Social Influence Flashcards
Conformity definition
A change in a persons behaviour or opinions as a result of pressure
Internalisation definition
Take on majority view because we accept it as correct. It leads to permanent change
Identification definition
We act in the same way with a group because we value it and want to be part of it. But we don’t necessarily agree with everything
Compliance definition
A superficial and temporary type of conformity where we outwardly go along with majority views but privately disagree with it.
Informational social influence (isi) definition
An explanation of conformity that says we agree with the opinion because we think its correct.
Normative social influence (nsi) definition
An explanation of conformity that says we agree with majority view because we want to be accepted, gain social approval and be liked
Research support for ISI
Lucas et al (2006) asked students to give answers to math questions. there was greater conformity levels when the questions were harder, especially if the student had low math ability. this shows we conform in situations we don’t know the answer to.
Individual difference in NSI
People who are less concerned with being liked are less likely to be affected by NSI. People who care about being liked are called nAffiliators. These are people who have greater need for affiliation.
McGee and Teevan (1967) found that students in need of affiliation were more likely to conform. This shows that the desire to be liked underlies conformity for some people more than others.
How do ISI and NSI work together?
Deutsch and Gerrard’s “two process” approach is that behavior is either due to NSI or ISI. But in reality its usually both processes involved.
Asch’s procedure (1951 & 1955)
Tested conformity by showing participants lines and they had to say which of the comparison lines was the same as the standard line. The participants were 123 American male undergraduates and they was tested with 6 and 8 confederates who gave wrong answers.
Asch’s findings (1951 & 1955)
The naive participants gave a wrong answer 36.85% of the time and overall 25% of participants did not conform.
Asch’s variations (1951 & 1955)
group size, unanimity and task difficulty
Asch evaluation - further experiments
-Perrin and Spencer (1980) repeated the experiment with engineering students in the UK and only one student conformed in 396 trials. This may be due to them feeling more confident so less conformist which is a limitation of Aschs research because the Asch effect is not consistent across situations or time so is not a fundamental feature of human behaviour.
Asch evaluation - artificial situation and task
- Participants knew they were in a study so may have shown demand characteristics.
- the participants were put into groups but they didn’t resemble groups in every day life
- This is a limitation because it means findings do not generalise everyday situations. This especially true when consequences of conformity might be more important.
Asch evaluation - limited application of findings
- Only men were tested and other research suggests women are more conformist.
- The men were only from the US, an individualist culture. Similar studies have taken place in Collectivist cultures and have found conformity rates are higher. This makes sense because they are much more oriented to group needs.
- This shows conformity levels can be higher than what Asch found.
Zimbardo stanford prison experiment procedure (1973)
- A mock prison set up in basement of psychology department. They advertised for students to volunteer and selected ‘emotionally stable’ ones. The students were randomly assigned the roles of guards or prisoners. To make it more realistic prisoners were arrested from there homes, then blindfolded, strip searched and issued number and uniform.
- The social roles was strict and prisoners routines were regulated and they had rules they had to follow and only there numbers were used.
Zimbardo stanford prison experiment findings (1973)
- study was stopped after 6 days instead of 14.
- within two days prisoners rebelled so guards used ‘divide-and-rule’ tactics by playing prisoners against each other.
- prisoners were depressed and anxious and one was let go after the first day as he was showing symptoms of psychological disturbance.
- the guards were identifying with their roles and became more brutal and aggressive.
Zimbardo stanford prison experiment evaluation - experimenters control (1973)
zimbardo had some control over the variables, for example picking emotionally stable participants which allowed them to rule out individual personality differences in their findings. This is a strength as it increases internal validity.
Zimbardo stanford prison experiment evaluation - lack of realism (1973)
Banuazizi and Mohavedi (1975) argued the participants were acting instead of conforming to role. Their performance was based on stereotypes. Quantitative data gathered showed 90% of conversation was to do with the prison so the situation seemed real to participants which gives high internal validity.
Zimbardo stanford prison experiment evaluation - role of dispositional influences (1973)
Fromm (1973) accused zimbardo of exaggerating his power. Not all guards acted the same suggesting that participants were conforming to social roles is over stated. The difference in behavior shows they were making right and wrong decisions despite the situational pressures to conform.
Milgrams research procedure (1963)
There is a learner, a teacher and an experimenter. The learner and experiments are confederates. The learner was strapped into a chair with wires in a separate room. The teacher had to give increasing electric socks every time the learner got a question wrong. As the shocks got more severe (300v) the learner started pounding on the wall and screaming after 315v there was no response.
Milgrams research findings (1963)
12.5% stopped at 300v, but none before that and 65% went all the way to 450v. Participants showed signs of extreme tension.
Milgrams research evaluation - low internal validity
Orne and Holland (1968) argued participants behaved in the way they did because they believed the shocks weren’t real, However Sheridan and King (1972) did the test with real shocks and a puppy and most people carried through suggesting the effect of milgrams study were genuine.
Milgrams research evaluation - good external validity
Although its in a lab Milgram argued it still had high external validity as the purpose was to show the relationship between an authority figure and participant and lab environment accurately reflects where this relationship would take place. This suggests this study can be generalised to other situations.
