topic 1: social influence Flashcards
describe and evaluate measures of central tendency
they are descriptive statistics that measure average and look at the middle of the data set
- mean
– an anomaly will interfere with the mean
+ it is representative as it makes use of all data values - median
– not representative of all data sets
+ not affected by anomalies - mode
– can have so many modes that it becomes pointless
+ useful if data is in categories
describe and evaluate measures of dispersion
range
– affected by extreme values
+ easy to calculate
standard deviation
tells us how much scores differ from the mean on average
used if the mean is used as the measure of central tendency and takes every value into account
a large standard deviation = scores are widely distributed, there are many scores occurring a long way from the mean and vice versa
it is used when your data has a standard bell value
+ not affected by extreme values
- can be hard to calculate
characteristics of bar charts
- used for non-continuous data, aka categorical/discrete
- bars can’t touch each other
characteristics of histograms
- show continuous data
- columns can touch each other
- all intervals are shown, even if there aren’t any scores within them
characteristics of scatter graphs
- used with data that shows a correlation
what is social influence
the process by which an individual’s attitudes, beliefs or behaviour are modified by the presence or action of others
what is conformity and why does it happen
it is majority influence; majority influences the minority, a person’s appearance, behaviour and values can be changed
may be because:
- they are insecure/unsure
- they want to be liked and fit in
- feel real/imagined pressure from a group that makes them do things that they wouldn’t do outside the group
compliance is when you publically agree but personally disagree, it’s artificial
outline the study done on conformity and majority influence and the findings
Asch; The Power of Majority Influence and Conformity 1951
method: lab experiment
sample - 123 American students
procedure: 7 participants but only 1 is innocent, other 6 are confederates; innocent sits penultimately to give them a chance to be influenced
there were 18 cards, 6 in each category; too long, too short, just right
Results (have to know these 4):
36.8% conformity rate
25% never conformed
75% conformed at least once
5% conformed at every trial
conclusions:
through interviews, Asch found that some p’s conformed because they though the group was right and reported truthfully to be right also (Information Social Influence)
most conformed to fit in and avoid disagreeing/causing issues, so they didn’t answer truthfully (Normative Social Influence)
what is informative social influence
usually occurs when an individual lacks knowledge and is unsure about a new situation and so looks to the group for support
can occur in a crisis situation where the decision has to be made quickly and we assume the group is correct
individual accepts/agrees so they can also be correct
what is normative social influence
occurs because the individual wants to fit in with the group and not be rejected
they may accept it even if they don’t believe it
evaluate Asch’s research on The Power of Majority Influence and Conformity
– lack of generalisability
the sample was 123 students; this doesn’t represent the population
older people have been found to be more secure in their opinion and they don’t care as much about fitting in
students are more likely to want to to make friends and fit in
+ lots of standardised procedures allows reliability to be tested
eg. 12 chances to conform, all sat one from the end
the research can be replicated with different samples in different countries to test reliability
– But, there has been contradictory evidence found
Perrin repeated with UK engineering students and only 1 conformed in almost 400 trials
may be bc they have to be accurate with these things and are therefore more confident
+ it has been supported by Lucas et al. they asked p’s to solve easy and hard maths problems , p’s were found to conform more if questions were hard, BUT also found that conformity is more complex than Asch and found that individual factors (eg. confidence) can in/decrease conformity
– low ecological validity
the tasks quite artificial as there are no real consequences to conforming or not; they just had to match Ines based on size and there were no real consequences
the answers were also unambiguous so they were more confidents unlike eg. in a jury
what are the factors affecting conformity + supporting studies
- group size
1 confederate 1 innocent - 3% conformity
3 confederates 1 innocent - 33% conformity - unanimity
the dissenter gives either the correct answer or a wrong answer that is different to the rest of the group
in both cases; conformity was decreased to 5.5%
due to: (a) increased participant confidence (b) broken united front - task difficulty
Asch made the lines more similar in height to make the task harder; this increased conformity because p’s doubted themselves more
this technique shows excellent science, each variable was altered to see what the impacts were
what are the types of conformity
compliance - false behaviour, short term, stops when there is no longer group pressure
identification - the behaviour is adopted temporarily, usually to conform to the expectation of a certain social role (eg. teacher, nurse)
internalisation - true behaviour, permanent, will continue with no group pressure
evaluate normative and informational social influence
+ evidence support for NSI
interviews from Asch’s first study; after everybody turned to look at another guy that went against the group the innocent p said “why should I make waves”, didn’t want o be different and they’d rather just agree to be accepted
+ evidence support for ISI
Asch’s task difficulty study, increasing difficulty sound increased conformity because individuals were more unsure of the answer, he found this out using interviews
– individual diferences
Perrin repeated asch’s study with uk engineering students and 1 in almost 400 conformed; may be due to engineering students working with accuracy etc. more and being more confident in their answers
– separating the 2 processes is over-simplistic
sometimes both are involves/ we can’t tell which one plays a bigger role
eg. when a dissenter was added in Asch’s study we don’t know if it influences NSI or ISI
describe the setup of the study carried out on conformity to social roles
Zimbardo
sample: 21 male students that were screened for psych problems, drug abuse and a crime history
they were randomly assigned to guard/prisoner (but the guards were Told that they were chosen)
was meant to be 2 weeks
outfits:
prisoner - loose smock, cap to cover hair, only identified by given number
cap: shaved head
guard - uniform, wooden club, handcuffs and mirror shades
mirror shades - makes eye contact with prisoners difficult
aim, of both is de-individuation; losing their individual identity increases the chance of them conforming to this percieved role
what were the results/findings of Zimbardo’s study
identification of both guards and prisoners occurred quickly
- some guards started harassing in a few hours
- in 2 days, prisoners started rebelling; ripped uniforms + shouted swearing at guards
- The guards used fire extinguishers to retaliate, using ‘divide-and-rule’ tactics, playing the prisoners off against each other and completing headcounts, sometimes at night
- prisoners soon adopted prisoner-like behaviour too e.g. they became subdued; they ‘snitched’ to the guards about other prisoners and discussed only prison life (suggesting they took it seriously and believed it); they took prison rules seriously; they increasingly became docile and obedient
- they each went further to each pole, suggesting increasing internalisation of the roles
the exp. ended in 6 days rather than 14
what were the conclusions of Zimbardo’s study
- Social roles appeared to have a strong influence on individuals’ behaviour in this study
- Power may corrupt those who wield it i.e. the guards over the prisoners
- Institutions may brutalise people and result in deindividuation (for both guards and prisoners)
- A prison exerts psychological damage upon those who work and are incarcerated there
evaluate Zimbardo’s study
– poor ethics
they experienced more stress than everyday life + deception, the lack of informed consent; we can see this bc 4 people left early due to mental breakdowns + they were actually arrested at their homes without warning
com: this would be stressful + humiliating and breaking ethical guidelines can make getting future p’s more difficult
– demand characteristics
most sadistic guard said he was playing a script based on a movie (Cool Hand Luke) because he thought the point was showing how vicious the prison system is
this reduces validity because we know that at least one guard didn’t actually act based on their given social role
However, some may have actually believed it bc they introduced them with their number to a priest
+ changed the american prison system
4 teens that were initially emotionally healthy had to leave bc of issues so young offenders are now separate from the older, more violent offenders
so there have been positive implications from the research
– low ecological validity
they were students that are getting paid for 2 weeks and they know this, so the results could be artificial as people may not fully fall into their given social roles
outline the behavioural study on obedience
milgram
aim - to investigate the level of obedience shown when participants were ordered to administer electric shocks to another person by an authority figure
participants; 40 males volunteered for a yale uni study in response to news ads from 20yrs to 50yrs, from connecticut with a variety of occupations.
wanted them all to be ‘normal people’ so the sample would be equivalent to the Nazi’s
deliberately ethnocentric to see if americans could follow like the Nazi’s did
method - controlled observation
the study was given a fake aim of research into memory and learning to prevent demand characteristics
the electric shock generator - it went from 15 to 450 volts, increasing by 15V and you have to increase each time, it won’t let you go lower/stay the same, each voltage had a descriptor (eg. slight shock/ danger-sever shock
- each volunteer was introduced to another participant (a confederate)
- They each drew lots to see who’d be the ‘Teacher’ (T) or ‘Learner’ (L). but the draw was fixed, so the genuine participant was always T and the confederate the L
- the shocks were falsely shown to be real
- An Experimenter was also involved, a confederate dressed in a grey lab coat
- learner was asked to learn a set of word pairs and the teacher would test his knowledge
- They were placed in adjacent rooms and T had an electric shock generator to administer shocks to L
- T was instructed to punish L with a shock after each incorrect answer he gave
- there were pre-recorded responses that the L played for each voltage (begging them to stop, screaming, silence for the last 3)
- When T displayed a reluctance to injure the L, they were given fixed prods (eg. the experiment requires you to continue, you have no choice but to continue)
