4.1.1 Social Influence Flashcards
1
Q
conformity
A
- when an individual changes their beliefs or behaviour in order to fit in with a group
- also known as majority influence
- types of conformity include compliance, identification, and internalisation
2
Q
compliance
A
- weakest type of conformity
- when a person changes their public behaviour but continues to disagree with them privately
- e.g. pretending you like a film just because everyone else does
3
Q
identification
A
- a stronger type of conformity
- when someone changes their public behaviour and private beliefs, but only when in the presence of the group (temporarily)
- e.g. being vegetarian when surrounded by vegetarians
4
Q
internalisation
A
- the strongest type of conformity
- when a person changes their public behaviour and private beliefs permanently
- e.g. joining a religion
5
Q
explanations for conformity
A
- normative social influence
- informative social influence
6
Q
normative social influence
A
- conforming due to the need to be liked
- an individual yields to group pressure because they want to fit in and don’t want to be rejected by them
- usually involves compliance
7
Q
informative social influence
A
- conforming due to the need to be right
- an individual lacks knowledge and subsequently looks to the group for guidance, so usually occurs in new / unambiguous situations
- usually involves internalisation
8
Q
explanations for conformity - strengths
A
- normative social influence support; Asch (1951) found that ppts claimed they gave the wrong answer even when they knew it was wrong as they felt self-conscious and didn’t want to go against the group and gain disapproval
- informative social influence support; Lucas et al. (2006) found that ppts conformed more when the maths problems were difficult compared to when they were easier, due to students being unsure of the answer and not wanting to appear wrong
9
Q
explanations for conformity - limitations
A
- it can be difficult to distinguish between normative or informative social influence within research studies and real life, suggesting both processes may work together
- it doesn’t take individual differences into account
- it can’t explain why some people don’t conform
10
Q
Asch’s Line Experiment
A
- Asch (1951) looked at the effects of normative social influence, as he wanted to investigate whether people would conform to the majority in situations where an answer was obvious
- method;
- he carried out a lab experiment with 123 male US students who believed they were taking part in a vision test
- each naive ppt joined a group of 7 confederates around a table and were sat last / 2nd last so they always heard the confederates’ answers first
- the confederates were told to give an incorrect answer on 12/18 trials in advance, (12 critical, but 6 control trials for naive ppts to gain the confederates’ trust)
- ppts had to say aloud which comparison line matched a standard line in length
- results;
- in critical trials, average conformity rate was 36.8%, so they conformed over 1/3 of the time
- 75% of ppts conformed at least once
- 25% never conformed at all, suggesting individual differences
- after the experiment, Asch conducted interviews with ppts, and some said they were aware of their wrong answers, but didn’t want to stand out from the group
- conclusion; ppts conform due to normative social influence
11
Q
Asch’s Line Experiment - strengths
A
- the task was unambiguous, making it easier to measure conformity levels
- there have been variations of this experiment, to further solidify his conclusion
- empirical method was used, so variables were highly controlled
- proved the aim that people give in to social pressures
- although it’s seen as unethical to deceive participants, his experiment required deception to achieve valid results and avoid demand characteristics
12
Q
Asch’s Line Experiment - limitations
A
- gender bias as the entire sample was males, so its unclear if his findings generalise to the rest of the world, hence a lack of population validity
- lack of cultural validity as they were all the same culture
- questions of ecological / external validity, as the task and situation are both artificial
- ethical concerns as the naive ppts were deceived to think they were taking part in a vision test and not an experiment on conformity
- ppts were also not protected from psychological harm, as many reported feeling stressed when they disagreed with the majority
13
Q
variables affecting conformity
A
- following Asch’s original study, many variations of his experiment were carried out, but with different situational variables to see how these affected conformity;
- group size
- unanimity
- task difficulty
14
Q
Asch - group size
A
- increasing the size of the group tended to increase conformity until a certain point
- in trials with just 1 confederate and 1 ppt, conformity rates were low
- when there were 2 confederates, conformity increased to 12.8%
- when confederates were increased to 3, conformity increased further to 32%
- however, adding extra confederates (4, 8, or 16) didn’t increase conformity beyond this
15
Q
Asch - unanimity
A
- conformity rates decline when the majority answer isn’t unanimous (all in agreement)
- ppt’s conformity declined from 32% to 5.5% when one confederate was instructed to give the correct answer and go against the incorrect answer of the majority
16
Q
Asch - task difficulty
A
- increasing the difficulty of the task was also found to increase conformity
- asch adjusted the lengths of the lines in the study to make it either easier or harder to match a comparison line to the standard line
- if the difference between the incorrect and correct answer was very small, ppts were more likely to conform to the incorrect answers of the majority
17
Q
conformity to social roles
A
- social roles are the ‘roles’ people play as members of various social groups / situations, e.g. parent, child, teacher, etc.
- we conform to social roles to behave correctly and appropriately in society
- Zimbardo investigated this idea in his Stanford Prison Experiment
18
Q
Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment
A
- Zimbardo (1973) wanted to investigate how readily people would conform to the assigned social roles of prisoners and guards in a prison situation, and whether the behaviour was due to dispositional (internal) or situational (environmental) factors
- method;
- Zimbardo et al. converted the basement of the Stanford University psychology building into a mock prison
- they advertised the role of prisoners and guards for a 2-week study and 21 male student volunteers, who were tested and found to be ‘emotionally stable’, were selected as ppts
- they were then randomly assigned the role of either a prisoner or guard (10 guards and 11 prisoners)
- prisoners were arrested realistically, fingerprinted, photographed and ‘booked’
- zimbardo himself was playing the role of the warden
- prisoners wore a loose smock, a cap, and a chain around one ankle and were only to be identified by an assigned number
- guards wore khaki uniforms, mirrored sunglasses (to prevent eye contact) and carried handcuffs and wooden batons
- both these uniforms caused de-individuation (a loss of the person’s identity), making them more likely to conform to their social roles
- results;
- the guards quickly became increasingly brutal and sadistic as they began to harass prisoners within hours
- prisoners also adopted their roles quickly, and within 2 days they rebelled, ripped their uniforms, shouted and swore at guards
- the guards retaliated by becoming more abusive, punishing and dehumanising prisoners, e.g. by using fire extinguishers on them and forcing them to clean toilets with their bare hands
- prisoners soon became more submissive, e.g. they became more obedient and tried to please guards by ‘snitching’ on other prisoners
- 5 prisoners were released early due to severe reactions to the torment, e.g. crying, screaming, extreme anxiety, etc.
- the guards’ sadism became so harmful that zimbardo ended the experiment after 6 days, instead of the scheduled 2 weeks
- this mirrored the abu ghraib prison, which zimbardo was a witness of
- conclusions;
- people conform quickly to social roles, even when it goes against their moral principles
- situational factors were largely responsible for the behaviour found
- a prison exerts psychological damage upon those who work and are incarcerated there
19
Q
Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment - strengths
A
- major practical applications of the study as practices were changed in US prisons to protect the vulnerable and make prisons safer
- it was in a controlled environment so variables could be controlled
- the allocation of prisoner / guard roles was random, increasing the control zimbardo had over the internal validity
20
Q
Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment - limitations
A
- individual differences also determine the extent to which a person conforms to social roles
- not all guards were so harsh or cruel
- lack of population validity as the entire sample consisted of males
- ethical issues as ppts were subjected to psychological harm, which could’ve been long-lasting
- the right to withdraw was questioned at points in the study, maybe because zimbardo was playing a role himself (the warden)
- lack of informed consent, as ppts didn’t explicitly consent to all aspects of the experiment, e.g. being ‘arrested’ at home
- questions of ecological / external validity as ppts knew they were taking part in a study, so it might’ve affected the way they behaved, e.g. exaggerated behaviour, so the findings may not apply to real life situations
- ppts may have been acting in a stereotypical way, e.g. one guard said he based his behaviour off a brutal character he’d seen in a film
21
Q
obedience
A
- complying with the orders of someone you see as an authority figure
- studied by Milgram through his shock experiment
22
Q
Milgram’s Shock Experiment
A
- Milgram (1963) wanted to investigate the extent to which people obey the orders of an authority figure
- he was inspired by the WW2 criminals (Nazis) who justified their actions as ‘following orders’
- method;
- 40 male american ppts were told they were taking part in a study about memory and learning, conducted at Yale university
- ppts were given the role of a teacher, which they believed was randomly assigned, and they were paired with a confederate who was given the role of a learner
- an experimenter (also a confederate) told the ppt the test would involve giving increasingly powerful electric shocks to the learner (confederate) in the room next door
- the learner had to learn a set of word pairs and the teacher ppt would test his knowledge
- the teacher was instructed to punish the learner with an electric shock after each incorrect answer, with the power increasing each time and volts ranging from 15-450v
- the ppt was given a 45v shock so he believed it was real, and had to watch the learner be strapped into a chair and have electrodes attached to his body
- once electric shocks reached 150v, the learner began to protest, (pre-recorded tapes were played), and these increased in intensity with the increasing voltage, e.g. at 315v the learner screamed in pain and after 330v he went silent
- if ppts asked to stop the experiment, the experimenter would reply with a prompt to continue
- results;
- 65% (26/44) of ppts administered shocks up to the maximum of 450v
- 100% of ppts went up to 300v
- most ppts showed physical discomfort when doing so, e.g. sweating, nervously laughing, etc.
- 3 ppts suffered seizures from the stress of their actions
- conclusions; under the right circumstances, ordinary people will obey unjust orders