Social influence next steps Flashcards
Conformity
a change in a persons behaviour or opinions as a result of perceived (real or imagined) pressure from a person/group
Internalisation
conforming to the group because you accept its norms, agreeing privately and publicly, a permanent change to your beliefs
Identification
conforming to the group because you value it, publicly changing your views to be accepted, even if you disagree privately, making the choice to conform
Compliance
superficial agreement with the group, going along with it publicly but holding a different view privately, a temporary change to beliefs, you have no choice but to conform
Informational social influence
about who is right, you or the group, occurs when we are uncertain, or when there’s ambiguity, can lead to internalisation
Normative social influence
what’s considered normal for a social group or situation, people don’t want to seem foolish, so change their behaviour to fit in, this leads to a temporary change and sometimes compliance.
Minority influence
a form of social influence in which a minority of people persuade others to adopt their beliefs, attitudes or behaviours, it leads to internalisation and conversion, private attitudes and public behaviours are changed
Three strategies in minority influence
consistency, commitment, flexibility
Consistency
minority influence is most effective if the minority all keep the same beliefs, over time and between all individuals, it draws attention to the views
Commitment
minority influence is more powerful if the minority demonstrate dedication to their position, e.g. by making personal sacrifices
Flexibility
relentless consistency is counterproductive if seen by majority as unbending and unreasonable, so minority influence is most effective if the minority show flexibility and compromise
When was Asch’s study?
1951
When was Milgram’s study?
1963
Quantitative info in Asch’s study
123 american university students
5-7 confederates per trial
Confederates answered wrong on 12/18 trials
participants conformed 36.8% of the time
75% of participants conformed at least once
Lucas
2006, asked maths questions of varying difficulty, the harder they were the more they conformed, the less confident they were the more they conformed
Jenness
1932, asked them to estimate jellybeans in a jar, they estimated again as a group, then gave private estimations again, they changed their answers to fit the groups
Aschs variations
group size, unanimity, task difficulty
Findings in the Stanford Prison Experiment
asserting authority, physical punishment, rebellion, mental breakdowns
Obedience
a form of social influence in which a person yields to explicit instructions or orders from an authority figure.
Milgram numbers to remember
1963
40 male participants between 20 and 50
$4.50 paid
15V to 450V
4 prods from researcher
all shocked to 300V
65% shocked to 450V
18 variatons
Zimbardo numbers to remember
1973
21 male participants -students
2 groups
2 weeks - set to spend in ‘prison’
6 days- actually spent in ‘prison’
2:30 AM day one- woken and counted
#8612- after 36 hours had a mental breakdown- screaming crying, rage. allowed to leave.
#819- broke down, refused to call himself his own name, didn’t want to leave and be bad prisoner.
Asch numbers to remember
1951
123 male participants -students
18 total trails- confeds gave wrong answer on 12 trials
36.8% conformed every time
75% conformed at least once
Cognitive dissonance
an unpleasant feeling of anxiety created by simultaneously holding two contradictory ideas
Situational variables
features of an environment that affect the degree to which individuals yield to group pressures
Individual variables
personal characteristics that affect the degree to which individuals yield to group pressures
Social roles
the parts individuals play as members of a social group, which meet the expectations of that situation
Milgram paradigm
experimental procedure devised by Milgram for measuring obedience rates
Autonomous State
where individuals are seen as personally responsible - free-will
Agentic state
when we obey an order and are therefore not seen as responsible
Agentic shift
going from the autonomous to agentic state
Legitimacy of authority
the degree to which individuals are seen as justified in having power over others
Deindividuation
a state in which individuals have lower self-awareness and a weaker sense of personal responsibility for their actions.
a results of relative anonymity due to being in a crowd.
Authoritarian personality
a person who holds rigid beliefs, is intolerant of ambiguity, submissive to authority and hostile to those of lower social status, due to their strict upbringing.
Authoritarian parenting
strict, lots of punishment and conditional love that is only given to the child when they meet parental expectations
Dispositional explanation
the perception of behaviour as caused by internal characteristics e.g. personality
Dehumanisation
degrading people by lessening of their human qualities
Situational variables affecting obedience
Proximity - closer to consequences, less likely to obey. closer to authority figure, more likely to obey.
Location - can change the legitimacy of authority e.g. institutional setting (school) can increase obedience
Uniform - can change the legitimacy of authority- police uniform , more obedience.
Dispositional explanation affecting obedience
an internal explanation
upbringing and personality affect obedience
authoritarian personality- 1941 Fromm, then developed by Adorno 1950
Moral strain
the negative emotions experienced when we see the action as morally wrong but we must obey. (in agentic state)
Destructive authority
using power in a way that is cruel, evil or harmful to others e.g. Nazis
