Social Influence - Paper 1 Flashcards
(109 cards)
social psychology
types and explanations of conformity
studies individual beliefs. attitudes and behavours in settings where other people are pressent (or implied)
key study - jeanness
types and explanations of conformity
- aim - wether individuals will change their opinion in an ambigious situations
- method - glass bottle filled with 811 white beans
- 26 students- divided into 3 groups
- estimate how many beans in the jar
- asked to give group estimate and the estimated individually
- findings - average before - m,790,f,925
- avergae after m,695,f,878
- average change m,256f,382
- results - nearly all particapants changed their awsner when had a group discussion
conformity
types and explanations of conformity
- involves a change of behaviour or opionion in oder to fit in the group
- may be a membership group (family or peers) or reference group (celebs)
- takes place when we privatly and/or publicly go along with behaviours of the majority
explanations of conformity
types and explanations of conformity
- normative social influence
- information social influence
normative social influence
explanation of conformity
- the want to be liked/accepted
- most often in stressful situations where you want social support
- emotional process
infomational social influence
explanations of conformity
- desire to be correct
- cognitve process
- leads to internalisation
- most likely in new or ambigious situations, or a percieved expert
types of conformity
types of conformity
- complience
- identification
- internalisation
compilence
types of conformity
- go along with others to gain their approval to avoid dissaproval
- invloves process of social compasison - looking at what others say or do to adjust your opionion
- desire to fit in
- publicly change views but not privately
identification
types of conformity
- going along with others bc they have accpeted their point of view but only because they want to be liked
- establish a relationsip with a group by taking their attitudes and behaviours to feel closer with them
- however belief is likly to stop when not in the presence of the majority group
internalisation
types of conformity
- go alongs with views bc they have been accepted and they believ that it is right
- leads to long term change with both public and private views
- change in behaviours even without majority of group
key study - sherif
types and explanations of conformity
- aim - demonstarte that people conform to group corms when they are put in an ambigious situation
- method - lab expermient using the autokinect effect - small spot of light in a dark room and will appear to move
- basline - asked how far it moved orginally
- expermient - tested in groups of three , put 2 people who had simiar guess with someone who didnt
- say outloid what they guessed
- resullt- the person who had a different awsner had a simialr awsner to the others when in the group
- conc - in ambigious situations a person will look to others for support
supporting evidence for normative explanation
types and explanations of conformity
- jeanness - make intial judgments before discussion and then awsner chanhed to others
- asch - went along with the obviously wrong awsner as they didnt want dissaporval from the group
- schultz - gathered info from gotel when there was a sign that said 75% recycle their towels and the need for fresh towels reduced to 25%
evaluations of informative social influence
types and explanations of conformity
- postive - * jeanness - make intial judgments before discussion and then awsner chanhed to others
- negative - perrin and spencer - conducted asch like study in the uk, only one confomity in 400 trials - doesnt occur in every situation
support for internalisation conformity
types and explanations of conformity
jeanness - make intial judgments before discussion and then awsner chanhed to others
support for complience
types and explanations of confomity
- asch - went along with the obviously wrong awsner as they didnt want dissaporval from the group
support for identification
types and explanations of confomrity
- schultz - gathered info from gotel when there was a sign that said 75% recycle their towels and the need for fresh towels reduced to 25%
key study - asch
asch
- aim - the extent to which social pressur to conform from a unanimous majority affects confomrity in an ambigious situation
- sample - 123 white americans undergrads
- method - believed they were taking part in visual test , line judgemnet and had to pick the right one
- in a room of 6-8 confederates
- completed 18 trials, 12 trials were the critical trials which confederates gave incorrect awsner
- findings - control - 1 error , experiment - 36.8% incorrect
- conformed 32% of critical trials
- 74% can incorrect awsner at least once
- conc - confomred bc they wanted to fit in with the group because even though they knew it was wrong - normative , identification
factors affecting conformity
asch
- group size
- unanimity
- task difficulty
group size
factors affecting conformity - asch
- ranged from 2 -15 confederates
- increased to 12.8% from 3% when 2 confederates
- 3 confederates - 32%
- decreased to 29% when 15 conferderates
- increase then decreased when more
unanimity
factors affecting conformity - asch
- refers to the extent that members of the majority agree with one another
- when one conferderate gave right awsner conformity dropped 5%
- different incorrect, conformity dropped to 9%
- gives them confidence
task difficulty
factors affecting conformity - asch
- correct awsner was always obcious in the first trials
- made lines closer together
- conformity increased when task became difficult bc it was ambigioud
evaluations
asch
- ecolgoical
- gender
- ethics
- temporal
- lab study
ecological validity
asch
- low ecological validity
- line judgments is an artifical task - lacks mundane realism
- unable to generalise to other real life situations
- limited application
gender bias
asch
- gender bias
- 123 american white male undergraduates
- we cannot generalise to wider populations as they may not conform in the same way
- lacks population validity