1. social influence Flashcards
(33 cards)
Conformity
A change in a person’s behaviour or opinions as a result of real or imagined pressure from a person or group of people
Asch’s baseline procedure
Conformity
123 American undergraduate men were tested, each in a group with other ‘participants’. Each participant saw two large white cards (one with a standard and one with three comparison lines). On each trial and had to say out loud which of the comparison lines was the same as the standard line.
The participants were tested in groups of 6 to 9. Only one was a participant (either seated last or penultimate), the rest were confederates who gave incorrect scripted answers.
Asch’s baseline findings
The participants agreed with the confederates’ incorrect answers 36.8% of the time
There were individual differences, 25% of the participants never gave a wrong answer
Group size
Variables investigated by Asch
He wanted to know whether the group size would be more important than the agreement of the group so he varied the number of confederates from one to 15.
He found that conformity increased with group size but only up to a point.
― With three confederates, the conformity rate rose to 31.8%, and slightly increased with more confederates.
This suggests that some people are very sensitive to the views of others
Unanimity
Variables investigated by Asch
Asch wondered if the presence of a non-conforming person would affect the participant’s conformity and so introduced a dissenter who disagreed with the confederates.
The participant conformed less often in the presence of a dissenter and the rate decreased to less than a quarter of the level when it was the majority unanimous.
Suggests influence of majority depends on a large extent of unanimity
Task difficulty
Variables investigated by Asch
Asch wanted to know whether making the task harder would affect the degree of conformity so he increased the difficulty of the line-judging task by making the standard and comparison lines more similar in length.
Asch found that conformity increased, believing that the situation is more ambiguous when the task becomes harder
Internalisation
A person genuinely accepts the group norms which results in both a public and private change of opinions and behaviour
Identification
A person publicly conforms to the opinions and behaviour of a group and may change some private opinions
Compliance
A person changes their opinions and behaviour in public but do not do so at all in private
Informational social influence
We agree with the majority because we believe that it is correct and that we accept it because we want to be correct as well
May lead to internalisation
Normative social influence
We agree with the opinion of the majority because we want to gain social approval and be liked
May lead to compliance
Stanford Prison Experiment
Zimbardo
Zimbardo et al. set up a mock prison in the basement of Stanford University. They selected 21 men (student volunteers) who were tested as ‘emotionally stable’ and were randomly assigned to play the role of prison guard or prisoner. Prisoners and guards were encouraged to confrom to social roles through their uniforms and instructions
― The prisoners were given a loose smock to wear and identified by number. The guards had their own uniform with a wooden club, handcuffs, and mirror shades.
― The prisoners were encouraged to identify with their role by ‘applying for parole’ if they wanted to leave and guards were reminded they had complete power over prisoners.
The uniforms were to create a loss of personal identity
Stanford Prison Experiment findings
The guards took up their roles with enthusiasm and treated the prisoners harshly. Within two days, the prisoners rebelled.
― The guards would constantly harass the prisoners by highlighting the difference in social roles.
― When the rebellion was put down, the prisoners became subdued, depressed, and anxious, and many prisoners showed signs of psychological disturbance; while the guards identified more and more closely with their role.
The study was ended after six days instead of the intended 14
Social roles appear to have a strong influence on individuals’ behaviour
Milgram’s baseline procedure
Obedience
40 American men volunteered to take part in a study. Each volunteer was introduced to a participant (a confederate) and they drew lots to see who would be the teacher and learner. The draw was rigged so the volunteer was always the teacher. An experimenter was also involved
― The learner was strapped in a chair and wired up with electrodes; the participant recieved a genuine shock
― The learner had to remember words and each time they made an error, the teacher delivered a electric shock that went up 15V.
― At 315V, the confederates stopped responding completely
Milgram’s baseline findings
Obedience
Every participant delivered all the shocks up to 300 volts
― 12.5% participants stopped at 300 volts
― 65% continued to the highest level of 450 volts
― Many of the participants showed signs of distress, from sweating to seizures.
Situational variables
Features of the immediate physical and social environment which may influence a person’s behaviour.
Proximity
The physical closeness or distance of an authority figure to the person they are giving an order to
Location
The place where an order is issued
Uniform
People in positions of authority often have a specific outfit that is symbolic of their authority. This indicates that they are entitled to expect our obedience
Agentic state
A mental state where we feel no personal responsibility for our behaviour because we believe ourselves to be acting for an authority figure.
Frees us from our conscience; allows us to obey destructive figures
Autonomous state
A person is free to behave according to their own principles and feels a sense of responsibility for their own actions
Legitimacy of authority
An explanation for obedience which suggests that we are more likely to obey people who we perceive to have authority over us
Dispositional explanation
Any explanation of behaviour that highlights the importance of the individual’s personality
Authoritarian personality
A type of personality that Adorno argued was especially susceptible to obeying people in authority. Such individuals are thought to be submissing to those of higher status and dismissive of inferiors
