Social Influence - Paper 1 Flashcards
What is conformity?
Change in a person’s behaviour or opinions as a result of real or imagined pressure from a person or group of people
Yielding to group pressure - majority influence
Herbert Kelman (1958) - 3 types of conformity
What is compliance?
Going along with bothers to fit in group/be accepted in group
Once away from group, behaviours and beliefs are “normal”
Therefore only public acceptance
Eg - laughing at a joke you don’t find funny
What is identification?
Conforms as you value something in the group, want to be a part of group
May hold beliefs privately but usually only temporary, beliefs not maintained
Only public beliefs mainly
Eg - football teams, uniform/work uniforms
What is internalisation?
Believing and accepting group norm, permanent change
Becomes a part of the way you think
Public and private acceptance
Eg - religion, politics
What are the two explanations of conformity?
Informational and normative social influence
Deutsch and Gerard (1955) came up with this two process theory of why people conform
What is informational social influence?
Need to be right
Cognitive process
Occurs in new and ambiguous situations or when a person in the group is regarded as an expert
Links to internalisation
What is normative social influence?
Need to be liked - feel accepted
Emotional process
Occurs when individual wants to seek approval from strangers in new situation (first day of work) and in stressful situations when people often need more social support
Links to compliance
Asch and NSI
In interview after, many participants said they agreed with rest of group just to fit in despite knowing they were giving the wrong answer
Asch and ISI
When task was made more difficult (lines closer together), increase in conformity rates
Participants thought others were right so conformed due to difficulty of task
What was Asch’s experiment’s aims and procedure?
AIMS:
-Find out the extent to which social pressure from a majority group could lead to conformity
(To demonstrate the power of conformity in groups)
PROCEDURE
- 123 American male undergraduates
- showed 2 large white cards, 1 with standard line, 1 with 3 comparison lines, asked which matched standard
- each participant tested individually with 6-8 confederates (participant not aware of this - deception)
- first few trials naïve participant gave right answer then started making errors
- confederates instructed to give some wrong answers
- 18 trials, 12 ‘critical’ trials confederate gave wrong answer
What was Asch’s experiment’s findings and conclusions?
FINDINGS:
- naïve participant gave wrong answer 36.8% of time
- 25% didn’t conform on any trials, 75% conformed at least once
- this is known as ASCH’S EFFECT - extent to which participants conform when situation is ambiguous
CONCLUSIONS:
- 2 reasons people conform, ISI and NSI
- interview after, participants said they conformed to avoid rejection
What were Asch’s three variations?
Group size - no. of members within a social group
Unanimity - degree to which group members are in agreement with each other
Task difficulty - how obvious correct answer is
Asch’s experiment - group size variation
3 confederates, conformity rose to 31.8%
Any addition of confederates made little difference
Suggests that small majority not sufficient however, no need for more than 3 as majority
Asch’s experiment - unanimity variation
Confederate was introduced who disagreed with majority, sometimes gave right answer, sometimes gave wrong answer
Presence of another non-conforming person reduced conformity by a quarter from the level it was at when majority was unanimous
Presence of dissenter enabled naive participant to behave more independently
Influence of majority, to some extent, depends on group being unanimous
Asch’s experiment - task difficulty variation
Task made harder when standard line and comparison lines more similar
Conformity increased under these conditions
ISI plays greater role when task becomes harder, ambiguous situation
More likely to look to others for guidance and assume they’re right and were wrong
Asch’s research evaluation - ethical issues
Ethical issues
Participants deceived, believed other confederates were also participants taking part in ‘visual line judgement task’
However, needed to be deceived to test conformity
If they knew there were confederates that were frequently giving the wrong answer they may have changed their answers, making findings not valid
Asch’s research evaluation - replicability
Replications of Asch’s conformity research have not found same results
Perrin and Spencer (1980) recreated it and found only 1 student conformed in total of 396 trials
Very different to Asch’s 36.8% conformity rates
Reduces reliability of findings as they’re not consistent across situations or time periods
However could be explained by societal changes, 1950s America was more conformist (Asch’s study) than 1980 (Perrin and spencer)
Asch’s research evaluation - artificial
Experiment was artificial
Task of matching 3 lines is trivial
Lacks mundane realism, not similar to everyday tasks
Validity reduced as doesn’t represent how people conform in real life
However, did show that people conformed to obviously incorrect answers to fit in, important fact about human behaviour
Asch’s research evaluation - not representative
Nor representative of all genders
123 males used, no female participants
Findings cannot be applied to everyone as conformity rates between men and women can be different
Example of beta bias, thought theres is little difference between male and female behaviours, suggesting male behaviour is the ‘norm’
Eagly and Carli (1981) carried out meta-analysis of research into conformity, found women more likely to conform than men
Asch’s research evaluation - high internal validity
High degree of control in Asch’s research
Task difficulty variation, everything except for length of lines remained the same
Meant he was able to see exactly how different variations effected conformity levels
Increased internal validity of study
Increasing internal validity can reduce/lack external validity, too much control means unable to replicate everyday situations
Asch’s research evaluation - high internal validity
High degree of control in Asch’s research
Task difficulty variation, everything except for length of lines remained the same
Meant he was able to see exactly how different variations effected conformity levels
Increased internal validity of study
Increasing internal validity can reduce/lack external validity, too much control means unable to replicate everyday situations
Explanations of conformity evaluation - NSI Asch strength
Research support for NSI - Asch’s line experiment, knew group were wrong but chose to conform to be accepted
Interview after - admitted they conformed to avoid rejection
NSI valid theory why we conform, to be part of social group, not because they believe group to be right
Explanations of conformity evaluation - ISI Lucas et al (2006) strength
Research support Lucas et al (2006)
Asked students to give answers to maths problems - easy or difficult
Greater conformity to incorrect answers when questions were more difficult than easier
Shows people conform in situations where they do not know the answer
We look to people when we want to be right in difficult situations - evidence support
Explanations of conformity evaluation - NSI individual differences limitation
Individual differences in the process of NSI in social situations
Research shown NSI doesn’t affect everyone’s behaviour in same way
People less concerned about being liked than others are less affected by NSI
Shows desire to be liked underlies conformity for some more than others
Weakens explanation, doesn’t explain everyone’s behaviour
Explanations of conformity evaluation - work together rather than independently limitation
Deutsch and Gerrard ‘two process model’ states behaviour is either due to NSI or ISI, usually both processes are involved
Asch’s experiment - conformity reduced when theres another dissenting participant
Dissenter may reduce power of NSI or ISI - dissenting provides social support, alternative source of info
Not always possible to see whether NSI or ISI is at work
Weakens explanation, doubt over NSI and ISI as two processes operating independently in conforming behaviour
?????????? Explanations of conformity evaluation - NSI may not be causal factor in behaviour
Although NSI shown to exist, it may not be the causal factor in behaviours
Nolan et al (2008) investigated whether people detected the influence of social norms on their own energy conservations
When asked, they believed neighbours behaviour had least impact, yet results show it had most impact
Suggests people rely on beliefs about what should motivate behaviour and so under detect impact of NSI
Weakness as studies which ask people why they conformed may not get valid responses
What is conformity to social roles?
Identification
Person changes public behaviour and private beliefs but only when they are in a particular social role
Learn this by observing social roles of others and conforming to this behaviour
What was the aim and procedure of Zimbardo’s study?
AIM
- investigate how readily people would conform to a social role of guard and prisoner in role playing exercise that stimulated prison life
- examine whether behaviour was due to internal dispositional factors (people themselves) or external dispositional factors (environment and conditions of prison)
PROCEDURE
- to study roles played in prisons, converted basement of Stanford Uni psych building into mock prison
- 24 male students advertised to play role of prisoner and guards for fortnight
- randomly assigned to each role - guard or prisoner - in simulated prison environment
- prisoners blindfolded, strip searched, issued uniform, referred to by number, guards issued khaki uniform, whistles, handcuffs, dark sunglasses to make eye contact with prisoners impossible
- guards worked 8 hours each, no physical violence permitted
- Zimbardo observed as researcher but also as prison warden
What were the findings and conclusions of Zimbardo’s experiment?
FINDINGS
- after rebellion by prisoners (ripped uniform, shouted, swore at guards), they settled into their new roles
- some guards began to Harris prisoners, brutal and sadistic manner, more joined in and prisoners tormented
- prisoners adapted to prison-like behaviour, talked about it, told tales on each other, took rules seriously, sided with guards when prisoners didn’t obey rules
- prisoners more submissive, guards more aggressive, demanded greater obedience
- dependent on guards so did everything they could to please them
- guard behaviour became threat to prisoners’ psychological and physical health, study stopped after 6 days rather than 14
CONCLUSIONS
- people quickly conform to social roles, even if it goes against moral principles
- situational factors largely responsible as non every showed this behaviour previously
Strength of Zimbardo’s experiment - internal validity
Some control over variables
Regarding selection, emotionally stable participants chosen and randomly assigned to roles
One way in which researcher tried to rule out individual personality differences
Such control over variables, increased internal validity of study
Strength of Zimbardo’s experiment - real world application
Real world applications of Stanford Prison Experiment
Believes same conformity to social roles occurred in Abu Ghraib, military prison in Iraq, in which Iraqi prisoners were tortured and abused by American soldiers in 2003 and 2004
Zimbardo suggested that certain situational factors combined with opportunity to misuse power associated with roles, can lead to people behaving in tyrannical and abusive ways
If we know these situations can lead to such behaviours and acting inappropriately, we can look to implement practices to prevent such behaviours from occurring in the future
Limitation Zimbardo’s experiment - lack of realism, assumptions
Lack of realism in study
Banuazizi and Mohavedi (1975) guards may have acted rather than conforming to a role, performance based on stereotypes of how prisoners and guards should behave - guards brutal, prisoners starting riots
Behaviour observed may have been based on assumptions of how they honk they should behave rather than the situation
Meaning it was not true or accurate
Results may not have been valid
Limitation of Zimbardo’s experiment- lack of research support, naturally and easily conforming
Lack of research support for Zimbardo’s argument that participants naturally and easily conformed to their roles just because they were given them
Reicher and Haslam (2006) partially replicated study and found the prisoners took control of the mock prison and harassed the guards when they disobeyed
Different to Zimbardo so challenges argument that they will simply take on roles they are given
Limitation of Zimbardo’s experiment - ethical issues, dual role
Major ethical issues with his dual role in study
Participant wanted to leave and spoke to Zimbardo about leaving when he was in his role as prison warden
Responded acting as a warden who’s concerned about the running of his prison rather than as researcher with responsibilities towards his participants
Participants had to stay in longer than they wanted, risk of psychological harm and prevented right to withdraw
What are situational variables and how do they link with Milgram’s study?
Features of environment that impact degree to which individuals obey
Mil gram believed there were 3 things involved in a situation which could impact obedience levels
He changed aspects of his original, control, experiment to investigate this
What is proximity? Milgram
Psy social closeness or distance of an authority figure to the person they are giving an order to
Also refers to the physical closeness of person carrying out orders to their ‘victim’
What is location? Milgram
The place where an order is issued
Status of the place can impact obedience
What is uniform? Milgram
The clothes an authority figure wears that symbolise their position of authority
In the original study, where were the teacher and learner in relation to each other? And what % of participants obeyed in the original study? Milgram
In adjoining rooms
65%
What did the obedience rates change to when the teacher and learner were in the same room? Milgram
40%
In one variation what did the teacher have to do to the participants hand and what was the rate of obedience? Milgram
Force it onto electroshock plate
30%
When the experimenter was in a different room to the teacher and gave orders over the phone, what was the obedience rate? Milgram
20.5%
How does the proximity of the authority figure impact on rates of obedience? Milgram
The further the teacher is from the experimenter, the lower the rates of obedience, less likely to obey
How does the proximity of the ‘victim’ to the person carrying out orders impact on rates of obedience? Milgram
The closer teacher is to actions, the less likely they are to obey
Where was Milgram’s original study conducted? What was the rate of obedience there?
Yale University
65%
How does location impact on rates of obedience?
A prestigious/formal location makes people more likely to obey
How did MIlgram change the location of the experiment? What happened to the rate of obedience?
Completed experiment in a run down office block
Fell to 47.5%
In Milgram’s original experiment what uniform did the experimenter wear? What was the rate of obedience?
Grey lab coat
65%
How was inform changed in Milgram’s variation? What was the rate of obedience?
Ordinary member of public in everyday clothes replaced experimenter
20%
How does uniform impact rates of obedience?
Wearing uniform increases rates of obedience
What is the agentic state?
In autonomous state, individual feels responsible for their own actions and will therefore act on their own principles
An agentic shift is when they change from an autonomous state to an agentic state
- mental state where individual feels no personal responsibility over behaviour, believe to be acting for authority figure
- give up free will, hand over responsibility to authority figure, dont have to worry about conscience, able to obey
- however, feel high anxiety doing morally straining tasks, but feel powerless to disobey
What are binding factors? Agentic state
Milgram argued, aspects of situation allow an agent to ignore/minimise the anxiety effects of their behaviour thus reducing moral strain:
- shifting responsibility to victim (foolish to volunteer)
- denying damage done to victims
Agentic state strength - Blass and Schmitt
Blass and Schmitt showed film of Milgram’s study to students and asked to identify who they felt was responsible for harm to learner
Students blamed experimenter rather than participant, felt responsibility on authority figure
If students thought this its easy to see how teacher would have gave up responsibility and entered agentic state, leading them to continue to give shocks
Suggests agentic state is valid in explaining obedience
Agentic state limitation - deterministic (justice system)
- explanation suggests behaviour is not controlled by individuals, suggests free will can be given up
- deterministic, behaviour controlled by something else (power of authority)
- doesn’t fit with justice system which suggests we have control over out actions and should be held responsible for the consequences
Agentic state strength - Milgram variation (extra confederate)
In original experiment 65% of participants did full 450 volts and were arguably in agentic state
Participants told the experimenter had full responsibility
In one variation, confederate added to give shocks on behalf of teacher, obedience rose to 92.5%
Highlights power of shifting responsibility, able to shift responsibility onto confederate giving shocks and continued to obey
Therefore, ability to enter agentic state increases levels of obedience as level of responsibility falls
Agentic state limitation - doesn’t explain why ppl dont obey, Milgram
Doesn’t explain all findings, doesnt explain why some participants in Milgram’s experiment didn’t obey
Explanation suggestS, as humans involved in social hierarchies, everyone should have obeyed and handed over responsibility
However, this was only the case for 65% of participants
Suggests agentic shift can only account for some situations of obedience
What is the legitimacy of authority explanation of obedience?
- People more likely to obey people who they perceive to have authority over them
- Justified by individual’s power in social hierarchy - teacher, parent, police officer
- Taught from a young age to obey to authority figures, keeps stability in society
- Legitimate - granted power to punish others, people willing to hand control of some of their behaviour and independence to people they trust to exercise their authority appropriately
- Issues arise when legitimacy of authority becomes destructive - Hitler
- Destructive also shown in Milgram’s study when experimenter used prods to order participants to do things against their conscience
Legitimacy of authority strength - Blass and Schmitt
There is research support for legitimacy of authority as an explanation of obedience
Blass and Schmitt showed film of Milgram’s study to students and asked to identify who they felt was responsible for harm to learner, students blamed experimenter rather than participant, felt responsibility on authority figure
Experimenter top of authority hierarchy in situation therefore authority was legitimate
Shows recognition of legitimacy of authority as a cause of obedience providing support for this explanation
Legitimacy of authority strength - situational variables Milgram
Supporting evidence
Milgram’s original at Yale, full volts was high (62.5%)
However when took part in run down building, obedience dropped to 48%
Change in location reduced legitimacy of authority, participants less likely to trust experiment
Means participants far less likely to obey, providing support for this explanation of obedience
Legitimacy of authority strength - prevent war crimes, Kelman and Hamilton, practical applications
Explanation can help explain how obedience can lead to real-life war crimes
Kelman and Hamilton argued, My Lai massacre (500 unarmed Vietnam civilians killed by American soldiers), can be understood in terms of power hierarchy of US army
Explanation has practical applications
If its a useful explanation, it could help us understand how to prevent such crimes in the future by challenging authority rather than mindlessly obeying
Soldiers argued those higher than them were legitimate authority figures therefore followed their orders
What is locus of control as an explanation of obedience?
LoC can explain resistance to social influence
LoC is the degree of control an individual feels they have over their own life and is measured on a continuum from internal to external
What does it mean to have an internal LoC?
Believe things that happen to them are largely controlled by themselves
Eg - doing well in an exam because they worked hard
More likely to resist social influence because they take responsibility for their actions and base actions on own beliefs
More self confident, achievement orientated, higher intelligence and less need for social approval = greater resistance
