social influence Flashcards
(57 cards)
define conformity
a change in an individuals behaviour and/or opinions following real or imaginary pressure from another person or a group of people
what is compliance
shallowest level of conformity
-person changes public behaviour but not their private beliefs
-superficial temporary change
-opinion/behaviour stops as soon as group pressure stops
-often the result of normative social influence.
what is identification
moderate level of conformity
-we act in the same way as the group (publicly changing behaviour/opinion) because we value it and want to be a part of it
-don’t necessarily agree with everything the majority agree with
-generally temporary change
-usually due to normative social influence
what is internalisation
deepest level of conformity
- a person genuinely accepts groups norms
-usually permanent because views have been internalised.
-change in opinions/behaviour persists even in the absence of other group members.
-usually due to informational social influence
describe information social influence (ISI)
a cognitive process where we believe the others in the group are right and we want to be right. most common in ambiguous or new situations or in a crisis of quick decision making where we assume the group is more likely to be right
describe normative social influence (NSI)
an emotional process where we conform to gain approval of the group. most likely in situations where we want to be accepted and liked, especially in stressful situations where we have a greater need for social support. more common when were being watched.
how could you use individual differences in NSI as an evaluation for conformity explanations
-limitation
-Paul McGhee and Richard Teevan (1967)
-found nAffiliators were more likely to conform
-NSI doesn’t predict conformity in every case
-cannot empirically measure each case fairly so lacks credibility and reliability
-individual differences in conformity cannot be fully explained by one general theory of situational pressure
how could you use the Lucas et al study as an evaluation for conformity explanations
-strength
-gave easy/difficult mathematic problems to students to answer
-when questions were harder, students were more likely to conform to incorrect answers
-research evidence
-supports ISI as they want to be right as they doubted their own abilities and copied others
-occurred more in students who rated their mathematical skills as ‘poor’
describe Asch’s conformity study method
- 50 male students
- 1 naive participant and 7 other confederates
- line judgement test - three lines and a standard line
- 18 trials, 12 in which confederates gave an incorrect answer
+ control group with no confederates
state Asch’s conformity study results
- mean conformity rate of 32%
- 75% conformed at least once
- 26% participants never conformed
- control group meant <1% participants gave an incorrect answer
explain Asch’s variation study on group size
- varied confederates from 1-15
- low conformity from 1-2, but rises dramatically at 3 and levels off until 16
1 c = 3%
2 c = 12.8%
3 c = 32% (same as critical trial)
-conformity reached highest level with just 3 confederate and levelled off/ decreased with a lot of confederates
explain Asch’s variation study on unanimity
- confederate broke unanimity by answering correctly throughout
- conformity rate dropped to 5.5%
- another one , confederate answered incorrectly to majority, dropped to 9%
-shows if you break unanimity, conformity is reduced, even if the answer is still incorrect
explain Asch’s variation study on task difficulty
- made task harder by making length of lines more similar
-conformity roughly increased , probably due to informational social influence
evaluate Aschs research into conformity
STRENGTHS:
-research support from Lucas et al
LIMITATIONS:
-artificial situation and task
-limited application (individualist vs collectivist) and only studied American men
-Lucas et al found conformity is fare more complex, ev individual factors
-ethical issues (deception)
evaluate conformity types and explanations
STRENGTHS:
-research support for NSI ( Asch ) when ppt wrote answers down conformity fell to 12.5%
- research support for ISI ( Lucas et al ) task difficulty
LIMITATIONS:
-individual differences in NSI ( Paul McGhee and Richard Teevan ) said nAffilistors conform more. these individual differences can’t be explained by one general theory of situational pressure
-unclear whether it’s ISI or NSI is working in real life situations ( eg Asch dissenter may reduce conformity due to NSI or ISI )
describe the method of Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment
-set up mock prison in basement of psychology department at Stanford University
-selected 21 male student volunteers who were tested as ‘emotionally stable’
-randomly assigned role of prison or guard
-uniforms ( prisoners a loose smock, cap and identified by number ) and ( officers a wooden club, handcuffs and mirror shades) eg de-individualisation
-ppts encouraged to identify with role , eg instead of prisoners leaving study they could ‘apply for parole’
what were the findings of Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment
-guard treated prisoners harshly
-within 2 days prisoners rebelled, shouting and swearing
-guards constantly harassed prisoners, with frequent headcount’s and night
-after rebellion, prisoners became depressed and anxious
-one prisoner released due to symptoms of psychological disturbance
-one prisoner went on hunger strike and guard tried to force feed him and put him in ‘the hole’
-guards behaviour became increasingly brutal and aggressive, enjoying power
-Zimbardo’s ended study after 6 days instead of intended 14
what are the conclusions of Zimbardo’s study related to social roles
- Social roles have a strong influence on individuals behaviour, guards became brutal and prisoners submissive
-roles were taken on very easily even volunteers eg ‘prison chaplain’ behaved like they were in a prison rather than a psychological study
evaluate Zimbardo’s research into conformity to social roles
STRENGTHS:
- good control, eg random assignment to roles
- 90% of conversations about prison life
LIMITATIONS:
- demand characteristics due to media derived stereotypes due to lack of realism
- exaggerated power of roles, only 1/3 of guards were brutal
define obedience
a form is social influence when an individual follows a direct order usually from an authority figure who has power to punish the individual
explain Stanley Mildred’s baseline procedure to asses obedience levels
- 40 American male volunteers aged 20-50 were paid $4.50
- each introduced to another participant ( confederate ) and randomly assigned teacher or learner , ppt always was teacher
- experimenter involved with a grey lab coat
- learned strapped to chair and electric wires behind wall and had to remember pairs of words
- after every error teacher delivered an electric shock - from slight shock to severe shock (450V)
- confederate screamed and banged on the wall at 315V then went silent
- experimenter prodded participant (eg please continue.)
explain the findings of Milgrams research into obedience
- all real participants went up to at least 300V
- 12.5% stopped at 300V (‘intense shock’)
- 65% continued to full 450V
-participants showed signs of stress , eg sweating, trembling, biting nails
what were the conclusions of Milgrams research into obedience
- participants were willing to obey orders even when they may harm another person
- suspected there were certain factors encouraging obedience so conducted further studies to investigate these
evaluate Milgram’s research into obedience
STRENGTHS:
-research support from french TV documentary ( 80% gave max shock ) similar to milgrams participants
LIMITATIONS:
-low internal validity, participants could’ve known shocks were fake ( about half according to Gina Perry supporting Orne and Holland )
- deception means participants could not properly consent
-his conclusions about blind obedience may not be justified ( Haslam et al ) so social identity theory may provide a more valid interpretation of Milgrams findings
