Social Influence (paper 1) Flashcards
Conformity (Asch’s Research)
A procedure to assess to what extent people will conform to the opinion of others, even in a situation where the answer is unambiguous.
Conformity Evaluation (Artificial task and situation)
A limitation of Asch’s research. Participants knew they were in a research study and may simply have gone along with what was expected (demand characteristics). The task of identifying lines was relatively trivial and therefore there was no reason not to conform. They did not really resemble groups that we experience everyday life., this means the findings do not generalise to real-world situations, especially those where the consequences of conformity might be important
Conformity Evaluation (limited application)
another limitation is that Asch’s participants were American men. other research suggests that women may be more conformist possibly because they are concerned about social relationships and being accepted. furthermore, the US is an individualist culture. similar conformity studies conducted in collectivist cultures and have found that conformity rates are higher. this means that Asch’s findings tell us little about conformity in women and people from some cultures.
Conformity Evaluation (research support)
one strength of Asch’s research is support from other studies for the effects of task difficulty. for example, Todd Lucas et al (2006) asked their participants to solve ‘easy’ and ‘hard’ maths problems. participants were given answers from three other students (not actually real). the participants conformed more often (i.e. agreed with the wrong answers) when the problems were harder. this shows Asch was correct in claiming that task difficulty is one variable that affects conformity.
Conformity Evaluation (ethical issues)
Asch’s research increased our knowledge of why people conform, which may help avoid mindless destructive conformity. the naive participants were deceived because they thought the other people involved in the procedure (the confederates) were also genuine participants like themselves. however, it is worth bearing in mind that this ethical cost should be weighed up against the benefits gained from the study.
Conformity types and explanations (Evaluation) research support for NSI
A strength of NSI is that evidence supports it as an explanation of conformity. E.g. when Asch interviewed his participants, some said they conformed because they felt self-conscious of giving the correct answer and they were afraid of disapproval. when participants wrote their answers down, conformity fell to 12.5%. this is because giving answers privately meant there was no normative group pressure. this shows that at least some conformity is due to a desire to not be rejected by the group for disagreeing with them.
Conformity types and explanations (Evaluation) research support for ISI
a strength is that there is research evidence to support ISI from the study by Todd Lucas et al. Lucas et al found that participants conformed more often to incorrect answers they were given when the maths problems were difficult. This is because when the problems were easy the participants ‘knew their own minds’ but when the problems were hard the situation became ambiguous. the participants did not want to be wrong, so they relied on the answers they were given. This shows that ISI is a valid explanation of conformity because the results are what ISI would predict.
Conformity types and explanations (Evaluation) individual differences in NSI
one limitation is that NSI does not predict conformity in every case. some people are greatly concerned with being like others. such people are called nAffiliators - they have a strong need for ‘affiliation’ (i.e. they want to relate to other people). McGhee and Teevan (1967) found that students who were nAffiliators were mor likely to conform. this shows that NSI underlies conformity for some people more than it does for others. there are individual differences in conformity that cannot be fully explained by one general theory of situational pressures.
conformity to social roles Zimbardo’s research - the Stanford prison experiment
Zimbardo et al set up a mock prison in the basement of the psychology department at Stanford University. they selected 21 men (student volunteers) who tested as ‘emotionally stable’. the students were randomly assigned to play the role of prison guard or prisoner. prisoners and guards were encouraged to conform to social roles both through the uniforms they wore and also instructions about their behaviour.
Conformity to social roles - findings related to social roles
the guards took up their roles with enthusiasm, treating the prisoners harshly. within 2 days the prisoners rebelled. they ripped their uniforms and shouted and swore at the guards, who retaliated with fire extinguishers. they harassed the prisoners constantly, to remind them of the powerlessness of their role. E.g. they conducted frequent headcounts, sometimes at night, when the prisoners would stand in line and call out their numbers. the guards highlighted the differences in social roles by creating opportunities to enforce the rules and administer punishments. after their rebellion was put down, the prisoners became subdued, depressed and anxious. one was released because he showed symptoms of psychological disturbance. two more were released on the fourth day. one prisoner went on a hunger strike. the guards tried to force-feed him and then punished him by putting him in ‘the hole’, a tiny dark closet. the guards identified more and more closely with their role. their behaviour became increasingly brutal and aggressive, with some of them appearing to enjoy the power they had over the prisoners. Zimbardo ended the study after 6 days instead of the intended 14.
Conclusions related to social roles
social roles appear to have a strong influence on individual’s behaviour. the guards became brutal and the prisoners became submissive. such roles were very easily taken on by all participants. even volunteers who came in to perform specific functions (such as the ‘prison chaplain’) found themselves behaving as if they were in a prison rather than in a psychological study.
Conformity to social roles (Evaluation) control
one strength of the SPE is that Zimbardo and his colleagues had control over key variables. the most obvious example of this was the selection of participants. emotionally-stable individuals were chosen and randomly assigned to the roles of guard or prisoner. this was one way in which the researchers ruled out individual personality differences as an explanation of the findings. if guards and prisoners behaved very differently, but were in those roles only by chance, then their behaviour must have been due to the role itself. this degree of control over variables increased the internal validity of the study, so we can be much more confident in drawing conclusions about the influence of roles on conformity.
Conformity to social roles (Evaluation) lack of realism
a limitation of the SPE is that it did not have the realism of a true prison. Banuazizi and Movahedi argued that participants were merely play-acting rather than genuinely conforming to a role. Participant’s performances were based on their stereotypes of how prisoners and guards are supposed to behave. E.g. one of the guards claimed that he had based his role on a brutal character from the film ‘Cool Hand Luke’. this would also explain why the prisoners rioted - they thought that was what real prisoners did. this suggests that the findings of the SPE tell us little about conformity to social roles in actual prisons.
Conformity to social roles (Evaluation) exaggerates the power of roles
a limitation is that Zimbardo may have exaggerated the power of social roles to influence behaviour. E.g. only 1/3 of the guards actually behaved in a brutal manner. another 1/3 tried to apply the rules fairly. the rest actively tried to help and support the prisoners. they sympathised, offered cigarettes and reinstated privileges. most guards were able to resist situational pressures to conform to a brutal role. this suggests that Zimbardo overstated his view that SPE participants were conforming to social roles and minimised the influence of dispositional factors (e.g. personality).
Conformity to social roles (Evaluation) alternative explanation
Zimbardo’s explanation for the guards’ (and prisoners’) behaviour was that conforming to social roles comes ‘naturally’ and easily. being given the role of guard means that these participants will inevitably behave brutally because that is the behaviour expected of someone with that role. however Reicher and Haslam criticise Zimabardo’s explanation because it does not account for the behaviour of the non-brutal guards. they use social identity theory (SIT) instead to argue that the ‘guards’ had to actively identify with their social roles to act as they did.
