social influence Flashcards
(18 cards)
what was asch’s aim
too see what extend people will conform to the opinions of everyone.
Procedure:
Participants: 123 American male undergraduates.
Task: Line judgment task.
Set-up: One naïve participant in a room with 6–8 confederates. Confederates gave the wrong answer on 12 out of 18 trials (critical trials).
Stimulus: A standard line was shown, along with three comparison lines. The participant had to state which comparison line matched the standard line.
Findings:
On average, participants conformed to the incorrect answer 36.8% of the time on critical trials. 75% conformed at least once. 25% never conformed.
When interviewed after, participants said they conformed to avoid rejection (normative social influence), not because they believed the answer.
Conclusion:
People conform to fit in with a group (normative social influence), even when the correct answer is obvious.
what are the 3 variable of asch’s theory
1) group size
2) unaminity
3) task difficulty
asch’s group size variable
asch wanted to know whether the size of the grp would be more important than the agreement of the group
group size
procedure and results
asch tested this
he varied the total number of confederated from 1-15.
He found a curvilinear relationship between group size and conformity. Conformity increased when group size also increased, but only up to a point as with 3 confederates. conformity rose to 31.8%.
asch’s unanimity variable
asch wanted to see if the presence of non - conforming person would affect the naive participant’s conformity
asch’s unanimity
procedure and results
he introduced a new confederate who disagreed with other confederates.
so in one variation the new confederate gave the correct answer and in other variation, the new confederate gave a different wrong answer
the rate decreased to less than a quarter of its level when the majority was unanimous. This suggests that the influence of the majority depends to a large extend to being unanimous.
asch’s task difficulty
asch wanted to know whether making the task harder would affect the degree of conformity
task difficulty procedure and results
he increased the difficulty of the line judging task by making the stimulus line and the comparison line more similar too each other, making it harder for the participant to see.
asch found the conformity has increased. Unclear to participant what the right answer, therefore it is natural to look at others and assume they are right. informational social influence.
evaluation of asch
limitation
one limitation of asch’s research is that the task and situation were artificial.
participant knew were they in a research study and may simply have went along with what was expected (demand characteristic)
Asch’s participant were american men , other research suggests that women may be more conformist as they are more scared about social relationship
strength - laboratory - High Control Over Variables - minimise the influence of extraneous variables
what are the types of conformity
internalisation - when a person genuinely accepts the group norms. resulting in a private aswell as a public change of opinion
identification - we conform to opinions of a group because there is something we value about the group. we publicly change our opinions to be accepted by the group but do not privately agree with everything the group stands for.
You identify with the group, meaning you respect, admire, or feel you belong to the group, so you go along with their beliefs and actions to maintain that sense of belonging.
compliance - going along with others in public but not changing personal opinions and belief. You do it because you want to fit in or avoid being rejected by the group.
evaluations for types and explanations of conformity
+ Supporting research for types of conformity
Research by Kelman (1958) supports the distinction between compliance, identification, and internalisation. For example, compliance involves public but not private agreement, as shown in Asch’s line study, where participants conformed to the majority view publicly but admitted in interviews that they knew the group was wrong. This supports the idea that different types of conformity reflect different levels of agreement.
ISI and NSI have research support but often overlap
Both informational social influence (ISI) and normative social influence (NSI) have empirical support. For example, Lucas et al. (2006) found more conformity on harder maths problems (supporting ISI). Meanwhile, Asch (1951) showed people conform to avoid disapproval (supporting NSI). However, it’s difficult to separate them clearly in real-life situations—they often operate together, which questions their validity as distinct explanations.
Individual differences and cultural bias
Conformity explanations may lack universality. Research (e.g. Perrin and Spencer, 1980) found British engineering students conformed far less than in Asch’s original study, suggesting individual or cultural factors (e.g. collectivism vs. individualism) play a role. This limits the generalisability of ISI/NSI as universal explanations of conformity.
conforming to social roles w evaluations
Conforming to social roles means adapting behaviour to fit those expectations, even if it contradicts personal values.
Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment (1971)
Aim:
To investigate how people conform to the roles of guard and prisoner in a simulated prison environment.
Procedure:
24 emotionally stable male volunteers randomly assigned roles of prisoner or guard. Mock prison was set up in the basement of Stanford University. Prisoners were arrested at home, blindfolded, strip-searched, and given uniforms and numbers. Guards were given uniforms, wooden clubs, handcuffs, and reflective sunglasses to de-individualise them. Zimbardo acted as prison superintendent.
Findings:
Guards became increasingly brutal and abusive (using harassment, punishment, and humiliation). Prisoners became submissive, anxious, and depressed. One was released after 1 day due to psychological disturbance. The study was ended after 6 days instead of the intended 14 due to ethical concerns.
Conclusion:
Participants conformed to social roles, even when it led to extreme behaviour. The situation, not personality, appeared to influence behaviour (supporting situational explanation of behaviour).
evaluation points:-
Real-life relevance (high face validity):
The study showed how easily people conform to roles, which has been applied to real situations like Abu Ghraib (Iraqi prison where U.S. soldiers abused detainees), supporting the idea that situations can lead to brutality.
Control over variables:
Zimbardo randomly assigned roles to reduce individual differences, increasing internal validity—it’s more likely the behaviour was due to the situation rather than personality.
Ethical issues:
Participants were psychologically harmed and not fully protected from distress. Zimbardo’s dual role (researcher and superintendent) created a conflict of interest, affecting his objectivity and ability to protect participants.
Disagreement over conclusions:
Some argue Zimbardo overemphasised situational factors and underplayed dispositional influences (e.g., personality). Later research (like Haslam and Reicher’s BBC prison study) found people don’t automatically conform to roles. Also lack of temporal validity
obedience
Obedience is a form of social influence where an individual follows a direct order or command from an authority figure.
Milgram’s Study (1963):
Aim: To investigate how far people would go in obeying an authority figure when instructed to harm another person (administering electric shocks).
Procedure: 40 male participants were recruited to participate in a “learning experiment.” They were told to administer increasing levels of electric shocks to a person (who was actually an actor and not receiving real shocks) whenever the person made an error on a memory task.
Findings: 65% of participants continued to the maximum voltage (450V), despite the apparent distress of the person being shocked. This study highlighted the power of authority in causing obedience.
Conclusion: People are likely to obey authority figures, even when the task conflicts with personal morals.
Evaluation of Milgram’s Study:
Strengths:
+ Highly influential: Milgram’s study remains one of the most famous and influential studies in psychology, contributing significantly to our understanding of obedience.
+ Controlled environment: Milgram’s experimental design allowed for control over variables and provided a clear cause-and-effect relationship between authority and obedience.
+ Real-world relevance: The study helps explain real-world atrocities like those committed during the Holocaust, where people followed orders from authority figures to commit harmful acts.
Weaknesses:
Ethical issues:
- Deception: Participants were deceived about the nature of the experiment, believing they were causing real harm.
- Lack of informed consent: Participants didn’t know the true nature of the study or the distress it would cause them.
- Psychological harm: Many participants experienced significant emotional distress, and some showed signs of trauma after the study.
- Low ecological validity: The lab setting of Milgram’s study may not reflect real-life situations where authority figures exert power, limiting generalizability.
- Gender bias: The sample was all male, which limits the generalizability to other genders.
obedience: situational variables
The physical closeness or distance between the authority figure and the person being obedient can affect the level of obedience.
Milgram’s Study Variation (1963): When the experimenter (authority figure) was in the same room as the participant, obedience was high (65% of participants went to the maximum shock). However, when the experimenter gave orders over the phone (in a remote location), obedience dropped to 20.5%. This suggests that the closer the authority figure, the more likely participants are to obey. So being close to the authority figure makes it harder for participants to distance themselves from the authority’s demands and feel less responsible for their actions.
Location:
Definition: The setting or environment where the obedience takes place can influence obedience rates.
Milgram’s Study Variation (1963): When the location was changed from the prestigious setting of Yale University to a less prestigious setting (an office building), obedience levels dropped to 47.5%. A more reputable, authoritative setting (like Yale) gives the authority figure greater legitimacy and, in turn, increases obedience. The prestige and perceived legitimacy of the institution play a significant role in encouraging obedience.
The Power of the Authority Figure:
Definition: The perceived authority and status of the person giving the orders can impact obedience.
Milgram’s Study: In one variation, the experimenter was replaced by an ordinary person (rather than a scientific authority figure), and obedience dropped drastically (20% obedience). Authority figures who are perceived as having legitimate power or expertise are more likely to elicit obedience from subordinates. A figure without such credentials is less influential.
Evaluation:
- The Role of Situational Factors: Milgram’s study emphasizes the power of authority, but other factors, such as individual differences (e.g., personality traits), may also influence obedience. For example, people with a high locus of control (those who believe they have control over events) might be less likely to obey.
- Cultural Differences: Research by Kilham and Mann (1974) found lower levels of obedience in Australia compared to Milgram’s study in the USA, suggesting that obedience might be influenced by cultural norms and values. This highlights a cross-cultural difference in obedience.
obedience: situational explanation
Milgram suggested that people enter an agentic state when they obey authority, where they see themselves as agents carrying out the will of an authority figure rather than acting on their own moral judgments. This contrasts with an autonomous state, where an individual acts according to their own principles.
Agentic State: The shift from autonomous to agentic state occurs when an individual feels that they are no longer responsible for their actions, as the authority figure assumes responsibility.
Moral Strain: Participants in Milgram’s study reported feeling distress as they realized their actions conflicted with their morals but felt pressured to obey.
Legitimacy of authority: we are more likely to obey ppl who we perceive to have authority over us
+ Application to real-world situations: The findings from Milgram’s study have practical applications in understanding historical events, such as the Holocaust, where situational pressures, such as the presence of a legitimate authority figure and the proximity to victims, contributed to high levels of obedience.
- Deception and emotional distress: Milgram’s study has been heavily criticized for its ethical issues. Participants were deceived, and many experienced emotional distress, which raises concerns about the harm caused by the experiment.
- Impact on external validity: The highly artificial nature of the study (a lab-based experiment) may limit how well the findings generalize to real-life situations, where obedience might be influenced by more complex, multifaceted factors.
obedience: dispositional explanation
Dispositional factors refer to individual personality traits, internal characteristics, and personal experiences that might influence a person’s likelihood to obey authority figures.
The authoritarian personality is a personality type characterized by rigid thinking, a strong belief in traditional values, and a tendency to submit to authority while being hostile to those perceived as inferior or deviant. Adorno argued that individuals with this personality type are more likely to obey authority figures without questioning them.
Adorno suggested that the authoritarian personality develops as a result of harsh, rigid, or authoritarian parenting during childhood. Children who experience extreme parental discipline may internalize these experiences and develop respect for authority and an aversion to “outsiders” or those who are different
resistance to social influence
Social Influence:
Social influence refers to how individuals’ thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are shaped by the presence or actions of others. There are two main types of social influence:
Resistance to social influence is the ability to withstand these pressures and not yield to them.
Factors That Increase Resistance to Social Influence:
1) Social Support:
Social support refers to the presence of others who share your viewpoint or provide a sense of solidarity. If others in a group resist social influence, individuals are more likely to resist as well.
Example: In Asch’s (1951) conformity experiment, when one confederate gave the correct answer, conformity rates dropped significantly. This suggests that social support can help individuals resist conforming.
2) Locus of Control:
Locus of control refers to the extent to which individuals believe they have control over events in their lives. Internal Locus of Control: People with an internal locus of control believe that they are in control of their actions and outcomes. They are more likely to resist social influence because they feel empowered to make decisions for themselves. External Locus of Control: Those with an external locus of control believe that external factors, such as luck or other people, are in control of their lives. They are more likely to yield to social influence.
Evaluations:
Supporting Evidence for Social Support:
Research supports the idea that social support can reduce conformity and obedience. For example, in Asch’s study, when participants had a dissenting ally, the level of conformity decreased dramatically. This provides evidence for the importance of social support in resisting social influence.
Research on Locus of Control:
Research has found a correlation between individuals with an internal locus of control and higher resistance to social influence. However, this is not always consistent across all situations. For instance, studies have shown that people with an external locus of control are more likely to conform in some circumstances but may resist in others. This suggests that the link between locus of control and resistance is more complex than originally thought.
Limitations of Lab Studies:
Much of the research on resistance to social influence (such as Asch’s and Milgram’s studies) has been conducted in controlled laboratory settings. Critics argue that this limits the generalizability of the findings because they may not reflect real-world social influences. For example, the artificiality of the task in Asch’s study may have led participants to behave differently than they would in a more natural setting.
Cultural Considerations:
The concept of resistance to social influence can vary across cultures. Research suggests that cultures with higher individualism (e.g., Western cultures) may encourage more resistance to social influence, while collectivist cultures may prioritize conformity and obedience, potentially making resistance less common. This indicates that cultural context plays a significant role in shaping resistance.
Practical Applications:
Understanding resistance to social influence has real-world applications in areas like education, marketing, and law enforcement. For example, training people to resist pressure in high-risk situations (e.g., peer pressure, interrogation) can be beneficial. Additionally, recognizing factors that influence resistance can help in creating more effective strategies for encouraging compliance in various settings.
minority influence
The Process of Minority Influence:
Minority influence can be seen when a small group of individuals influences the attitudes or behaviors of a larger group. This influence is often gradual and can occur over time, especially if the minority is consistent, confident, and persuasive.
Key Studies:
Moscovici (1969) – The Blue-Green Slides Study: participants were shown slides that varied in shade of blue. A minority of two confederates consistently called the slides green, even though they were clearly blue. When the minority was consistent in their opinion, around 8% of participants in the majority conformed to the minority’s view. When the minority was inconsistent, their influence was weaker.
Key Factors in Minority Influence:
1) Consistency: The minority must express their views consistently over time and across different situations. Consistent behaviour signals confidence and conviction, which can lead to more influence over time. This was demonstrated in Moscovici’s study, where consistent minorities were more successful in influencing the majority.
2) Commitment: A minority group must demonstrate commitment to their viewpoint, especially if it requires sacrifice. Commitment leads others to take the minority more seriously and view them as confident in their stance. This is sometimes referred to as the “augmentation principle”, where if a minority shows commitment, they are seen as more dedicated to their cause.
3) Flexibility: While consistency is important, minorities must also be flexible in their approach. If they appear too rigid, they may be perceived as dogmatic or unreasonable. Flexibility in argument and willingness to compromise can make the minority’s position more appealing to the majority.
Social Proof: Minority influence often involves the process of social validation where people slowly start to accept the minority’s viewpoint because they perceive it to be a rational alternative to the majority view. Over time, the minority may change the majority’s views and behaviors through subtle persuasion.
The Snowball Effect: As more people begin to adopt the minority’s viewpoint, their influence expands, and the majority’s opposition to the minority decreases. This is known as the “snowball effect”—a gradual shift in attitudes that gains momentum over time
AO3: Evaluation of Minority Influence
Studies:
Moscovici’s Study: Provides robust evidence for the effectiveness of consistent minorities. The controlled nature of the experiment makes it possible to establish cause and effect. The study’s findings show that minority influence can occur, particularly when the minority is consistent. This is important because it challenges the traditional notion that only majorities can influence others.
Meta-analysis by Wood et al. (1994): A large number of studies show that consistency in a minority group leads to greater influence, suggesting that the findings are reliable across a variety of contexts.
Weaknesses of Minority Influence Studies:
Artificial Tasks: One criticism of studies like Moscovici’s is that they used artificial tasks (e.g., judging the color of slides), which lack external validity. People might behave differently in real-life situations, especially with issues that involve deeper moral or personal stakes.
Cultural Bias: Research on minority influence is often culturally biased. Studies like Moscovici’s were conducted in individualistic cultures (e.g., the US and Europe), where independence and assertiveness are valued. In collectivist cultures, people may be less likely to challenge the majority or speak out, making the findings less applicable across different cultures.
Lack of Ecological Validity: The laboratory setting of many studies on minority influence, including Moscovici’s, limits the generalizability of results to real-world situations. Social influence in a laboratory setting may not reflect how people behave in everyday life, especially in complex or high-stakes situations.
The Role of Minority Influence in Social Change: Real-World Applications: Minority influence can drive social change. Movements for racial equality, LGBTQ+ rights, and gender equality all began with minorities challenging societal norms. The role of minorities in promoting social change is often underestimated because of the slow pace at which it occurs. For example, Nelson Mandela and the anti-apartheid movement started as a minority opposition to the ruling majority, and over time, it led to widespread social change in South Africa.
Theoretical Critiques:
Oversimplification of Minority
Influence: Some psychologists argue that the theory of minority influence oversimplifies the process. Real-world influence is not just about consistency and commitment but also about other factors like political power, resources, and social conditions. For instance, the success of a minority group’s influence may be less about their persuasive tactics and more about societal conditions that make their message more acceptable.
Minority Influence Can Be Slow: Minority influence tends to occur gradually over time. While this is beneficial in promoting long-term change, it may be less effective in urgent situations where immediate conformity or obedience is required.
Application to Real-Life Social Movements:
The process of minority influence is evident in historical movements like the civil rights movement, women’s suffrage, and climate change activism. These movements started with small, consistent groups challenging societal norms and have led to larger, more widespread societal changes.
Minority influence has also been observed in political campaigns, especially when new ideas or alternative viewpoints challenge the status quo. However, it’s important to recognize that minority influence is often more successful when the majority is uncertain or dissatisfied with the current system.
