Social Influence Flashcards
(79 cards)
Social Psychology
Relationships between people and how they affect behaviour.
Types of Conformity - Conformity
When a person changes their behaviour, attitudes or beliefs to be in line with the majority due to real or imagined pressure.
Types of Conformity - Compliance
Adjusting behaviour or views one voices in public to be in line with the majority. Private views are not affected as it is temporary conformity.
Types of Conformity - Internalisation
Adjusting behaviour or views to be in line with the majority, examining their views and deciding the majority is correct. Therefore changing private views as it is a more permanent conformity.
Types of Conformity - Identification
Accepting social influence to be associated with a person or group by adopting views and attitudes of said group.
Explanations for Conformity - Normative Social Influence
People have a need to be liked and therefore avoid behaviour that will cause rejection. Research has shown people prefer people similar to them, meaning conformity can be a good way to ensure acceptance.
Leads to compliance.
Explanations for Conformity - Informational Social Influence
People have a need to be confident they are correct and will therefore rely on others opinions to check. It occurs more often when situations are ambiguous or others are experts.
Leads to internalisation.
Positive Evaluation of N+I Social Influence
Research found that adolescents told most of their peers did not smoke were much less likely to smoke.
In 95% of cases looked at, the vote of the first jury member matched the outcome, suggesting NSI is affecting decisions in court.
Participants exposed to negative information about African Americans (which they were told was a majority view) later reported more negative beliefs. Supports ISI.
Students were asked to answer easy or difficult maths questions. Conformity was higher with harder questions, along with students less confident in their maths ability.
Negative Evaluation of N+I Social Influence
Cannot explain cultural differences in conformity. A meta-analysis of cross cultural studies using Asch experiment found Indian teachers in Fiji has highest rates (58%) and Belgian students had lowest rates (14%). Suggests culture is a factor in conformity.
Cannot explain individual differences. A study found people with high self esteem were less likely to conform.
Variables Affecting Conformity - Outline the Asch Experiment (1956)
A naïve participant was placed with a group of confederates where they had to decide which of three test lines was the same as the standard line. Confederates gave wrong answers on 12/18 trials
75% conformed at least once
5% conformed on every trial
25% did not conform at all
There was a 1% chance of making a genuine mistake but 33% of responses were wrong
Asch interviewed participants afterwards where he found that many gave the same answers as the group to avoid disapproval, even if it was wrong (NSI).
Variables Affecting Conformity - Group Size
Groups with one confederate had 3% CR
Groups with two confederates had 13% CR
Groups with three confederates had 32% CR
Conformity rate does not increase much in groups larger than 4 meaning group size only has an affect up to a certain point.
Variables Affecting Conformity - Task Difficulty
Asch made the lines more similar in length to increase the difficulty
Conformity rate increased, possibly due to informational social influence, as participants were uncertain so looked to others for confirmation.
Variables Affecting Conformity - Unanimity
When the group was unanimous, conformity rate increased
When one other person gave a different answer to the others (an Ally), eliminating unanimity, CR dropped
CR reduced from 33% to 5% (ally with right answer) and to 9% (ally with different wrong answer)
Conformity is easier to resist if somebody else also resists it.
Positive Asch Evaluation
1986 study found that in 95% of cases, the final outcome matched the first jury members vote, suggesting conformity affects decisions juries reach.
2003 study found adolescents told that most of their peers didn’t smoke, were less likely to take up smoking.
It was a lab experiment, meaning it was well controlled and so extraneous variables would not change the validity of the study.
Negative Asch Evaluation
The study lacks mundane realism and ecological validity, it is artificial and unlikely to occur in real life, meaning people are less likely to care about the outcome.
The study is gender bias, it only contained males and therefore may not represent how females would behave.
It was conducted 80 years ago when people could have been more likely to conform due to post war attitudes. The study was repeated in 1980 in the UK with engineering students with only one conforming result out of 396.
Conformity to Social Roles - Social Roles
Behaviours expected of someone who has a social position or status. People often conform to these roles.
Conformity to Social Roles - Outline The Stanford Prison Experiment, Zimbardo (1973)
A simulated prison was created in a university basement. 24 young men were recruited and assigned randomly either prisoner or guard roles.
Guards had total control over prisoners and were told to maintain order using ‘any means necessary, except for physical violence’.
Prisoners were confined to their cells except for meals, toilet, headcount and work.
On day 2 prisoners tried to rebel by barricading themselves in their cells and ripping off their numbers. The guards sprayed them with CO2, stripped them and took their beds away.
They put ringleaders into ‘the hole’ which was solitary confinement.
The study had to be ended after only 6 days rather than 2 weeks, due to how aggressive the guards had become and the breakdowns the prisoners were having because of it.
Positive Zimbardo Evaluation
Zimbardo argued that the same results which occurred in his experiment happened in Abu Ghraib - military prison in Iraq where prisoners were tortured by US soldiers.
Negative Zimbardo Evaluation
Highly unethical, the prisoners experienced psychological harm
Zimbardo took the role of prison warden and was too involved in the experiment so he lost his objectivity. A colleague had to tell him to end it so validity of findings are questionable
Guards may have behaved this way due to demand characteristics - some reported after that they thought experimenters wanted them to act like that
Some guards didn’t conform to the social role, suggesting individual differences play a part
The sample was unrepresentative. Only young, middle class male students from Stanford university were used
Obedience to Authority - Obedience
Behaving as instructed to by an authority figure who has status/power.
Obedience to Authority - Outline Milgram (1963)
Teacher = naive participant Learner = Mr Wallace (confederate/actor) Experimenter = confederate
Teacher was told to shock the learner when they got the answer wrong and to increase the voltage by 15 each time they were wrong, increasing all the way to a fatal 450V
Experimenter would prompt teacher to continue if they showed reluctance by saying things such as “it is absolutely essential that you continue”
100% gave shocks up to 300V
65% gave shocks all the way to 450V
Positive Milgram Evaluation
1966 study had nurses receive a phone call from Dr Smith who they did not know. He asked them to give 20mg of ‘Astrogen’ (sugar pill) to a patient. 95% obeyed the order despite it being against hospital rules and not knowing the doctor
1972 study asked participants to shock a puppy and despite being able to see and hear the puppy, 75% obeyed
It was a lab experiment, therefore well controlled and extraneous variables would not effect validity
Negative Milgram Evaluation
Participants were deceived about the true nature, did not give informed consent and were told shocks were real
Participants became distressed, they were not protected from psychological harm
Violated their right to withdraw
Situational Variables Affecting Obedience - What were Milgram’s (1974) variations of his study?
In 1974, Milgram conducted several variations of his study to see what would increase and decrease obedience levels
The variations:
Proximity Touch proximity Absent experimenter Alternative setting Uniform
