Social Influence - Sec. 1 Flashcards
What are the 3 types of conformity?
Compliance, identification and internalisation. (In order of extremity).
What type of influence is conformity?
Normative social influence.
What type of influence is internalisation?
Informational social influence.
Outline Sherif’s 1935 study.
Sherif (1935) – Conformity and the autokinetic effect.
Looked at the effects of INFORMATIONAL social influence.
Method: Lab experiment. Repeated measures. Used a visual illusion, the autokinetic effect (a stationary spot of light that appears to move). Participants were told the light would be moved and where asked how far it had moved. In phase 1 individual participants made repeated guesses. In phase 3 they were in groups of 3. In phase 3 they were alone again.
Results: When participants were alone they developed their own stable norms (personal estimates) which varied widely between participants. In a group results converged. When alone again, guesses were more similar to group estimates than previous personal ones.
Conclusion: Participants were influenced by others, a group norm developed. Estimates converged because participants used information from others to help them - information social influence.
Evaluation: Lab exp. so good control of variables thus minimises extraneous variables and allows a cause and effect to be established. Repeated measures meant the participant variables were kept constant. Limited sample, all participants male so results can’t be generalised. Artificial setting so low ecological validity. Ethics: deception.
Outline Asch’s 1951 study.
Asch (1951) – Conformity on an unambiguous task.
Looked at effects of NORMATIVE social influence.
Method: Lab experiment. Independent groups. In groups of 8 participants judged line length and compared it with 3 comparison lines. All 7 other participants were confederates. The real participants was in position 7 or 8. Each participant did 18 trials. On 12 all confederates gave the same wrong answer.
Results: In control trials, participants gave the wrong answer 0.7% of the time. In critical trials participants conformed 37% of the time. 75% of participants conformed at least once.
Conclusion: Control condition showed task was easy to get right. Yet 37% conformed due to normative social influence.
Evaluation: Lab exp. so good control of variables thus minimises extraneous variables. Not in a natural situation so lacks ecological validity. Ethics: participants were deceived.
What percentage (%) of participants gave the wrong answer in control trials?
0.7%
What percentage (%) of times did participants give the wrong answer?
37%
What percentage (%) of participants conformed at least once?
75%
What is the difference between situational and dispositional factors that affect conformity?
Situational factors are due to the social situation a person is in, whereas dispositional factors are due to a person’s internal characteristics.
What are the situational characteristics that Asch’s participants were affected by?
- Group size
- Unanimity / social support
- Task difficulty
How did group size affect conformity in Asch’s study?
With two confederates the participant only conformed 14% of the time. With three confederates it was 32%. There was little change after that.
How did unanimity / social support affect conformity in Asch’s study?
Having someone else who disagreed with the majority lowered conformity to 5.5%.
How did task difficulty affect conformity in Asch’s study?
People were more likely to conform if the task was more difficult and thus they were less confident.
Outline Zimbardo’s 1973 study.
Zimbardo et al (1973) – Stanford prison experiment.
Studied Conformity to social roles.
Method: Male student were recruited to act as either guards or prisoners in a mock prison. These roles were random and behaviour was observed. The ‘prisoners’ were arrested during a normal day, taken to prison and given uniforms and numbers. Guards wore uniforms and mirrored sunglasses.
Results: Initially, the guards tried to assert authority and the prisoners resisted by sticking together. The prisoners over time became more passive and obedient whilst the guards increased inhumane treatment. The experiment was abandoned early.
Conclusion: Guards and prisoners adopted their social roles quickly. Zimbardo claims that this shows our social role can influence our behaviour.
Evaluation: Controlled observation. Good control of variables. As it was artificial, results can’t be generalised. Suffers from observer bias as Zimbardo ran the prison himself. Ethics: distressed participants; very unethical.
