Socil Influencea Flashcards
(49 cards)
What’s Conformity
A change in a persons behaviour or opinions due to real / imagined pressure from a person or a group of ppl (imagined when there’s no consequences for conforming)
What are the three types of conformity
Internalisation- when person accepts the group norms resulting in a change of opinions. This change is likely to be permanent as it’s become how they think now and happens even when group absent.
Identification-conforming because of the value of the group.we identify with it because we want to be apart of it. Even if we don’t agree privately
Compliance-going along w others in public but not changing personal opinions. Superficial change that lasts when group is present.
Reasons for conformity
Informational social influence-who has better info you or group.individuals follow behaviours of a group because they wanna be right,and its cognitive as it’s based on the individuals thoughts.Usually happens when there’s ambiguity,crisis,new situations or where one groups smarter
Normative social influence-about the norms and following them to avoid looking foolish and gain social approval. More emotional than cognitive.Happens more in situations where you anxious about rejection,need social approval from friends,or stressful ones where ppl need social support.
Evidence for ISI
Lucas et al asked students to answer maths questions that were easy or hard. Greater conformity to correct answers than there were with easier ones. Mostly by students who thought their maths was bad. It shows people conform in times where they don’t know the answers than which is what isi said, we look to others and assume they know better n r right.
Individual differences in nsi
It doesn’t affect everyone’s research in same way. Ppl who are less concerned with being liked are less affected by NSI than those who are more concerned about being liked.Naffilitators. More concerned with affiliation. Mchgee and teevan found that those who lack affiliation w conform more. Showing individual differences in the way ppl respond.
Evidence for nsi
Asch showed many ppl just went with the wrong answer cuz others did so he asked em why and they felt self conscious giving right answer and afraid of disproval. When repressed he asked ppts to write it down instead and conformity drop by 12.5%.
Individual differences in isi
Doesn’t affect everyone the same way. Asch found that students were less conformist than other ppts where as Perrin and Spencer conducted a study involving science and engineering students and had very little conformity
When could isi and nsi work theyhed
Deutsch and Gerard’s two approach process shows nsi and isi aren’t completely exclusive.Eg in aschs study a dissenting confederate could give social support w similar views so individual so level of nsi decreases and they could be provided w alternate source of info with the confederate so low level of isi too.showing they’re more complementary
What was aschs study and what were the findings
Ppts:123 M undergraduates in groups of y (1 being true 5 being actors)
Procedure:ppts and confederates presented w 4 lines,3 comparison lines and 1 standard line
They’re asked to state which of three lines was the same length as stimulus line
The real participant always answered last or second to last
Actors would give wrong ans for 12/18 trials
Asch saw how often ppts would give incorrect answer w actors than give right answers.
Findings:36.8% conformed
25% never conformed
75% confirmed at least once
In control only 1% got it wrong so eyesight isn’t an extran Variable increasing validity of research.
What were the factors affecting level of conformity in his study
Size of majority/Group size
Point: An individual is more likely to conform when in a larger group.
Evidence: There was low conformity with group size of confederates being <3 any more than 3 and the conformity rose by 30%
Explanation: a person is more likely to conform if all members of group are in agreement and give same answer, it will increase confidence in correctness of the group, and decrease their confidence in their own answer. Conformity does not seem to increase in groups larger than four so this is considered the optimal group size.
Link: This shows that the majority must be at least 3 to exert an influence, but an overwhelming majority is not needed in all instances to bring about conformity.
Unanimity
Point:individual more likely to conform when group is giving the same answer.
Evidence:When joined by another ppt or Disaffected confederate who gave the correct answer, conformity fell from 32% to 5.5%. If different answers are given, it falls from more
Explanation: the more unanimous the group is, the more confidence the participant will have that theyre correct, and so the ppts answer is more likely to be incorrect
Link: Unanimity is vital in having a consistent majority view, which is particularly important by providing normative social influence through preventing any conflicting views arising.
Task Difficulty
Point: An individual is more likely to conform when the task is difficult Evidence: For example, Asch altered the (comparison) lines (e.g. A, B, C) making them more similar in length. Since it was harder to judge the correct answer conformity increased.
Evidence: When the task is difficult, we are more uncertain of our answer so we look to others for confirmation. The more difficult the task the greater the conformity.
Link: This suggests that ISI is a major mechanism for conformity when the situation is ambiguous and the individual does not have enough of their own knowledge or information to make an informed decision on their own, and so has to look towards others
Strengths of aschs study
High internal validity - There was strict control over extraneous variables, like timing of assessment and the type of task used. The participants did the experiment before without confederates to see if they actually knew the correct answer, thus removing the confounding variable of a lack of knowledge. This suggests that valid and reliable ‘cause and effect’ relationships can be established, as well as valid conclusions.
Lab experiment - Extraneous and confounding variables are strictly controlled, meaning that replication of the experiment is easy. Successful replication increases the reliability of the findings as less chance of observed findings being a ‘one off.
Ethical issues - The researchers breached the BPS ethical guideline of deception and consequently, the ability to give informed consent.
However, the participants were debriefed. Ethical issues do not threaten the validity or reliability of findings, but rather show that a cost-benefit analysis is required.
Supports nsi - participants reported that they conformed to fit in with the group, so it supports the idea of normative influence, which states that people conform to fit in when privately disagreeing with the majority.
Weaknesses of aschs study
Lacks ecological validity - it was based on peoples’ perception of lines and so the findings cannot be generalised to real life as it does not reflect complexity of real life conformity
Lacks population validity due to sampling issues - For example, the participants were only American male undergraduates, and so the study was subject to gender bias, where it is assumed that findings from male participants can be generalised to females
Ethical issues:
- there was deception as participants were tricked into thinking the study was about perception rather than compliance so they could not give informed consent.
- There could have been psychological harm as the participants could have been embarrassed after realising the true aims of the study.
- Such issues simply mean that a cost-benefit analysis is required to evaluate whether the ethical costs are smaller than the benefits of increased knowledge of the field. They do not affect the validity or reliability of findings!
Lacked validity - The social context of the 1950s may have affected results. For example, Perrin and Spencer criticised the study by stating that the period that the experiment was conducted in influenced the results because it was an anti-Communist period in America when people were more scared to be different i.e. McCarthyism. Thus, the study can s be said to lack temporal validity because the findings cannot be generalised across all time periods.
What was zimbardos study and findings
Aim:to investigate how ppl conform to social roles in a stimulated environment
Procedure:basement of Stanford uni was made into a prison. Paid american student volunteers.enlisted role as guard or criminal and had to wear uniforms.Numbers as names. Given handcuffs n glasses to establish line between social roles.Acted like proper prisoners and guards had total power but no violence due to ethical guidelines.
Findings:identifications happened very fast and roles were adopted quickly.Guards started to harass and torment and found pleasure in it when asked ab later cuz of the power.prisoners would only talk about prison issues and not anything ab their life showing how real they believed it and no DC so can’t be acting . When guards became more demanding prisoners started to listen,this shows social roles became internalised quickly.
Strengths of zimbardos study
Real life applications - This research changed the way US prisons are run so young prisoners arent kept with adult prisoners to prevent the bad behaviour. Beehive-style prisons, where all cells are under constant surveillance from a monitoring unit, are also not used anymore, as it increases the effects of institutionalisation and over exaggerating the differences in social roles between prisoners and guards.
Debriefing - participants were fully and completely debriefed about the aims and results of the study. This is important when considering the BPS ethical guidelines of deception and informed consent had been breached. Dealing with ethical issues in this way makes the study more ethically acceptable, but does not change the quality (in terms of validity and reliability) of the findings.
The amount of ethical issues with the study led to the formal recognition or ethical guidelines so that future studies were safer and less harmful to participants due to legally bound rules. This demonstrates the practical application of an increased understanding of the mechanisms of conformity and the variables which affect this.
Weaknesses of Zimbardos study
Lacks ecological validity - The study suffered from demand characteristics. As, the participants knew that they were participating in a study and so may have changed their behaviour, to please the experimenter or in response to being observed (participant reactivity, which acts as a confounding variable). The participants also knew that the study was not real so they claimed that they simply acted like that because it was their role and they never truly adopted it. This was seen with qualitative data gathered from an interview with one guard, who said that he based his performance from a guard role portrayed in a film further reducing the validity of the findings.
Lacks population validity - The sample only consisted of American male students and so the findings cannot be generalised to other genders and cultures. For example, collectivist cultures, such as China or Japan, may be more conformist to their prescribed social roles because such cultures value the needs of the group over the needs of the individual. This suggests that such findings may be culture-bound!
Ethical issues:
Lack of fully informed consent due to the deception required to (theoretically) avoid demand characteristics and participant reactivity.
However Zimbardo himself did not know what was going to happen, so could not inform the participants, meaning that there is possible justification for a breach of ethical guidelines.
Psychological harm - Participants were not protected from stress, anxiety, emotional distress and embarrassment e.g. one prisoner had to be released due to excess distress and uncontrollable screaming and crying. One prisoner was released on the first day due to showing signs of psychological disturbance, with 2 more being released on the next day. This study would be be unacceptable according to modern ethical standards.
What’s milgrams study and findings
Aim- to observe if ppl would obey a fig of authority when told to harm somebody
Procedure:ppt given role of teacher and actor given role of learner. Done through random allocation.ppt had to ask actor questions.if they got it wrong or silent ppt has to give a shock which varied from 300-450v.shocks weren’t real obvs and ppts were assessed on how many volts they were willing.experimenter had to give prods to ppts when they refused to schock and went more demanding to convince em.
Findings -all ppts went upto 300V and 65% went upto 450V.Shows vast majority were willing to give shocks due to obedience
Factors affecting obedience in zimbardos study
Proximity-ppts obeyed more when experimenter was in same room,it reduced to 40 when in seperate and to 30 when in touch proximity
Location-when it was at a bougie uni they obeyed more.This location demands obedience and increases trust ppts place in experiment
Uniform-ppts obeyed more when experimenter wore labcoat.gives higher status and legitimacy of authority.demand characteristics came out as ppts figured out the technique of deception
Strengths of zimbardos study
Debriefing - The participants were carefully debriefed on the real aims of the study, to deal with the ethical breach of the guideline of protection from deception and to give informed consent. In a follow up study conducted a year later, 84% of participants were glad they were part of the study and 74% felt as if they learned something. This suggests that the study left little or no permanent or long-term psychological harm on participants.
Real life applications - This research opened our eyes to the problem of obedience and can reduce future obedience in response to destructive authority figures e.g. obedience has resulted in negative social change - the Nazis obeyed orders and as a result, Hitler managed to get what he wanted. Shows us why people were so willing to kill innocent Jews simply when told to, and so highlights how we can all easily be victims to such pressures. useful in establishing social order and moral behaviours.
High in internal validity - Gina Perry reviewed the interview tapes and found that a significant number of participants raised questions about the legitimacy of the electric shocks. However, quantitative data gathered by Milgram directly suggested that 70% of participants believed that the shocks were real - thiss suggests that although the findings were certainly surprising, they were also likely to be acqurate.
Highly replicable - The procedure has been repeated all over the world, where consistent and similar obedience levels have been found. Such replication increases the reliability of the findings.
External validity has been established by supporting studies - Hofling et al observed the behaviour of doctors and nurses in a natural experiment (covert observation). The researchers found that 95% of nurses in a hospital obeyed a doctor (confederate) over the phone to increase the dosage of a patient’s medicine to double what is advised on the bottle. This suggests that
‘everyday’ individuals are still susceptible to obeying destructive authority figs
Weaknesses of zimbardos study
Ethical issues:
- There was deception as informed consent not obtained. This deception justified by the aim of avoiding demand characteristics like ppt reactivity
- There was psychological harm inflicted upon the participants - They showed signs of psychological and physiological distress such as trembling, sweating and nervous laughter. Such findings were also replicated in the Jeu de la Mort study, showing that these results were not simps due to participant variables/differences.
- It raises a socially sensitive issue - Milgram’s findings suggest that those who are responsible for killing innocent people can be excused because it is not their personality that made them do this, but it is because of the situation that they were in and the fact that it is difficult to disobey
- Lack of internal validity - The experiment may have been about trust rather than about obedience because the experiment was held at Stanford University. Therefore, the participants may have trusted that nothing serious would happen to the confederate, considering the immense prestige of the location.
.
- Lack of ecological validity - The tasks given to participants are not like those we would encounter in real life e.g. shooting somebody in the face is different from flicking a switch, meaning that the method lacks mundane realism, producing results which are low in ecological validity.
Explanations for obedience
Legitimacy of authority and agentic state
What’s agentic state
A mental state where a person believes someone else will take responsibility for their own actions.They shift from an autonomous state(being free) to agentic is the agentic shift.and agentic theory is ppl will more likely obey when in agentic state as they don’t think theylle suffer consequences of actions. Done by binding factors where they w shift blame or deny
What’s legitimacy of authority
How credible authority figure is.more credible when seen as right and legitimate.in milgrams study the ppts saw scientist as credible cuz of his position and thinks they’re knowledgable and cuz of his role in experiment(at top).
When was destructive authority shown in milgrams study and why was it bad
When experimenter gave prods to teacher making them go out their consciences to do bad things cuz of their legitimacy
What supports the obedience explanation
Blass and schmidt showed students milgrams study and asked them to choose who’s responsible. They picked scientist due to legitimacy of authority and expert authority cuz it’s his responsibility so they recognised LOA supporting reason for obedience
