Social Influence Flashcards
(39 cards)
What is Conformity?
Conformity is a change in a persons behaviour or opinion as a result of real or imagined preassure from a person or group of people
What are the types of conformity?
Compliance- weak, flimsy form of conformity. This is when a person goes along with another person publically but privatly disagrees with them- temporary.
Identification-Intermediate. When an individual changes their private views as well as their public behaviour to fit in with a group they admire- probably temporary
Internalisation- Long-lasting, permanent. The beliefs of a group are taken one to be a permanent part of the persons group- conversion
What are the two explanations of conformity?
Normative Social Influence (NSI)- This refers to instances where someone conforms in order to fit in and gain approval or avoid disparoval from other group members.
Informational Social Influence (ISI)- This refers to instances where people conform because they are uncertain about what to do in a particular social situation so look to others for guidance. Tends to lead to internalisation
Evaluate the explanations of conformity
Research to support ISI- When asking students to give answers to mathmatical problems, there was greater conformity to incorrect answers when they were difficult- particularly true for students who rated their math ability as poor
Individual differences in NSI- Some research shows that NSI doesnt affect everyones behaviour in the same way. For example, people who are less concerned with being liked are less affected by NSI than those who do care. This shows a desire to be liked underlies conformity for some more than others.
Dual-Process- The idea of explanations of conformity is that the behaviour is either due to NSI or ISI. But in actual fact, both processes are involved, for example Asch’s variation found that conformity is reduced when there is a dissenting confedarate. This doubts the view that NSI and ISI operate independantly.
Explain Asch’s lab experiment.
AIM- To investigate weather participants will conform to an answer even when they know the answer is incorrect
PROCEDURE- 123 male, American college students entered the room with 6, 7 or 8 other participants (confederates). The real, naieve participants always sat second to last. The researcher showed lines that they had to match with one shown. They had to say their answer aloud, however, some were obviously wrong.
FINDINGS-There were 18 matching trials, 12 incorrect answers (critical trials), 75% conformed atleast once. average conformity rate was 36.8%.
In a control condition- 0.7% errors, shows its an easy task.
observations- twitching, uncomfortable, anxious- shows they knew that the answer was wrong
Talk about the variations of asch’s study
Group Size- very little conformity when there was only one confedarate, rising to 13% with two confederates. Further increases in the number increased conformity up to 15 where it didnt increase anymore.
Unanimity (social support)- with the introduction of a confedarate who sometimes disagreed with the others, asch found that conformity was reduced by 5-9%. When they gave the wrong answer, it still enabled the pp to act independantly.
Difficulty of task- When the correct answer was made less obvious, the level of conformity increased- shows ISI plays a role.
Evaluate Asch’s Study
Lacks Temporal Validity- Society has changes since, people are less conformist today than 1950’s due to the fall of McCarthyism
Perrin + Spencer- carried out an exact replica using engeneering and maths students and found that only 1 out of 396 trials conformed. shows a cultural chage has taken place
Artificial Situation and Task- due to high levels of control, unrealistic tasks, critics have argued that Asch’s conclusions cant be applied to conformity in real life- lacks ecological validity
Lacks generalisability- male students- andocentric.
Eggly and Carli- found that although women are more likely to conform, the difference is small
Ethical Issues- Asch diecieved the student volenteers claiming that they were taking part in a vision test- however can be seen as necesary
Talk about how Zimbardo Researched Conformity
Stanford Prison Experiment- Attempt to explain the violent and brutal conditions in prisons
AIM- to investigate how people would conform to the social roles of prisoners and guards in a simulation
PROCEDURE- 24 male students at Stanford Uni volunteered to take part in a study and were randomly allocated to either a prisoner or guard. They were to spend 2 weeks locked in fake cells in the university basement.
The prisones were unexpectidly arrested and taken to the uni were they were stripped and given a prison uniform and prisoner number from now on they were referred to by the number not by that name. They were to spend 23 hours a day locked in their cells for two weeks. The prison guards were given uniforms including sticks and mirrored sunglasses, they worked shifts and went home at the end of their shift. These uniforms created a loss of personal identity called de-individuation and meant they would more likely to conform to the perceived social role.
Evaluate Zimbardo
Control- One’s strength is that Zimbardo had control over key variables. For example, the participants were randomly assigned to their roles. This was one way in which the researchers ruled out individual personality differences as an explanation. This increases the internal validity of the study.
Lack of Realism- Some psychologists argued the participants were merely acting rather than genuinely conforming to a role. Participants’ performances were based on their stereotypes of how prisoners and guards are supposed to behave. This would also explain why the prisoners rioted as they thought it was what real prisoners did this suggest the findings of the Stanford prison experiment tell us little about conformity to social in actual prisons,and could be criticised as having demand characteristics
Unethical?- Even though the study was approved by the office of naval research, some people think that Zimbardo’s study was unethical. The only deception was the arrest, which Zimbardo didn’t know was going to happen until close to the experiment, all participants signed consent forms and had extensive group and individual debriefings. Zimbardo also listened to the advice of other psychologists and stopped early.
Opposing Evidence- In 2002, A TV version of the Zimbardo study was tried with nine prisoners and six guards chosen after many tests. In this version, the participants took over the prison, and the guards were unwilling to impose authority. This suggests that the study may lack reliability.
Talk about Zimbardos Findings
RESULTS- The experiment was called off after only six days the guards had become so brutal to the prisoners that two prisoners had some form of nervous breakdown, 1 developed a nervous rash all over his body and one went on hunger strike. While the guards were given their orders the prisoners became apathetic they did not stand up to the guards and simply did as they were told even though it caused them distress. The guards identified more with their roles and took it up with enthusiasm and treated the prisoners with increasing brutality.
CONCLUSIONS- In conclusion, social roles have a strong influence on individual’s behaviour. The guards became brutal and the prisoners became submissive. Each volunteer found themselves behaving as if they were in a prison, rather than a study showing they conform to the role they were given.
Define Obedience
Obedience is a type of social influence which causes a person to act in response to an order given by another person. The person who gives the order usually has authority and the power to punish
Talk about how Milgram researched obedience
AIM- to investigate how far people are prepared to go in obeying an authority figure
PROCEDURE- 40 American men volunteered to talk part in a study at Yale university in the USA supposedly on memory. They were introduced to a confederate (learner) who would sit in a room away from the volunteer (teacher) who had to give the learner an electric shock every time he made a mistake. The shocks increased with each mistake up to 450 volts (fake) which is fatal and the confederate would cry out in pain after every shock. There was a confederate experimenter who was dressed in a lab coat to assert authority over the teacher by prompting them every time they tried to get out of it
Talk about what Milgram found
FINDINGS- Every pp delivered up to 300 volts. 65% continued to highest level- 450 volts. He also found qualitative data including observations like the participants showing signes of extreme tension- sweating, trembling, stuttering, 3 had seizures
CONCLUSIONS- Milgram concluded that American participants were willing to obey orders even when they may harm another.
Evaluate Milgram
SUPPORTING RESEARCH- Milgrams study has been replicated in other cultures, for example, 90% in Spanish participants has 100% obedience and in a French documentary the behaviour was almost identical to the results of Milgram. This supports Milgram original findings and shows the findings have external validity.
Bickman carried out a field experiment where an experimenters approached passers by on a city street and asked them to carry out inconvenient tasks 1. with a jacket and tie, 2. guards uniform. he found that pp’s were twice as likely to obey orders when the experimenters was dressed in uniform.
LOW INTERNAL VALIDITY- Even though 75% believed the shocks were genuine,many participants may have worked out in was fake, therefore they may have put on demand characteristics. so we can’t strongly support the situational explanation of obedience
Some psychologists say his findings offer an excuse for evil behaviour- it could be seen as offensive to holocaust survivors to say Nazis were simply obeying. It ignores the idea that people have personal responsibility for their actions, therefore can be seen as only a partial explanation
Talk about situational variables of milgrams study
Proximity- There were two variations tested on proximity:
1. Teacher and Learner in the same room- obedience decreased as people feel more guilt- 40%
2. Teacher had to force Learners hand onto plate- obedience decreased as they are more aware of actions and consequences- 30%
3. Experimenter prompts over the phone- obedience decreased as its easier for the teacher to disconnect from the situation- 20.5%
Location- Milgram conducted a variation in a run-down office block rather than yale university. In this location, obedience decreased to 47.5%
This is because the prestigous Yale University campus gave the study legitimacy and authority.
Uniform- In the baseline study, the experimentor wore a grey lab coat as a symbol of authority. In a variation, the experimentor wore casual everyday clothes causing obedience to drop to 20%. Uniform encourages obedience as they are widely recognised as symbols of authority.
Evaluate situational variables of obedience
SUPPORTING RESEARCH- other studies have demonstrated the infuence of situational variables on obedience. Bickmen et al. (see above) shows that uniform does have a powerful effect on obedience
INTERNAL VALIDITY-
Internal validity
altered one variable at a time to see what effect it would have on the level of obedience. All the other procedures and variables were kept the same as the study was replicated over & over again with over 1000 participants in total. This means we can see cause + effect.
A criticism of the original study was that many participants would have worked out that the procedure was faked. It even more likely that participants in the variations realised this because of the extra manipulation. A good example of this is the uniform variation. This could have caused demand characteristics meaning it has low internal validity.
What are the two situational explanations of Obedience
THE AGENTIC STATE- The agentic stte is a mental state where we feel no personal responsibility for our behaviour because we feel we are acting on behalf of the authority figure.This frees us from the demands of our consciences and allows us to obey ebem a destructive authority figure.
AUTONOMOUS STATE- When individuals direct their own behaviour’s and actions and take responsibility for consequences themselves, therefore we feel guilt for what we do.
Talk about the Agentic Shift
The shift from autonomous to ‘agency’ is called the agentic shift. Milgram suggested that there are 2 conditions that must be present in order to be in an agentic state. The first is that the person who is in charge must be viewed as a legitimate leader. The second is that an individual must fell the leader will take consequence for their actions.
Milgram found that many participants said they wanted to stop but felt powerless to do so. This is due to binding factors- ascpects of a situation of a situation that allow a person to ignore or minimize the damaging effects of behaviour and reduce the ‘moral strain’ theyre feeling.
Evaluate situational explanations
SUPPORTING RESERCH- Milgrams own studies support the role of agentic state. Most of Milgrams participants resisted giving the shocks at one point and often asked the experimentor questions about the procedure. When the experimentor replied ‘I’m responsible’, they went through with the procedure with no further objections. This shows they percieved it as being no longer responsible for their own behaviour.
LIMITED EXPLANATION- The agentic state doesnt explain many research findings about obedience. Rank and Jacobson found that 16 out of 18 hospital nurses disobeyed orders from a doctor to administer an exessive dose to a patient. This shows that the agentic state can only be applied to certain situations.
Talk about the legitimacy of authority
An important factor in the agentic state is legitimacy of authority. This refers to the amount of social power held by the person (authority figure) who gives the instruction. Most societies are orderd in a heirarchical way, with some having high social power and issue instructions to people below. We obey people with legitimate authority because we trust them and they have to power to punish us. These people may carry authority symbols like uniform or possess status like rank.
Evaluate legitimacy of authority
EXPLAINS CULTURAL DIFFERENCES- Many studies show tat countries differ in the degree to which they are obedient to authority. For example, Kilham and Mann found only 16% of female Australian pp’s went all way however German pp’s 85% went all the way up. This shows that in some cultures, authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimate
CAN’T EXPLAIN ALL DISOBEDIENCE- legitimacy cant explain instances of disobedience in a hierarchy where the legitimacy is clear and accepted. the nurses study, most were disobedient accept working in a rigidly hierarchical authority struture. This could mean that some people are more or less obedient than others.
Talk about research into dispositional explanations
Adorno (1950): claims that a particular personality is more likely to obey rather than the situation. He called this the Authoritarian Personality:
These people show extreme respect for authority, view society as ‘weaker’ than it once was and think that we need strong powerful leaders to enforce values . Both of these characteristics make people more likely to obey orders. They also are conventional and conformist so stick to traditions and are suspicious and hostile toward people who don’t obey traditions.
Adorno believed that the Authoritarian Personality type forms in childhood, mostly as a result of harsh parenting. This typically features strict discipline an expectation to be loyal and impossible high standards. It could also seen as conventional love. This means the child cannot express these feelings directly against their parents cause they fear punishment.
F-SCALE- a measure of how factious qualities are measured to see weather a person has an authoritarian personality
Talk about adorno’s research
Studied more than 2000 middle class white americans and their unconscious attitudes toward other racial groups. The researchers developed several measurement scales including the F-scale.
People with authoritarian leanings (high on the F-scale) were identified with strong people and were contemptuous to the weak.
He also found thay authoritarian people had a certain cognitive style with no fuzziness between categories of people and had distinct stereotypes about groups showing a distinct correlation.
Talk about Milgram and Elms
They got 20 participants from milgram original participants with fully obedient personalities and 20 non-fully obedient participants and got them to all complete the F-scale
They found little difference between obedient and defiant participants, however, they did find higher levels of authoritarianism among the participants who were obedient
This supporte Adornos view that obedient people may well show similar characteristics to people who have AP
However, even though there is a positive correlation, we can’t draw causal conclusions due to the fact it could be influenced by external factors alike a poor education. limited reliability
