Social Psychology Flashcards
Normative social influence?
Changing behaviour to be liked and socially accepted e.g consuming drugs to gain acceptance from a group.
Informational social influence?
Changing behaviour/ what you believe in order to be right → unsure of what to do therefore follow group + conform eg smoke filled room experiment.
Normative social influence study?
Asch (1951)
. Aim -> to investigate how people changed answer when knowing others are wrong
.Method->lab experiment
. Design-> genuine participant seated near end (to hear other opinions)
.sample->123 male university students in a group with undercover participants (confederates)
.IV-> incorrect length closest to target length.
.DV-> length of lines
.results-> most agreed with confederates 36.8% of the time. 25% never conformed.
. Conclusion → people conform due to normative social influence
informational social influence study?
Sherif (1935)
. Autokinetic effect
. Aim -> will people conform to a group on an ambiguous task
. Procedure → asked how far the dot of light had moved. Asked this twice,alone t in group. half asked in group then alone, other half other way round.
. Findings → if asked alone first they would change when in group. If in group first answer remained same alone.
. Conclusion → shows informational social influence as when unsure of what to do participants follow group.
Compliance
changing behaviour but not mind, they know what they’re doing is wrong e.g. Asch.
Identification
changing behaviour and mind for a time, but can be changed back. e.g. Sherif.
Internalisation
change behaviour and mind and believe what they’re doing is right.
Variables/ factors affecting conformity
Group size
Unanimity
Task difficulty
Group size?
Research indicates that as group size increases conformity increases to a point, then no further increases.
. Research= Asch (1956)
. 1 ptp and1 confederate= low/none
. 1 ptp and 2 confederates=13% conformity
. I ptp and 3 confederates=32% conformity
. More than 3 confederates=no difference
Unanimity?
Original Asch study had unanimity where all confederates gave wrong answer and 1/3 of ptp would conform.
Conformity rates decline when majority influence is not unanimous.
Conformity drops if an individual (rebel) goes against majority. This is called a social supporter or group dissenter and conformity drops to 5.5%from 32%.
Task difficulty
Greater conformity as difficulty increases.
People look to others for guidance and this Leads to informational social influence occurring as well
Zimbardo’s research:
Aim-> investigate if normal people will change behaviour if put in new social role
Method → lab experiment
Design-> independent group design as ptp were either in guard condition or prisoner condition.
Iv →guard or prisoner
Dv → did they conform to their social roles
Description → mock prison set up in 1973 at Stanford university. Students were paid for doing this experiment. Students randomly assigned to play role of prison guard or prisoner. Encouraged to conform to social roles. Guards took up their roles and treated prisoners harshly. Prisoners didn’t go against guards as they immediately accepted that the take guards were more powerful. Only lasted for 6 days instead of 12 as became too dangerous and lots were psychologically affected by experiment.
Conclusion-> social roles have strong influence on an individual’s behaviour. Guards became brutal und prisoners became submissive
Abu Ghraib
From 2003 - 2004 US army military police committed serious human rights violations against Iraqi prisoners at Abu ghraib prison in Baghdad. Prisoners were tortured physically + some murdered. They did this as they thought they were dangerous to US. Zimbardo noticed similarities between behaviour of personnel and guards in Stanford prison.
Evaluation of Zimbardo’s study:
.research had a high level of control- all the variables were kept constant and only the IV manipulated, therefore the results are likely to be due to the IV, in this case if the ptp was a prisoner or guard. This means it has a high level of internal validity, as it was really measuring the effect of the social role on the behaviour of the ptp.
. ethical issues- it did cause psychological harm to ptp particularly the prisoners became distressed throughout the study. However, Zimbardo did make sure they were psychologically well before the study and followed them up after the study for a year to ensure their psychological well-being.
. issue of right to withdraw, although ptp knew this at the start, Zimbardo did not remind them of this and because they were paid they may have felt more obliged to continue. They even noted a prisoner returned after wanting to leave but felt they couldn’t. Zimbardo should’ve kept explaining they can leave, he became too involved being the superintendent and lost objectivity.
.Lacks ecological validity- would people behave like this in the real world, as the ptp knew it was an experiment. Abu ghraib= does have validity as seen in real word
Milgrams research
Aim - investigate if ordinary people would follow orders t obey on unjust order to shock someone to 450 volts. Procedure - draw for their role. Confederate always got role of learner. Learner strapped to chair in other room. Teacher (participant) asked question, confederate says wrong/right answer on purpose, if wrong =shocked, confederate would fake scream. Experimenter would convince them to go
on, but some were scared they’d killed mr Wallace ( confederate) .Method-lab experiment
. Design- repeated measures
. Iv - level of volts
. Dv - aid pop obey the experimenter + give shocks to the “learner”Results- 65% continued to 450 volts. = obedience. Some suffered extreme anxiety. People would ask who’s responsible and experimenter would say ‘I am’. Some of 35% that didnt obey to 450 said they’d witnessed blind obedience in WWII and won’t continue as said it was wrong.
