SOCIAL INFLUENCE & GROUP BEHAVIOUR Flashcards
Social influence
Social influence - the effect that others have on our thoughts, feelings, and behaviours.
- People respond to social influence in different ways depending on their own personal characteristics and the characteristics of the situation.
Conformity
Conformity - the convergence of one’s thoughts, feelings and behaviours with external standards.
- A widely studied type of social influence !
2 forms of Conformity
1) Compliance - doing what one is asked to do by regulations.
2) Obedience - doing as one is told to do by an authority figure.
20th century studies on social influence
Much of our understanding of social influence has developed from classic 20th-century studies.
- Asch’s studies on conformity
- Milgram’s Obedience to Authority (Milgram, 1961-1963)
- Stanford Prison Experiment (Zimbardo, 1971)
Asch’s studies on conformity (Asch, 1951; Asch, 1955)
- Argued that people look to others to help guide their behaviour according to them.
- A sample of white male participants were told they would take part in a “perceptual judgement task”.
- Only one man was a true participant, the rest were confederates (asked to respond in a certain way).
- Shown a set of 4 lines (1 standard line + 3 other lines)
- Asked to choose which line matched the standard line.
- First two trials - confederates gave the correct answer, third trial - confederates gave an incorrect answer (12 trials - confederates gave an incorrect response).
- Results:
Control group - - 99% of participants gave the correct answer.
Experimental group - - 36.8% were incorrect (influenced by the majority at some point during 12 trials)
- 63.2% were always correct
- 5% were always swayed by the crowd
- 25% were always independent
Evaluation of Asch’s study
Strengths:
+ The results widely replicate, even in the 21st century (e.g., Fujita & Mori, 2018; Mori & Arai, 2010; Ullrich, Butz & Deifenbach, 2018; van den Bos, Lind, Bommelé & VandeVondele, 2015).
Limitations:
- Lacks ecological validity - the task is not what we do in everyday life.
- Context is important - not the same as for example being threatened with having your family killed.
- Results are not representative - the sample consisted of only white males.
Milgram’s Obedience to Authority study (Milgram, 1961-1963)
- 40 male participants were told they were participating in a study on “memory and learning”.
- Were assigned the task of a “teacher” and told to read out pairs of words to another person (the “student”) behind a screen + the student had to recall the words.
- Participants were asked to give an electric shock to the “student” for every incorrect response.
- Used phrases like: “Please continue”, “The experiment requires that you continue”, “It’s absolutely essential that you continue”, “You have no other choice, you must go on”.
- Results: Obedience decreased as shock intensity increased BUT 63% of the participants went up to and beyond the 450V max shock level.
Milgram’s Obedience to Authority study (Milgram, 1961-1963)
- 40 male participants were told they were participating in a study on “memory and learning”.
- Were assigned the task of a “teacher” and told to read out pairs of words to another person (the “student”) behind a screen + the student had to recall the words.
- Participants were asked to give an electric shock to the “student” for every incorrect response.
- Used phrases like: “Please continue”, “The experiment requires that you continue”, “It’s absolutely essential that you continue”, “You have no other choice, you must go on”.
- Results: Obedience decreased as shock intensity increased BUT 63% of the participants went up to and beyond the 450V max shock level.
Evaluation of Milgram’s Obedience Study
- Milgram’s classification of subjects as either “disobedient” or “obedient” fails to capture the true dynamics of the situation (Holland et al.).
People did try protesting + stopped in response to “You have no other choice, you must go on” + more disobedient if the experimenter was more overbearing. - Meta-analysis of 23 versions of Milgram’s study showed an average obedience rate of only 43% (Haslam & Reicher).
- Fails to consider context - Milgram’s and Asch’s experiments suggest that conformity and social influence are more about context than personality of individual factors.
8 factors that influenced the likelihood of a 450V shock in Milgram’s study
- Experimenter’s directiveness
- Legitimacy
- Consistency
- Group pressure on the teacher to disobey
- Indirectness
- Proximity
- Intimacy of the relation between teacher and learner - can induce trust.
- Distance between the teacher and the experimenter
Stanford Prison Experiment (Zimbardo, 1971)
- “University Prison” established in a basement of Stanford University.
- Used a sample of 24 male university students with no history of psychological or medical problems or violence.
- Participants randomly assigned to the roles of guards or prisoners.
- Results:
- Guards placed in a position of power = began to automatically behave in ways they would not usually act (and went as far to use physical force and violence).
- Guards took away prisoners’ privileges and oppressed them.
- The study had to be stopped after just 6 days.
Comparison of Milgram’s and Stanford’s experiments
- In contrast to the morally conflicted compliance of Milgram’s participants, Zimbardo’s guards applied initiative, creativity and even some enthusiasm to the tasks demanded by the roles they had been given !
Evaluation of Stanford Prison experiment
Strengths:
+ Supports the idea of in-group vs out-group (theory by Tajfel & Turner, 1979).
+ High variable control - participants were screened prior to study for mental health issues and prior violence (social roles were the causes of their behaviours).
Limitations:
- Participants were acting rather than actually conforming to their social role (e.g. took their ideas from movies).
- Exaggerated results - only 1/3 of guards were actually brutal, majority resisted social pressures to conform.
- Failed to explain why some guards did not conform.
Marques et al. (1988) - In-group vs out-group effect
- Participants were divided into two groups.
In-group - law
Out-group - philosophy - Law students were presented with taped speeches, one of which was good and one very bad, made by either another law student or a philosophy student.
- Results:
Good performance was judged more highly among in-group while Bad performance was judged more harshly among in-group. - Conclusion: Good performance was seen as a way to elevate the in-group while bad performance was seen as a threat to the positive image of the in-group.
Hornsey & Jetten (2003) - Imposters
- In-group members are more harsh towards imposters of their in-group than out-group !
