Zimbardo’s conclusion may have been overstated.
Give me a strength of Zimbardo’s study +ve AO3
Control over key variables
Selection of ppts- those emotionally stable
One way ruled out individual personality diff
Guards and prisoners behaving differently, in roles by chance, B must have been due to role itself.
↑ internal V. Confident with drawing conclusions.
What is obedience?
Type of social influence, following instructions, commands, or rules given by an authority figure
What is the aim of Milgram’s research?
investigate effects of obedience on authority even if there was potential consequences
AO1 for Milgram’s study
Milgram’s study at Yale University investigated whether ordinary people would obey orders and give electric shocks to person.
Ppts acting as ‘teachers,’ were instructed to increase shock levels for each mistake made by a ‘learner.
Despite protests, the experiment continued until participants refused or reached 450 volts.
Results showed that all participants reached 300 volts, with 65% administering the full 450 volts. Qualitative observations noted signs of distress like sweating and trembling.
In what sub topic do you discuss Milgram’s study?
Obedience
Conclusions of Milgram’s study
Germans not ‘different’ American ppts willing to obey, even though they cause harm.
Certain factors= encouraged obedience, conducted further studies 2 investigate
Limitation of Milgram’s study, lacks internal validity AO3
Orne and Holland (1968): Participants believed electric shocks were fake, ? the validity of Milgram’s obedience test.
Sheridan and King (1972): Participants administered what they thought was a fatal shock to a puppy, with 54% of males and 100% of females doing so. Supports, effects in Milgram’s study = genuine, people behaved obediently even when shocks=real
Milgram’s study: Despite doubts about shock authenticity, 70% of participants displayed obedience.
Milgram’s study, methodological criticism -ve AO3
Milgram’s study lacks population validity due to its biased sample of 40 male American volunteers from an individualistic society.
Generalisation to other populations, especially collectivist cultures or females, is limited.
Exclusion of female participants demonstrates a beta bias, overlooking potential gender differences in obedience to authority.
The study’s androcentric approach further hampers its generalisability to females
Strength of Milgram’s research, findings replicated AO3 +ve
Beauvois (2012)
French documentary: Contestants paid to administer fake electric shocks
Participants instructed by presenter to deliver shocks to other participants
80% administered maximum 450 volts, like Milgram’s study
B= signs of anxiety, supporting Milgram’s conclusions
Demonstrates obedience to authority beyond Milgram’s original study
What sub topic do variables investigated by Asch fall into?
Conformity, first topic.
Asch’s question
To what extent will people conform to the opinion of others?
Procedure of Aschs study
Solomon Asch’s lab experiment on conformity used a line judgment task.
A naïve participant was placed with seven confederates who had pre-arranged their responses.
Ppt believed the confederates were genuine.
Each person had to state which line matched the target line, with the real participant giving their answer last.
In some trials, the confederates purposely gave wrong answers.
12/18 trials confederates gave X answer
What is the results of Asch’s study?
Asch measured conformity rates, with around one-third (32%) conforming to the incorrect majority per trial on average.
75% of participants conformed on at least one trial.
What are the variations of Asch’s original procedure?
Group size
The unanimity of the majority
Difficult of the task
Explain the Asch’s variation of original procedure
GROUP SIZE
confederates ranged from 1 to 15.
Little conformity was observed when the majority consisted of 1/2 confederates.
3= increased by about 30%.
↑ size beyond this point X ↑ conformity.
size of the majority is important up to a certain extent.
Explain the Asch’s variation of the original procedure
UNANIMITY OF THE MAJORITY
The presence of dissenting confederates reduced conformity
whether the dissent was giving right or wrong answer
The average figure is 25% wrong answers
Having a dissenter enabled a naïve participant to behave more independently
Explain the Asch’s variation of the original procedure
DIFFICULTY OF TASK
Asch made the line-judging task harder by making the stimulus line and comparison lines more similar in length
Conformity increased when the task was more difficult
Informational social influence plays a greater role when the task becomes harder
The situation is more ambiguous so we are more likely to look to others for guidance and assume they are right
limitation of Asch’s study
Situation and task was artificial
-ve, AO3
Ppts knew they were in a study. Respond to demand characteristics
The line task = trivial
No reason to conform.
Naïve ppt were in a group X like the groups found in everyday life.
Findings X generalise to everyday situations
+ve Research support for Asch’s study
Todd Lucas
ppts asked to solve easy +hard maths Q’s
ppts given answers from 3 other students (not real)
Conformed when harder
Asch correct in task difficulty.
However,
Lucas found conformity= more complex than Asch suggested.
Ppts ↑ confidence in maths conformed less.
Individual level factor affects conformity. Asch X research this.
