Social influence P1 Flashcards
conformity
a change in behaviour due to real or imagined group pressure
types of conformity
compliance - shallowest
identification - mid
internalisation - deepest level
compliance
shallowest level superficial short-term change change in public behaviour - none in private beliefs explained by normative social influence
identification
explained by nsi & isi
Short term change
public behaviour & private beliefs change
changes when away from group
internalisation
deepest level
long term change
change in public behaviour & private beliefs#
explained by Informative social influence
explanations for conformity
informative social influence
normative social influence
Informative social influence
want to be right & gain knowledge
conformity increases in difficult situations
avoid being wrong and want to act appropriately -> avoid standing out
e.g. an unconfident student copying a confident students answer when unsure
Normative social influence
want to be accepted and fit in -> avoid standing out
because it’s socially rewarding and to avoid punishment like embarrassment
e.g. pretending to agree with an opinion to fit in when you disagree
Limitation for normative social influence, it can’t predict conformity in every case
nAffiliators have a strong need to affiliate with people as they want to relate to others. Mcghee & Teevan 1967, found students who were nAffiliators were more likely to conform. This shows that NSI underlies conformity for some people more than it does for others.
Asch 1951 results
-measured number of times each ppt conformed to Majority view
ppt’s conformed 37% to incorrect answers on critical trials
74% conformed on at least 1 critical trial
26% never conformed
Asch 1951 - line judgement
123 male college students in USA
thought taking part in a vision test
used line judgement task - real answer was obvious
one naïve ppt with 7-9 confederates who agreed answers in advance, naïve sat 2nd from last
each ppt did 18 trials, confederates would say the same answer on 12/18 ‘critical trials’
Aim = to see whether the ppt would conform to the majority view, even when the answer was clearly incorrect
A LAB study
independent groups
Aschs variables
Task difficulty - increased difficulty by making lines more similar, conformity increased as it is unclear what the right answer is making it natural to look for others for guidance.
Unanimity - in one condition, a dissenter gave the correct answer and an incorrect answer in the other, disagreeing with the group, conformity decreased, when unanimity cracks non-conformity is more likely
Group size - varied numbers from 1-15, with 3 confederates to the wrong answer was 31.8% & the presence of more confederates made little, difference. suggesting that most ppl are sensitive to the views of others.
Research support, Lucas 2006, strength
+ Research support, from other studies for the effects of task difficulty. Lucas 2006, asked their ppt’s to solve ‘easy & hard’ maths problems, ppt’s were given answers from 3 other students. The ppt’s conformed more when the problems were harder. This shows Asch was correct in claiming that task difficulty is one variable which effects conformity.
lucas 2006, limit
Lucas’s study found that conformity is more complex than Asch suggested, ppt’s with high confidence in their maths abilities conformed less on hard tasks than those with low confidence. This shows that at an individual level can influence conformity by interacting w situational variables, but asch didn’t research the roles of individual factors.
Strength of Asch’s research
supports the normative social influence explanation. He interviewed ppt’s and some said that they felt self-conscious giving the correct answer & afraid of disapproval.
- > the NSI explanation suggests that ppl conform to fit in and to affiliate to avoid social embarassment
- > This research can be applied using NSI.
Limit to asch, study has low ecological validity
Asch used a line judgement task, which is artificial to measure conformity.
- > judging line lengths is unusual and a task not done daily
- > This means that results can’t be generalised to real-life situations of conformity.
Limit to Asch, use of biased sample
all ppt’s were male, american students all from the same sex. age group and occupation. As the sample only represents a small percentage of a population, this study lacks population validity and this suggests that the results can’t be generalised to a whole population.
Limit to asch, didn’t fully adhere to BPS ethics
Ppt’s weren’t protected from psychological harm due to stress
ppt’s were also deceived as they were told it was a vision test -> lacks respect, even if deception was necessary to produce valid results. Therefore Asch’s research may be seen as unethical.
Zimbardo 1973 procedure
research into conformity & social roles
aim - to investigate how readily ppl would conform to roles of prisoner & guard
basement of stanford university
22/75 male students selected from a volunteer sample, interviewed & those deemed ‘stable’ were used.
10 prisoners - wore smocks, flip flops, stocking on head and chain around the ankle
11 guards - wore khaki shirts & trousers, peaked caps, reflective sunglasses & carried a baton and whistle.
Zimardo start of experiment
prisoners arrested at home
blind folded, taken to prison and finger-printed
they were stripped & issued with clothing, photographed and put into 1/3 cells.
Given numbers to call them by and had to call others by their numbers.
Zimbardo & co-researchers observed, audio & video recorded the behaviour
each ppt was interviewed during and most after
Zimbardo findings
experiment was cancelled on day 6, due to the morality questioned by Christina Maslach
in 4 days, 4 prisoners were released with signs of emotional disturbance.
-environment had a huge effect that was instant
-prisoners became increasingly passive as guards interactions became more verbally hostile
-both groups were dehumanised & this supports situational explanation
Zimbardo conclusions
participants conformed to social roles they were expected to play
Strength of Zimbardo 1973
This experiment can be applied to the population as the extreme results are not long-term, zimbardo only caused short-term distress.
- > prisoners showing signs of stress were released but not immediately when symptoms were shown.
- > the results weren’t pernament & stress caused was short term and unexpected due to the study being unpredictable.
- > therefore this means that they can be applied to a population
Limit of Zimbardo’s study, bias sample
- sample was young, white and middle class men -> sample is biased as it is unrepresentative of a whole population
- lacks female, older aged and different race participant’s -> findings can’t be applied as to those categories because of the difference.
- > therefore as a result this lowers generalisability.
Limit of Zimbardo, the methodology used
the methodology is questioned as the IV & DV aren’t identifiable. It is more of an observational study than an experiment, as the IV & DV aren’t and are uncontrolled, if the IV was manipulated we wouldn’t be able to identify where the change of behaviour came from.
This means that the methodology was questioned.
Milgram 1963 sample and roles
research into obediance
40 male ppt’s - volunteer sample, respond to newspaper advert
at yale university
ppt played role of teacher & student - actor was placed in a different room
experimenter was in the same room as teacher (ppt) acting as authority figure
Milgram 1963 procedure
- teacher reads word pairs(test recall), student indicate choice by lights
- Teacher told to give electric shock w every mistake, with each mistake voltage increases (not real)
- Learner would scream, became louder, more dramatic and at 180 volts complained of weak heart, at 315 volts silent
Experimenter would prompt T to continue ‘‘the experiment requires you to continue’’
After: ppt’s debriefed
Milgram aim 1963
to see if citizens would obey an unjust order from an authority figure and inflict pain on another person
Milgram conclusion
all ppt’s went to 300 volts
65% went up to 450 volts
showing that under the right circumstances that ppl will obey unjust orders
Milgram strength, Research support - Jeu de Mort
There is support from research on Jeu de mort 2010. Jeu de mort was a French documentary of ppt’s in a game show where they were paid to give electric shocks. They found that 80% obeyed and did a maximum shock of up until 460 volts to a unconscious man. Therefore Milgram’s study of obedience has supporting research which improves the validity.
Milgram strength, good external validity
Milgram has good external validity as it was conducted in a controlled, lab study which accurately reflected wider authority references in real-life. For example, In hoflings 1966 study, an unknown doctor called 22 nurses asking them to give an unknown drug that was twice it’s dosage & not on the stock list for the day. Hofling found that 21/22 nurses obeyed. Therefore this means the findings are generalisable as they can be applied to real-life situations.
Milgram limit, low internal validity
this experiment has low internal validity as Holland 1968 has evidence that the experiment might not have temporal validity. Holland 1968 argued that they behaved in that way as they didn’t believe in the experiment. Therefore this suggests that Milgram’s study has low internal validity.
obedience
an individual follows a direct order, the order issued by a figure of authority with power to punish whom don’t obey
Situational variables
features of the immediate social & physical environment which may influence a persons behaviour
proximity
the physical closeness or distance of an authority figure to the person they are giving the order to
Variations of Milgram’s 1963 base experiment
Proximity - T & L same room =40%, T had to force L on shock plate = 30%, experimenter called & gave instructions = 20%
Location - run down building, ppt found unusual =48%
Uniform - experimenter w lab coat left, ordinary dressed man entered = 20%
Bickman 1974
3 confederates dressed in different outfits: Milkman, Civilian & Guard.
field experiment
stood in street and asked passerbyers to do tasks: move from bus stop, pick up litter, give a dime for parking
Bickman found that passerbyers were more likely obey the Guard.
milgram variations eval, strength, Research support from Bickman 1974
In bickman 1974, 3 confederates dressed in different outfits, a milkman, guard and civilian, asked passerbyers to do different tasks. They found that ppl were 2 x as likely to obey the guard than the civilian. This shows support for the situational variables as it shows the powerful effect on obedience.
Milgram variation strength, Cross-cultural replications
Milgrams findings have been replicated in other cultures. Meeus & Raaijmakers 1986, studied obedience in the Dutch. Ppt’s were ordered to say stressful things in a job interview to someone desperate and 90% obeyed. This suggests that Milgrams findings of obedience aren’t limited to American Men.
Milgram variation, limits, danger of situational perspective.
Milgram’s findings support situational explanations of obedience. This perspective is questioned, Mandel 1998 argued that it offers an alibi for evil behaviour, it’s offensive to survivors of the holocaust to suggest nazi’s were just following orders. This ignores dispositional variables and therefore it means that it is dangerous to only focus on situational variables and ignore dispositional factors.
Situational explanation
consists of agentic state, binding factors and autonomous state
Agency/agent
a person who acts in place of others
they are powerless
highly anxious when they realise the act is wrong
Agentic state
a mental state where a person believes they have no personal responsibility for behaviour as they are acting in place for an authority figure
Milgram & situational ex - agentic state
Milgram was interested by Adolf Eichmann 1962, in charge of Nazi death camps
only argument for behaviour was ‘‘only obeying orders’’
he proposed that obedience to destructive authority occurs because a person doesn’t take responsibility
