social influence Flashcards
(34 cards)
what are the types of conformity
Compliance= weakest going along public but change in private
Identification= publically change opinion private not agree
Internalisation= deepest level private and public change
what are the explanations for conformity?
Informational SI: who has better info, desire to be right, in situations of ambiguity
Normative SI: norms, emotional process, gain social approval, not appear foolish
evaluation for types + explanations
- Individual differences (nAffiliators care more about what others think)
- ISI + NSI work together (not independent e.g Asch dissenter)
+ Research support (Asch, NSI)
what is Aschs study?
• standard line card + 3 comparison line card
• 123 American male undergrads
• pp tested with 6-8 confederates
• 18 trials, 12 critical (confeds gave wrong answer)
findings of Aschs study:
75% conformed at least once
25% didn’t conform at all
(conformed to avoid rejection NSI)
Aschs variations:
• Group size: 3 confeds, conformity ⬆️ 31.8%, any more made little difference
• Unanimity: dissenting confed ⬇️ conformity by 1/4
• Task difficulty: standard line and comparison lines more similar ⬆️ conformity (ISI)
evaluation of Asch:
- artificial situation & task (dc)
- limited application to situations (Williams & Sogon conformity higher with friends)
- ethical issues, deception, however benefits outweigh
Zimbardos research:
• mock prison in Stanford uni basement
• students volunteered (emotionally stable)
• randomly assigned roles
• prisoners: arrested, blindfolded, strip searched, deloused, given uniform & number
• guards: uniform, club, handcuffs, keys, mirror shades, shifts 3 at a time
Findings of zimbardos research:
• stopped after 6 days instead of 14
• 2 days, prisoners rebelled
• headcount’s in middle of night
• 1 released on 1st day, 2 on 4th
• 1 went on hunger strike (put in “the hole”, shunned by others)
• guards became more brutal & aggressive
evaluation of Zimbardo
+ control, randomly assigned to roles, minimise individual differences
- lack of realism, behaving based on stereotypes (+ however 90% conversations about prison life, 416 real prison, run by psychologists)
- dispositional influence, 1/3 of guards behaved brutally, others acted fairly/ reinstated privileges
what was Milgrams research?
- 40 male pp newspaper + post
- aged 20-50 years, offered $4.50
- Mr Wallace, learner, confederate (rigged draw)
- experimenter (lab coat, confed)
- learner in another room wired with electrodes
- teacher give shocks after mistakes on learning task
- shocks 15v to 450v
300v learner pounded on wall - experimenter prods: (1) “please continue” (4) “you have no other choice you must go on”
Findings of milgrams research:
- no pp stopped below 300v
- 65% went to 450v
- qualitative: sweat, bite lips, 3 had uncontrollable seizures
- all debriefed after
- 84% glad to have participated
evaluation of milgrams research:
+ good external validity (although lab) reflects wider authority relationships, hofling et al 21/22 nurses (generalised)
- ethical issues, deception, pressure to continue, no protection from harm (seizures)
- / + low internal validity, questioning if shocks were real, however sheridan & king 100% ‘fatal shock’, 70% pp thought study was real
What are the situational variables?
proximity= physical closeness
* teacher & learner in same room 40%
* touch proximity 30%
* experimenter orders by phone 20.5%
location= run down building 47.5%
uniform= experimenter “ordinary member of public” (confed) 20%
evaluate milgrams variations
+ research support, Bickman, no uniform, milkman and security
asked civilians to perform tasks, e.g pick up litter 2x likely to obey guard than no uniform
+ high control, systematically altered 1 variable at a time
- low internal validity, worked out it was fake in member of public variation, demand characteristics
what is the agentic shift?
- shift from autonomous state to agentic
agentic= no personal responsibility, acting for authority figure, an ‘agent’ powerless to disobey
autonomous= responsibility, behave according to own principles
what are binding factors?
- aspects which allow a person to minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour, reduce moral strain by shifting the blame or denying
what is legitimacy of authority?
- more likely to obey people who have authority over us, justified by their position in society
evaluate social psychological factors:
+ Research support (Blass Schmitt) film of milgram to students, blamed experimenter for harm due to being LAF
- limited explanation, why some dont obey? cant explain Hofling’s findings, didn’t show high anxiety
+ cultural differences, (Kilham Mann) Australia 16% went to 450v, (Mantell) German 85% increases valdiity
What is the authoritarian personality?
- submissive and obedient to authority, highly conventional attitudes
- things are either right or wrong
- dismissive of inferiors
How did Adorno investigate the authoritarian personality?
- 2000 MC white americans uncocnsious attitudes to other racial groups
- developed F (facism) scale
measuring authoritarian personality
Findings of Adorno et al study:
- Strong positive correlation between authoritarianism and prejudice
- Authoritarians had fixed distinct stereotypes
- Conscious of own status, high respect for others
Origin of the authoritarian personality
- in childhood due to harsh parenting (extreme discipline, high standards)
- creating resentment and hostility, displace onto others who are ‘weaker’
Evaluation of authoritarian personality
+/- research support, Milgram & Elms, small sample of obedient pp scored high on f scale. link between obedience & authoritarian, however correlational not cause
- Methodology problems, wording in same direction, tick all boxes (acquiescence bias) interviewed pp about childhood, knew score, bias
- limited explanation, pre war Germany, displayed racist obedient behaviours unlikely all had AP (alternative explanation e.g. social identity)
