TOPIC 1 - SOCIAL INFLUENCE Flashcards
Conformity (4)
- Type of social influence, defined as yielding to group pressure (Crutchfield, 1955)
- Conformity occurs when individual’s behaviour/beliefs are influenced by a larger group (majority influence)
- It is the response to real or imagined group pressure
- Often used to indicate an agreement to the majority position - ‘fit in’, desire to be correct or adapt to a social role
Kelman (1958) - Compliance (3)
- Individuals adjust their behaviour/beliefs to be accepted or avoid disapproval (desire to ‘fit in’)
- Involves public, but not private, acceptance of group’s belief systems
- Fairly weak and temporary form of conformity; dependent on group presence
Kelman (1958) - Identification (3)
- Individuals adjust their behaviour/beliefs as group membership is desirable
- Stronger type of conformity, including private and public acceptance
- Generally temporary and not maintain after leaving the group
Kelman (1958) - Internalisation (3)
- Individuals genuinely adjust their behaviour and opinions to those of a group (true conformity)
- Public and private acceptance of group’s behaviour/beliefs
- Not dependent on group presence or membership
Deutsch and Gerard - Informational Social Influence (4)
- The need to be certain that ideas and beliefs are correct; the motivation underpinning ISI
- Usually occurs when a person lacks knowledge and looks to the group for guidance
- Or, in ambiguous situations, where individuals socially compare their behaviour
- Usually involves internalisation, as a person accepts the views of the groups and adopts them as an individual
Deutsch and Gerard - Normative Social Influence (3)
- The desire to be liked and respected, and not rejected or ridiculed them; the motivation underpinning NSI
- Conforming occurs as the person is scared of being rejected by the group, and so yields to group pressure to ‘fit in’
- Usually involves compliance , as a person publicly accepts the views of a group but privately rejects them.
Support for ISI:
Jenness (1932) - Jellybeans in a Jar
[Findings] (2)
- Individual’s second private estimates tended to converge their group estimate
- Average change of opinion was greater among females (great conformity among women)
Support for ISI:
Jenness (1932) - Jellybeans in a Jar
[Conclusion] (1)
- Individuals’ judgements are affect by majority opinions, especially in ambiguous and unfamiliar situations
Support for ISI:
Jenness (1932) - Jellybeans in a Jar
[Evaluation] (1+2)
+ The deception was less severe than in other social influence studies = more ethically sound
- Laboratory experiment with an artificial, unusual situation = lacks mundane realism (doesn’t reflect actual behaviour)
- Study tells us little about majority influence in non-ambiguous situations
Support for NSI:
Asch (1955) - Line Judgement Task
[Findings] (4)
- Control group had an error rate of only 0.04% = shows how obvious answers were
- On the 12 critical trials, 32% conformed to wrong answers
- 75% conformed to at least one wrong answer
- 5% conformed to all 12 wrong answers
Support for NSI:
Asch (1955) - Line Judgement Task
[Conclusion] (2)
- Individual’s judgements are affected by majority opinions, even when the majority is obviously wrong
- Participants were motivated by NSI, to gain acceptance or avoid rejection (public, but not private, conformity)
Support for NSI:
Asch (1955) - Line Judgement Task
[Evaluation] (1+3)
+ Asch’s conformity study became a paradigm = the accepted way of conducting conformity research
- The procedure is impractical, as only one real participant is tested at a time
- Situation was unrealistic and so lacked mundane realism
- Unethical, as it involved deceit (“visual perception study”) and psychological harm (stress)
Support for NSI:
Mori and Arai (2010) - Asch Without Confederates
[Findings] (3)
- The 78 majority participants, who saw correct-sized lines, answered incorrectly 8.2% of the time
- The 26 minority participants, who saw different-sized lines, answered incorrectly 19.6% of time
- Results were similar to that of Asch’s study
Support for NSI:
Mori and Arai (2010) - Asch Without Confederates
[Evaluation] (3)
+ New procedure could provide an effective means of examining conformity = practical (no confederates) and natural setting (ecological validity)
+ Greater external validity = participants knew each other = real-life conformity
- Procedure is still unethical, as involves deceit (sunglasses to protect from glare)
- Situation was unrealistic and so lacked mundane realism
Variables Affecting Conformity - Situational (3)
- Size of group
- Unanimity
- Task Difficulty
