Social Influence Flashcards
Asch baseline study aim and introduction.
- Experiment to investigate whether people would conform or not in an unambiguous situation. (The answer to the task is very obvious).
He used 123 American male college students.
They were asked to take part in a simple perception test as a prelude to the main study, however this actually was the main study.
Asch baseline study procedure.
Ps given a line display.
6 confederates around a table with one real participant.
Went around the table, starting with confederate 1, the real participant was second last.
18 trials, on 12 confederate were told to give the same wrong answer.
They would see how many of the real participants would conform with the group and give the wrong answer.
Asch baseline study findings.
Confederates gave wrong answer 37% of Ps conformed.
74% conformed at least once.
26% never gave a wrong answer
Variables in Asch study.
Group size - 4% conformity with 1 confederate, 14% with 2, 32% with 3. Conformity can happen with very few people.
Unanimity - confederate that agreed with Ps answers conformity dropped 5.5% to 31.5%. When confed gives different wrong answer conformity drops but not as much.
Task difficulty - lines were closer in length conformity increased, can also occur when looking for guidance (informational social influence).
Strengths of Asch’s research.
Lab experiment - easy to replicate and good control over EVs
Supporting studies - Lucas et al (2006) using maths questions, found people conformed more when the question was harder, conforming due to task difficulty. Increases the reliability - same results with different variables.
EXT : students with less confidence in their maths ability were more likely to conform.
Limitations of Asch’s research.
Ethical issues.
Research may be culture bound - all participants were American. Lacks populations validity - findings cannot be generalised outside of western cultures.
EXT : Ps were also all male.
Groups were artificial - did not resemble groups present in everyday life. Lacks external validity - doesn’t tell us about conformity in the real world.
Types of conformity
Internalisation - accept majority view as correct, causing a permanent change in beliefs and behaviour.
Identification - go along with the group because a person identifies with them, may not fully agree. Behaviour change, beliefs stay the same
Compliance - outwardly go along with the group but privately disagree (group of strangers) to avoid embarrassment.
Explanations for conformity -
Normative social influence - want to be seen as normal, people conform because they want to be liked (temporary).
Leads to compliance
Informational social influence - conform to be correct. (permanent).
Leads to Internalisation
Strength of NSI.
Supporting evidence - baseline Asch study, 74% conformed at least once just to fit in, desire to not be rejected.
Limitation of NSI.
Lacks predictive validity - nAffiliators (people who have greater need for social relationships) want to relate to to other people making them more likely to conform.
Doesn’t consider individual differences.
Strength of ISI.
Supporting evidence - Lucas (2006) people more likely to conform when the maths questions were more difficult. Asch - more ambiguous = higher conformity rate.
Limitation of ISI.
Difficult to separate NSI and ISI, more likely that they exist together in the real world.
Stanford Prison Experiment procedure.
Zimbardo set up ‘mock prison’
21 male student volunteers tested as ‘emotionally stable’
Randomly assigned to prisoner or guard role.
Encouraged to conform by using uniforms (reflecting status of role) and instructions on how to behave - created a loss of personal identity.
Guards were reminded that they have power over the prisoners - increased aggression
Stanford Prison Experiment findings.
Within 2 days, prisoners rebelled, guards retaliated with fire extinguishers.
Guards appeared to enjoy the power they had, taking to their rules enthusiastically (harassed prisoners constantly, frequent head counts to create opportunities to administer punishments).
Prisoners depressed and anxious.
One prisoner released for symptoms of psychological disturbance.
Study ended on 6th day instead of 14th.
EXT: opportunity to talk with priest, introduced themselves as numbers instead of names, lost identity, feeling real.
Stanford Prison Experiment conclusions.
Social roles have a strong influence on individuals behaviour.
Roles were easily taken on by all participants.
Guards became aggressive and prisoner became submissive.
Ps behaving as though they are really in prison.
Strengths of SPE
Successfully mimicked a prison.
Practical applications - recognition of ethical guidelines in prisons.
Control over key variables (selection of Ps) - rule out individual personality differences as an explanation.
Limitations of SPE.
Ethical issues
2/3 of the guards did not act brutally - Reicher and Haslam (2006).
Lacks ecological validity - demand characteristics, did not have the realism of an actual prison.
Milgram’s research prodecure.
find out if ordinary American citizens would obey an unjust order from an authority figure and inflict pain on another person because they were instructed to (relation to holocaust)
40 volunteer participants.
Ps believed the study was investigating the effects of punishment on learning.
Tested one at a time and always given the role of the teacher (fixed ballot).
Teacher was instructed to give the learner an electric shock if they answered incorrectly, increasing by 15 volts each time up to 450 volts.
‘learner’ protested by banging on the wall.
When teacher questioned the study they were told they had no choice but to continue.
Experiment stopped when teacher refused to continue.
Milgram’s research findings.
65% of participants continued to the max shock level (450)
No one stopped before 300, 12.5% stopped at 300.
Everyone stopped and questioned the study at least once.
Ps showed signs of extreme tension, sweating, nail biting, 3 had panic attacks.
14 psych students predicted no more than 3% of participants would reach 450 volts.
84% were glad to participate.
Milgram’s research conclusions.
American participants in his study were willing to obey orders even if they may cause harm to another person.
Milgram suspected that there was certain factors that encouraged obedience.
Strengths of Milgram’s research
Highly controlled - all Ps experienced the same procedure, experimenter followed a script, etc. Increases validity bc results are most likely due to the pressure to obey rather than EVs in low control experiments.
. Behaviour suggests they thought it was real, extreme stress, social desirability bias to continue.
