Social Influnece Flashcards
Internalisation
-person genuinely accepts the group beliefs
-private and public change in beliefs
-likely to be permanent as attitudes internalised
-the change in beliefs persists in private, in absence of group
Identification
-individuals conform to beliefs of group because soemthing about them we value
-we identify with the group so we want to be part of it
-this msg mean we publicly change our beliefs to achieve this, even if we don’t privately agree with what they stand for
Compliance
-‘going along with others’ in public, but privately not changing personal beliefs
-results in superficial change
-particular behaviour or belief stood as soon as group pressure stops
Informational Social Influence
-conforming due to desire to be right
-cognitive process, what you think
-e.g you may not know the answer to a question in class but if most of the class agrees on an answer, you accept it because you feel like they are likely to be right
-people follow behaviour of group as they want to be right
-most likely to happen in situations that are new to a person or situations where there is some ambiguity, isn’t clear what is right, typical in crisis situations where decisions have to be made quickly
-also occurs when group is regarded as more of an expert
Normative Social Influence
-emotional rather than a cognitive process
- conform due to a desire to be liked or fit in
-conform to what is ‘normal’ or typical behaviour for a social group
-individuals do not like to appear foolish and prefer to gain social approval rather than be rejected
-may occur with people you know because we are most concerned about social approval of friends, or in situations with strangers where you may feel concerned about rejection
Research support for Informative Social Influence
Lucas et al. (2006)
-asked students to give answers to mathematical problems that were easy or more difficult
-there was greater conformity to incorrect answers when they were difficult rather than when they were easier
-this was most true for students who rather their mathematical ability as poor
-the study shows that people conform in situation where they feel they don’t know they answer, which is exactly the outcome predicted by the ISI explanation
-we look to other people and assume they know better than us and just be right
Individual differences in Normative Social Influence
-some research shows that NSI does not affect everyone’s behaviour in the same way
-e.g people who are less concenrned eith being liked are less affected by NSI than those who care about being liked
-such people are described as nAffiliators
-these are people who have a greater need for affiliation: a need for being in a relationship with others
-e.g McGhee and Teevan (1967) found that students high in need of affiliation were more likely to conform
-this shows that the desire to be liked underlies conformity for some people more than others, therefore there are individual differences in the way people respond to
Individual differences in Informative Social Influence
-ISI does not affect everyone behaviour in the same way
-e.g Aachen (1955) found thag students were less conformist (28%) then other participants (37%)
-e.g Perrin and Spencer (1980) conducted a study involving science and engineering students and found very little conformity
Research support for Normative Social Support
-Asch (1951) found that many of his participants went along eith w clearly wrong answer just because other people did
-so he asked them why they did this-some of the participants said they felt self conscious giving the correct answer and they were afraid of disapproval
-when Asch resonating his study but asked participants to write down their answers instead of saying them out loud, conformity rates fell to 12.5%
ISI and NSI work together
-the idea of Deutsch and Gerrads ‘two process’ approach is that behaviour is either due to NSI or ISI
-however, more often both processes are involved
-e.g conformity is reduced when there is one other dissenting participant in the Asch experiment
-this dissenter may reduce the power of NSI (because dissenter provides social support) or may reduce the power of ISI (because there is an alternative source of information)
-this shows that it isn’t always possible to be sure whether NSI or ISI is at work, this is the case in lab studies and in real life conformity situations
-this casts serious doubt over the view of ISI and NSI as two processes operating independently in conforming behaviour
Asch (1951) AIM
-to examine the extent to which social pressure to conform from unanimous majority affects conformity in an unambiguous situation
Asch (1951) METHOD
-123 male undergraduate students
-believed they were taking part in vision test
-line judgement task, one real (naive) participant in room with 6-8 confederates (agreed answers in advance)
-real participant deceived to believe others also real participants
-real participant always seated second from last
-one by one had to say aloud which line (A, B, C or D) was most like target line
-correct answer always obvious
-each participant completed 18 trials
-confederates face same incorrect answer in 12 of those trials ‘critical trials’
-Asch wanted to see if participant would confirm to majority even when correct answer was obvious
Asch (1951) RESULTS
-Asch measured the number of times each participant confirmed to majority
-real participants conformed to incorrect answers 32% of the critical trials
-74% of participants conformed on at least one critical trial
-26% never conformed
-Asch used control group no confederates, less than 1% gave incorrect answer
Asch (1951) CONCLUSION
-interviewed participants after experiment to find out why they conformed
-most said they knew the answers incorrect but went along with the group to fit in or because they wanted to avoid being ridiculed
-this confirmed participants complied due to normative social influence and desire to fit in publicly without changing their private beliefs
Asch (1951) LIMITATION -Artificial
-task and situation were artificial
-participants knew they were in a research study, may have simply gone along with what was expected of them (demand characteristics)
-task of identifying lines was fairly trivial, no reason not to conform
-Fiske (2014) : groups not very ‘groupy’, do not resemble groups we experience in real everyday life
-this means findings do not generalise to real world situations, especially those where consequences of conformity may be important
Asch (1951) LIMITATION - Limited application
-participants all American men
-other research suggests women more conformist as more concerned with social relationships and beings accepted (Neto 1995)
-USA individualist culture, people more concerned with themselves other than their social group
-similar conformity studies conducted in collectivist cultures such as China where social group more important than individual, found conformity rates higher (Smith and Bond 1996)
-this means Aschs findings tell us little about conformity in women and people from different cultures
Asch (1951) LIMITATION - temporal validity
-research took place at particular point in U.S history when conformity arguably higher, has been critiqued as being ‘child of its time’
-since 1950s numerous psychologists attempted to replicate Asch study, e.g Perrin and Spencer (1980) using maths and engineering students, found significantly lower levels of conformity
-this suggests Asch study lacks historical and temporal validity and conformity rates found in 1950s may not provide accurate reflection of conformity in modern times
Asch (1951) LIMITATION- Individual differences
-research been criticised for not accounting for individual differences in conformity
-personality traits such as need for social approval, or self esteem csn significantly influence if individual likelihood of conforming
-some people conform more or less due to inherent personality characteristics which Asch study did not explore
-This suggests Asch study might not fully capture the complexity of conformity as a social phenomenon that varies acrosss individuals
Asch (1951) STRENGTH- ethical issues
-main benefit of study is thag it increased our knowledge of conformity and the conditions in which people are likely to conform
-also showed how people are able to be more independent in their behaviour, which has significant benefits in real like situations to help people avoid mindless (and potentially destructive) conformity
-this outweighs the ethical issues for two main reasons:
- knowledge gained coukd benefit huge range and number of people, or society in general by showing how destructive social influence can be combatted
-second, the degree of psychological harm experiences by participants (mostly mild embarrassment) was fairly minor and dealt with through debriefing
Asch variation 1 confederate
lower
3%
Asch variation 2 confederates
lower
12.8%
Asch variation 3 confederates
remained the same
32%
Asch variation 15 confederates
lower
29%
Asch variation unanimity- one confederate gave correct answer
lower
5%
Asch variation unanimity- one confederate gave a different incorrect answer to majority
lower
9%
Asch variation- task difficulty
task made significantly more difficult l by making difference between line lengths significantly smaller
conformity higher
Asch variation- historical context
Perrin & Spencer (1981)
-used male maths and engineering students in UK
-conformity lower
0.25%
Asch variation- meta analysis by Smith & Bond fiji
smith and bond analysis how cultural factors in fiji influenced conformity
-conformity higher
58%
Asch variation- meta analysis smith and bond belgium
smith and bond analysed how culture influences conformity in belgium
-conformity lower
15%
Variable influencing conformity : Group size findings
-conformity reaches highest at 3 confederates (32%) same as Asch (1952) who used 6-8 confederates
-majority pressure created
-rate it conformity dropped with more confederates because real participants became suspicious of experiment and not because pressure to conform is necessarily less in larger groups
Variable influencing conformity : unanimity findings
-one confederate gave correct answer, conformity dropped to 5%
-shows that if real participants became suspicious has support for their belief, then they are more likely to resist pressure to conform
-one confederate gave different incorrect answer, 9% conformed
-shows that if you disrupt groups unanimous position then conformity reduces significantly even if answer provided still incorrect
Variable influencing conformity : task difficulty findings
-conformity increased when task got more difficult or ambiguous, when line lengths very close to target line
-likely result of informational social influence, as individuals look to another person for guidance when undertaking ambiguous task, desire to be right
Zimbardo et al (1973) AIM
-to investigate how readily people would conform to the rules of guard and prisoner in a role playing exercise that stimulated prison life
Zimbardo et al (1973) METHOD
-22 participants selected from those who volunteered from newspaper advertisement run by stanford university
-paid 15$ per day
-all applicants interviewed and those perceived to be most stable accepted and randomly assigned ‘prisoner’ or ‘guard’, one person decided not to participate, 10 prisoners and 11 guards
-basement of Stanford university converted into a ‘prison’
-prisoners ‘arrested’ at their homes, blindfolded and finger-printed, taken to the prison, stripped down, deloused, photographed and placed in one of three cells
Zimbardo et al (1973) PRISONER OUTFITS
-smocks, rubber flip flops, stocking on head
-light chain on ankle
-designed to be humiliating and emasculating
-told to respect the rules and to address each other only by their number printed on smock
Zimbardo et al (1973) GUARDS OUTFIT
-khaki shirts, trousers, peaked caps, reflective sunglasses, baton and whistle
-demonstrating military feel, whittle and stick sign of control
Zimbardo et al (1973) RESULTS
-environment has huge instantaneous effect on behaviour of guards and prisoners
-prisoners increasingly passive as guards interaction with them became more verbally hostile
-after a day symptoms of stress began to show in some prisoners as some guards began harassing them
-prisoners attempt to fight back by barricading selves in cell, broken up with fire extinguishers, then stripped and had bedding removed
-within first 4 days, 4 prisoners had to be released with signs of extreme emotional disturbance, faith day another released with psychosomatic rash
-experiment terminated on day 6 when morality questioned by Maslach, strongly objected when saw prisoners abused by guards
Zimbardo et al (1973) CONCLUSION
-guards and prisoners conformed to social roles they were expected to play
-both groups became dehumanised in eyes of tigers and experiment clearly supports situational explanation of behaviour rather than dispositional one
Zimbardo et al (1973) STRENGTH- control
-had control over key variables
-e.g selection of participants, only emotionally stable ones chosen and randomly assigned roles
-ruled out individual differences as explanation as roles given by chance, behaviour must be due to role itself
-increased internal validity, can confidently draw conclusions about influence of roles on conformity
Zimbardo et al (1973) LIMITATION- lack of realism
-Banuaziz and Movahed (1975) argued participants merely play acting roles rather then conformity, participants performances based on stereotypes of how they thought prisoners and guards supposed to behave
-e.g one guard claimed he based his role on brutal character from cool hand luke, prisoners noted they thought they were behaving how real prisoners did
-this suggests findings of prison experiment tell us little about conformity to social roles in actual prisons
Zimbardo et al (1973) COUNTERPOINT TO LACK OF REALISM
-McDermott (2019) argues that participants did behave as if prison was real
-e.g 90% prisoners conversations were about prison life, discussed how it was impossible to leave experiment before their ‘sentences’ were over
-prisoner 416 later explained how he believed the prison was real but ran by psychologists rather than government
-suggests experiment did replicate the social roles of prisoners and guards in a real prison, giving study high degree of internal validity
Zimbardo et al (1973) LIMITATION- exaggerated power of social roles
-Fromm (1973)
-Zimbardo may have exaggerated the power of social roles to influence behaviour
-e.g only 1/3 guards behaved in brutal manner, 1/3 tried to apply rules fairly, 1/3 actively tried to help and support prisoners, offered cigarettes and sympathised. So most guards able to resist situational pressures to conform to a brutal role
-suggests that Zimbardo overstated his view that the participants of experiment conforming to social roles and minimised the influence of dispositional factors such as personality traits
Zimbardo et al (1973) Social identity alternative
-SIT alternative explanation of experiment
-social identity theory suggests people get big part of sense of who they are from groups they belong to, team or club
-in experiment, this theory csn explain why the participants acted the way they did, some people guards some prisoners
-social identity theory suggests guards and prisoners started to really see themselves as part of these groups
-guards acted more harshly because they wanted to show power and keep their group in control
-prisoners either resisted or went along based in how they saw themselves as part of prisoner group
-instead of just saying the sits thin made people act badly, SIT shows that it could also be about how people act when they strongly identify with group and want to stick to what they think is expected of them in that group
Definition of obedience
to comply with demands of someone you see as an authority figure
dispositional attribution
-assigns cause of behaviour to some internal characteristic of person rather than outside forces
-look for enduring internal attributes such as personality traits, motives or beliefs
situational attribution
-assigning cause of behaviour to some situation or even outside persons control rather than internal characteristic
-when we try explain own behaviour tend to make external attributions such a situation or environment features
Milgram (1963) AIM
to find out whether ordinary Americans would obey unjust orders from person in authority to inflict pain on another person (originally pilot study)
Milgram (1963) PARTICIPANTS
-Milgram advertised for male volunteers by placing advert in newspaper
-4.50$
-‘punishment and learning’
-40 volunteers
-age 20-50 years
-at Yale university
Milgram (1963) METHOD
-greeted by experiment and introduced to middle aged man they believed to be a real participant (confederate)
-experimenter explained that kne will be teacher and other learner, real participant always teacher
-their role was to teach learner word pairs and test recall
-had to administer electric shock every time learner made mistake and increase voltage each mistake, shown electric chair and given sample shock to show it’s real
- learner gave predetermined responses to test, as shocks got higher, learner pre recorder screams louder
-180 volts complained weak heart, 300 volts demand to leave
-315 volts refuse answer
-experiment continued til teacher refused to continue or 450 volts re hesd
- when teacher objected experimenter would say ‘please continue, go on’
Milgram (1963) RESULTS
-100% real participants went to at least 300 volts
- 12.5% stopped at 300 volts
-65% went to full 450 volts
-Milgram conducted qualitative data including observations which saw participants showing signs of extreme tension, sweating, trembling, stuttering
Milgram (1963) CONCLUSION
-under certain circumstances most people will obey orders even if they involve inflicting pain on another human being
-criticised for breaking code of ethics, no informed consent and no right to withdraw, deceived, some experienced considerable stress
Sheridan and King (1972) RESULTS
-20/26 volunteers pushed shock button up to maximum intensity, shocks what appeared to be an already unconscious puppy
-100% women who participated obeyed researched to end
-6 who refused were all men
Sheridan and King (1972) CONCLUSION
-strongly suggested that volunteers from Milgram experiment were not aware of any acting on the learners part
-it is human nature to comply with authority to the point of causing extreme harm to another being human or animal
Milgram (1973) STRENGTH- research support
-Milgrams findings replicated in French documentary Beauvois et al (2012)
-participants paid to give fake electric shocks to actors in front of audience
-80% of participants delivered maximum shock of 460 volts to apparently unconscious man
-behaviour almost identical to Milgrams participants, nervous laughter, nail biting and other signs of anxiety
-supports Milgrams original findings about obedience to authority and demonstrates that findings not just due to special circumstances
Milgram (1973) LIMITATION- low internal validity
-may have not been testing what he intended to test
-Milgram reported 75% participants said they believed shocks were genuine
-however, Orne and Holland (1968) argued that participants behaved the way they did because they didn’t really believe in set up, ‘play acting’
-Perry (2013) research confirms this, she listened to tapes of Milgrams participants and reported only about half believed shocks were real
-suggest that participants may have been responding to demand characteristics, trying to fulfill aims of study
Milgram (1973) COUNTERPOINT Sheridan and King
-Sheridan and King (1972) conducted study using procedure like Milgrams
-participants (students) gave real shocks to puppy in response to orders from experimenter
-despite real distress in animal, 54% men and 100% women gave what they thought was fatal shock
-this suggests effects in Milgrams study genuine because people behaved obediently even when shocks real
Milgram (1973) LIMITATION- ethical issues
-participants deceived
-e.g participants thought that allocation of roles (teacher and learner) was random but fixed
-they also thought shocks were real
-Milgram dealt with this by debriefing participants
-however Baumrind (1964) criticised Milgram for deceiving bus participants, she objected because she believed that deception in psychological studies csn have serious consequences for participants and researchers
Milgram variation- PROXIMITY teacher learner
-Milgrams original research teacher and learner were in separate rooms
-in order to test power of proximity Milgram conducted variation where teacher and learner sat in same room
-in this variation percentage of participants who administered full 450 volts dropped from 65% to 40%
-obedience falls, as teacher experience learners pain more directly
-in another variation teacher had to force learners hand directly onto shock plate
-obedience dropped further to 30%
-the closer the proximity of teacher and learner, the lower the level of obedience
Milgram variation- PROXIMITY authority figure
-proximity authority figure also effect level of obedience
-in variation, experimenter gave initial instructions then left room, ready instruction given over phone
-participants more likely to defy experimenter, only 21% administered full 450 volts
Milgram variation- UNIFORM
-in Milgrams variations experimenter wore lab coat, indicating status as University professor
-Milgram examined power of uniform in variation where experimenter called away and replaced with another ‘participant’ in ordinary clothes
-in this variation, ‘participant’ in ordinary clothes came up with idea to increase voltage every time learner made mistake
-obedience dropped, 20% administered full 450 volts rather than 65%
Milgram variation- UNIFORM Bickman (1974)
-Bickman (1974) investigated power of uniform in field experiment in Nee York
-3 make actors, one dressed as milkman, one security guard, one ordinary clothes
-actors asked me members of public to follow one of three instructions : pick up bag, give someone money for parking meter, stand on other side of bus stop eith sign which said ‘no standing’
-obedience to guard significantly higher than civilian, power of uniform sense of authority, greater consequences
Milgram variation- LOCATION
-Milgram original research in laboratory of Yale University
-test power location
-variation conducted in run down building in Bridgeport
-experimenter no longer associated with Yale University, instead Research Association of Bridgeport
-in this variation, 47.5% administered full 450 volts rather than 65%
-this highlights impact of location on obedience eith less credible locations resulting in a reduction in level of obedience
Milgram Situational Variables effect on obedience STRENGTH other studies demonstrate influence of situational variables
-strength is that other studies have demonstrated influence of situational variables in obedience
-Bickman (1974) field experiment New York, confederates different outfits: ordinary clothes, milkman’s outfit, security guard
-gave instructions to civilians such as pick up litter
-people twice as likely to obey dressed in guard uniform over ordinary clothes
-supports view that situational variable such as uniform does have powerful effect on obedience eith less
Milgram Situational Variables effect on obedience STRENGTH- replicated in other cultures
-Meeus and Raaijmakers (1986) used more realistic procedure than Milgrams to study obedience in Dutch participants
-participants ordered to say stressful things in interview to someone (confederate) desperate for job
-researcher also replicated Milgrams findings concerning proximity, when person giving orders not present, obedience decreased dramatically
-suggests Milgrams findings about obedience not just limited to Americans or males, but valid across cultures and apply to females too
Milgram Situational Variables effect on obedience LIMITATION counterpoint- not very cross cultural
-Smith and Bond (1998) identified two replications between 1967 and 1985 that took place in non western countries (India and Jordan)
- other countries such as Spain or Scotland not culturally different from United States
-for example they have similar notions about role of authority
-therefore, may not be appropriate to conclude Milgrams findings (including those about proximity and location) apply to people in all or most cultures
Milgram Situational Variables effect on obedience LIMITATION- participants may have been aware procedure faked
-participants may have known procedure was faked
-Orne and Holland (1968) criticised Milgrams baseline study
-they point out thag it is even more likely in his variation because of the extra manipulation of variables
-good example is the variation where experimented replaced by memebership of public, even Milgram recognised that this situation was so contrived that some participants may well have worked out truth
