Social influence Flashcards
(14 cards)
What is Conformity?
- A form of social influence involving a change in behaviour or beliefs in order to fit in a group.
- This change is in response to real or imagined group pressure.
What is Majority Influence?
When an individual changes their behaviour of belief after being influenced by how the majority of people in a group think.
What is Compliance?
- A process of social comparison where an individual changes their public behaviour (but not necessarily private beliefs) in order to fit in with a group.
- This is a shallow/ superficial form of conformity.
What is Identification?
- When an individual changes their public behaviour (but not necessarily private beliefs) because they value the opinions/ beliefs of a group.
- This is a shallow/ superficial form of conformity.
What is Internalisation?
- When an individual changes both their public and private views after close examination of a group’s view has convinced them to.
- This is a deep form of conformity.
What is Normative Influence?
Group pressure leading to a desire to fit in.
What is Informational Influence?
When a person lacks knowledge on how to behave and looks to the group for guidance
Outline the Procedure and Findings of Asch’s Line Study (1951) (4 marks).
Asch’s 1951 study aimed to investigate conformity, particularly, whether participants would conform to obviously wrong answers. Using an independent groups design, he took 50 male participants and sat them down in a room of 6-8 confederates, where the ppt was sat either last or second to last in the line. They had been asked to identify which line matched the target line in order of their seats. Asch conducted 18 trials for each participant and had the confederates give out obviously wrong answers in 12/18 of these trials. He also used a control group of 7-9 participants that did not include any confederates. Asch found that 75% of participants conformed at least once, whilst 25% did not conform at all. In addition, 32% of the ppts conformed more than once, whilst only 1% of those in the control group conformed within the study.
Discuss Research into Conformity (16 marks).
Conformity is a form of social influence involving a change in behaviour or beliefs in order to fit in a group. Asch’s 1951 study aimed to investigate conformity, particularly, whether participants would conform to obviously wrong answers. Using an independent groups design, he took 50 male participants and sat them down in a room of 6-8 confederates, where the ppts was sat either last or second to last in the line. They had been asked to identify which line matched the target line in order of their seats. Asch conducted 18 trials for each participant and had the confederates give out obviously wrong answers in 12/18 of these trials. He also used a control group of 7-9 participants that did not include any confederates. Asch found that 75% of participants conformed at least once, whilst 25% did not conform at all. In addition, 32% of the ppts conformed more than once, whilst only 1% of those in the control group conformed within the study.
Asch also introduced variables in which could affect the conformity and chose to create variations of his baseline study in relation to these. These variations were group size, unanimity and task difficulty. He found that within the group size variation, conformity was low with only 1 confederate and 1 participant compared to 32% with 3 conf. and 1 ppt. It was also concluded that, with an increase in group size, conformity caps after 3 ppt and does not make a difference on the conformity rate. With unanimity, conformity dropped to 5.5% when 1 conf. went against the group with the correct answer, and also dropped to 9% when 1 conf. went against the group with another incorrect answer. Finally, Asch also concluded that ppt are more likely to seek help from others and conform when an answer is less obvious (ISI).
Due to the use of 50 males, Asch’s study was deemed androcentric and had low population validity. This means the results couldn’t be generalised to the wider female population in relation to individual differences. In addition, all of the ppt were American – this means we can’t generalise to other cultures as we’re unsure whether they’d behave in the same or in a similar manner to how Americans do. This, in turn, makes the explanation limited as Asch hadn’t taken other genders or cultures into account when he was accumulating the sample for this experiment.
Asch however, chose to study one variable at a time – this resulted in the experiment being deemed high in control over its variables. This helped Asch measure what was intended which lead to high internal validity. The study in itself is also repeatable due to this high control. It singles the variables out which means future researchers can take this on and repeat the study. However, it’s also repeatable because of Asch’s use of a lab study – unfortunately this lowers the ecological validity of the study due to both the artificial nature of the environment (the ppt may have caught on to the aim of the study) and the artificial nature of the task (a vision test doesn’t often require you to be sat in a room with 7-9 other men and asked to identify the target line as this would not accurately represent whether your eyesight is poor or not).
Despite this high control, only 32% of participants conformed more than once. Asch failed to acknowledge the other 68% of ppts when releasing his conclusion of the study. This suggests that the study is more of a measure of resistance to conformity instead of an influence to conform. This, in turn, means that Asch’s study may not accurately represent conformity as much as was once believed and his explanation for conformity may be more limited than once thought, much like how it’s limited in relation to individual differences.
Moreover, the participants were deceived. They were led to believe they were participating within a ‘vision test’ and were failed to be informed on the true aim of the study. However, if Asch were to have told the participants his true aim, this would have skewed the results greatly to the point that the study would be useless. This would have led to demand characteristics and false results. Despite the study going against ethical guidelines, the deceit was necessary in order to receive accurate enough results that can reflect conformity.
Briefly Outline the Findings and Conclusions of the Three Variations of Asch’s 1951 Study
- Group Size - Asch found that with one confederate only 4% of ppts conformed, with two confederates 14% conformed, and with 3 confederates 31.8% conformed. However, there was little difference in percentage conformity past 3 confederates. Asch therefore concluded that an increase in group size leads to an increase in conformity up until 3 confederates where it plateaus.
- Unanimity - Asch found that when a confederate who disagreed with the majority was introduced, conformity dropped from 32% to 5%. Asch therefore concluded that if there was someone else not conforming to a majority, ppts were given the confidence to give the correct answer and not conform.
- Task Difficulty - Asch found that after making the line judgement task more difficult/ ambiguous, ppts conformed more. Asch concluded that ppts conformed more when they doubted themselves. This is likely to be the result of informational social influence, as individuals look to another for guidance when completing a difficult task
Outline and Evaluate Zimbardo’s 1973 Study (16 marks).
In 1973, Zimbardo carried out an experiment to investigate how readily people would conform to new roles by observing how quickly people would adopt the roles of a guard or prisoner in a simulated prison. Zimbardo took 24 healthy male volunteers and paid them $15 per day to take part in the two-week simulation study of prison life. Volunteers were randomly chosen to be either guards or prisoners. Local police helped “arrest” 10 prisoners at their homes without warning; they were then taken and blindfolded to the “prison”, stripped and sprayed with disinfectant, given smocks to wear and their prison number to memorise. 11 ppts were selected as guards on duty who wore green khaki uniforms, aviators and carried wooden batons. The experiment was ended earlier than expected (after 6 days rather than 14) after aggression from prison guards and riots from prisoners. From the experiment, Zimbardo concluded that people will readily conform to the social roles they are expected to play, especially if the roles were as strongly stereotyped as those of the prison guards. therefore, the study supports the situational explanation of behaviour rather than the dispositional one.
One strength of Zimbardo 1973 study is the high levels of control over variables. Ppts were randomly assigned as either guards or prisoners (thus avoiding bias) and furthermore, only emotionally stable volunteers were used (thus ruling out the possibility of individual differences). By controlling these variables, the researcher ensured that if guards or prisoners behaved unusually, it must have been caused by the situation they were put in. These controls, therefore, allowed for higher internal validity.
On the other hand, the Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE) has been criticised for its lack of realism. Banuazizi and Mohavedi (1975) suggested that ppts were not conforming but acting up to the stereotype they believe the roles own. Banuazizi and Mohavedi believed this was the reason why prisoners rioted as they believe that is what prisoners do. Therefore, the study may lack internal/ ecological validity and produces results which cannot be generalised to the real world. However, Zimbardo argued the opposite and claimed it was very real to ppts, quantitative data was collected and found hat 90% of conversation had within the study were about prison life. This could therefore suggest a very high level of ecological and internal validity, contradicting the findings of Banuazizi and Mohavedi.
Another limitation of the SPE is outlined by Fromm (1973). Fromm suggested that Zimbardo exaggerated the power situation to influence the behaviour of the ppts and minimise the role of dispositional factors (personality influence). For example, out of all the guards, only a third were found to be threatening, the rest were firm but fair and offered rewards when ppts were good. Also only a minority of prisoners rebelled. Fromm’s evidence suggests that the conclusion “ppts conform to social roles” is exaggerated.
In addition, the BBC repeated this study in 2006 and gained very different findings to the SPE. In the BBC study the prisoners ended up taking over the prison and even harassed the guards. Social Identity Theory (Tajfel 1981) has been used to explain this - prison guards failed to form a shared social identity while the prisoners did, thus all agreeing to refuse the role of “prisoner” together. This, therefore, is a limitation of Zimbardo’s study as the reliability is reduced since the experiment is not repeatable. In addition, the flaws made evident by the conduction of the BBC study suggests that the SPE also lacks validity.
Briefly Outline the Procedure and Findings of the Study.
Psychologist Milgram wanted to test if people would prioritise their personal conscious or authority if it involved harming another person. Therefore, he conducted a laboratory experiment where people would obey orders to shock another person in a different room. It took place at Yale University, in which is highly respected and prestigious. 40 men were chosen to take part. They individually were introduced to a confederate and asked to draw lots who would be a ‘learner’ or a ‘teacher’. It was always rigged so the participant would be the teacher. The participant witnessed the confederate being strapped into a chair in which would provide him with electric shocks. The ‘teacher’ was then placed into another room and was told to ask the learner a series of word pairs. If the learner got the question wrong the participant would give him a shock starting from 15 Volts to 450 Volts. After they reached 300 Volts, the learner would then not respond. If the participant tried to leave, he would be given prods to continue by the experimenter. What Milgram found was frightening to the public. 26 participants (65%) proceeded to the full 450 Volts. None stopped before administering 300 V.
Discuss Research into Obedience (16 marks).
Psychologist Milgram wanted to test if people would prioritize their personal conscious or authority if it involved harming another person. Therefore, he conducted a laboratory experiment to see whether people would obey orders to shock another person in a different room. At Yale University, 40 men were chosen to take part. They were individually introduced to a confederate and asked to draw lots who would be a ‘learner’ or a ‘teacher’. It was always rigged so the participant would be the teacher. The ppt witnessed the confederate being strapped into a chair which would provide him with electric shocks. The ‘teacher’ was then placed into another room and told to ask the learner a series of word pairs. If the learner got the question wrong the participant would give him a shock starting from 15 Volts to 450 Volts. After they reached 300 Volts, the learner would then not respond. If the participant tried to leave, he would be given prods to continue by the experimenter. Milgram found that 65% of ppts proceeded to the full 450 Volts. None stopped before administering 300 V. To conclude, Milgram demonstrated that people will act against their conscience despite the situation to obey the authority.
Discuss explanations for obedience
one explanation is that people operate in an ‘agentic state’ when in the presence iof authority. This means they no longer feel responsible or guilty when in the presence of authority as they believe they are simply acting under the authority and therefore, they should bare the guilt. Under normal circumstances we function in an autonomous state where we are responsible for what we do, however, once we are in the presence of authority we go through an agentic shift and once in the agentic state we feel free of our consciences and we therefore obey.
A strength of the agentic state as an explanation of obedience is that there is research evidence to support it. For example, in Milgram’s baseline study, some ppts showed concern for the welfare of the learner , particularly when they stopped hearing responses. However once the experimentor stated that they would be responsible for whatever happens to the learner, many ppts continued. this suggests that once the responsibility of a situation is no longer on someone, they are mopre likely to obey. this therefore supports the agentic state as a reason for obedience. however, the agentic state doesn’t explain why some of the ppts in Migram’s study didn’t conform. this suggests that the agentic state cannot be the sole reason for obedience and individual factors such as Authoritarian Personality may have played a role
On the other hand,
