Social influence Flashcards
(46 cards)
What are the three ways that people conform to the majority according to Kelman ?
Internalisation
identification
compliance
What is internalisation ?
It occurs when a person genuinely accepts the groups norms and results in a private and public change of behaviour and opinions and the change is more likely to permanent.
What is identification ?
It occurs when we conform to the opinions/behaviours of the group because there is something about the group we value; we identify with the group so we want to be apart of it. This may mean that we publicly change our opinions/behaviours to achieve this goal even if we don’t privately agree.
What is compliance ?
compliance involves ‘simply going along with the others’ in public but privately not changing behaviours/opinions. Compliance only results in a superficial change.
What is Gerald’s two process theory regarding conformity ?
It argues that there are two main reasons people conform ; ISI and NSI.
What is informational social influence ?
It’s all to do with who has the best information - you or the rest of the group. ISI its a cognitive process because it is to do with what you think. ISI is most likely to happen when something is new to you and also happens when one person or group is regarding as an ‘expert’.
What is normative social influence ?
NSI is all to do with norms and what is normal or typical for the group. NSI is an emotional process as it involves norms as people don’t want to appear foolish etc. NSI normally occurs in situations with strangers and where you feel concerned about rejection.
Is there supporting evidence for NSI ?
Asch had 50 male students in USA. They were told that they were taking an eye test. They did a line judgement task with a naive ppt in a room of 7 confederates who had agreed on their responses beforehand. Each ppt said out loud what line was most similar. 12/18
trials were critical. It was found that participants conformed to
incorrect answers on 32% of the critical trials; 74% conformed at
least once and 26% never conformed. Less than 1% answered
incorrectly in a control group where participants completed the task
alone. When ppts were interviewed most of the ppt admitted they didn’t believe their answers and had conformed due to fear of being ridiculed. When PPs had to write
answers down instead of saying them, conformity rates fell to
12%.
Schultz et al. (2008) – gathered data from 132 hotels and 794
hotel rooms where guests stayed for a week. They found that
guests reduced their own towel use by 25% when told that 75% of
guests reuse their towels every day.
Practical application for NSI ?
None
Issues with NSI ?
Gender and Culture bias.
Gender bias – research such as Asch (1951) is subject to beta bias
as he only used male participants in his study and generalised the
findings to everybody, assuming that women would conform in the
same way as men. Eagly & Carli (1981) carried out a meta-
analysis and found that women are more likely to conform in
group pressure situations, suggesting that we cannot necessarily
apply these findings to women.
Culture bias – studies such as Asch (1951) only involved males
from the USA, yet he generalised the findings to everybody. The USA
is an individualist culture, which values personal freedom and
independence. Smith & Bond (1998) conducted a meta-analysis
of studies from a range of different countries and found that the
average conformity rate in collectivist countries was 37%, as
opposed to 25% in individualist countries. In collectivist cultures,
members are taught to value the collective goals of the group
whereas in individualist cultures, personal achievement and
independence is valued.
Approach for NSI ?
The social approach – assumes that behaviour is influenced by the
actual, imagined or implied presence of others; we need to
understand the social context in which behaviour occurs in order
to explain it.
Contradictory evidence for NSI ?
McGhee & Teevan (1967) – found that students who are
nAffiliators (possess a greater need for affiliation with others) are
more likely to conform.
Williams & Sogon (1984) – found higher conformity rates in
groups of friends rather than strangers.
Evaluation of methods for NSI ?
Strength – in studies such as Asch (1951), participants followed a
standardised procedure (the line judgement task) and the
conditions were kept the same in each trial in order to prevent any
extraneous variables from influencing the findings. This indicates that research into NSI is reliable as it can be replicated and
increases the internal validity of the explanation.
Weakness – research such as Asch (1951) is low in mundane
realism, as the line judgement task is not something participants
would carry out in everyday life. This means that findings from
research into NSI cannot necessarily be applied to situations
outside of the laboratory, decreasing the ecological validity of
the explanation.
Debates for NSI ?
Nomothetic – research into NSI has been used to establish general
laws of behaviour. It assumes that everyone experiences NSI
similarly and predicts that everyone would react similarly in
certain situations.
Supporting evidence for ISI ?
Asch (1951) – although most participants had only conformed in fear
of being ridiculed or regarded as peculiar, a few did believe that the
group’s answers were correct (despite the correct answer being
obvious).
Jenness (1932) – 101 psychology students were asked to estimate
the number of beans in a glass bottle filled with 811 white beans
individually, then divided into groups of 3 and asked to estimate
together. They were then asked to individually estimate again. It was
found that nearly all participants changed their original answer –
males changed by an average of 256 and females changed by an
average of 382.
Practical application for ISI ?
None
Issues with ISI ?
Ethical implications – research such as Wittenbrink & Henley
(1996) can have implications for the target population as influencing
individuals to hold certain beliefs about specific groups within society
can perpetuate discrimination and prejudice, contributing towards
marginalisation of those groups.
ISI approach ?
The social approach – assumes that behaviour is influenced by the
actual, imagined or implied presence of others; we need to
understand the social context in which behaviour occurs in order to
explain it.
Contradictory evidence ISI ?
Asch (1955) – found that students were 28% conformist, compared
to non-students who were 37% conformist on average.
Perrin & Spencer (1980) – repeated Asch (1951) with engineering
students in the UK and found that only 1 conformed in a total of 396
trials.
Evaluation of Methods ISI ?
Strength – research into ISI often followed standardised procedures;
for example, the same conditions were replicated for each trial and
the same number of participants was used each time. This was done
in order to prevent any extraneous variables from influencing the findings, increasing the internal validity of the explanation.
Weakness – research into ISI is low in mundane realism, as the
tasks that participants often had to carry out were unlike everyday
life; for example, participants would not necessarily estimate the
number of beans in a glass bottle or estimate how far a light
moved on a wall. This indicates that findings from these studies
cannot necessarily be applied to situations outside of the
laboratory, decreasing the ecological validity of the explanation.
Debates ISI ?
Nomothetic – research into ISI has been used to establish general
laws of behaviour. It assumes that everyone experiences NSI
similarly and predicts that everyone would react similarly in certain
situations.
Procedure for Asch’s Research ?
Asch tested conformity by showing ppts two large white cards at the time. One card showed the standard line and on the other one there was three lines one line was the same length. Ppts were 123 American male undergraduates; each naive ppt was tested individually with a group of between 6 to 8 confederates and the naive ppt were unaware the others were confederates. On the first few trials all the confederates gave the right answers but then they all started making errors. All the confederates were instructed to give the same incorrect answer. Altogether each ppt took part in 18 trials and on 12 ‘critical’ trials the confederates gave the incorrect answer.
Findings of Asch’s research
The naive ppt gave a wrong answer 36.8% of the time. Overall 25% of the ppts didn’t conform on any trials which means that 75% conformed at least once.
What were the three variations imposed on Asch’s experiments ?
Group size
unanimity
task difficulty
