TOPIC: SOCIAL INFLUENCE Flashcards
(16 cards)
SOCIAL INFLUENCE
CONFORMITY: What is conformity ?
A type of social influence where a person changes their attitude or behaviour in response to group pressure
SOCIAL INFLUENCE
TYPES OF CONFORMITY : What is internalisation ?
- Is the deepest level of comformity
- The beliefs of a group are taken on and become a permanent part of that person’s world view
SOCIAL INFLUENCE
TYPES OF CONFORMITY: What is identification ?
- A deeper form of conformity
- When an individual changes their private views as well as their public behaviour to fit in with a group they admire but it is probably temporary.
SOCIAL INFLUENCE
TYPES OF CONFORMITY: What is compliance ?
- Compliance is the lowest form of conformity
- This is when you going along with another person view while privately disagreeing with them
SOCIAL INFLUENCE
EXPLANATION - CONFORMITY: What is informational social influence ? ( ISI )
- We need to be right to so when we are uncertain we look to others - leads to internalisation (private and public acceptance/ agreement)
( Ambiguity ) - being open to more than one interpretation
SOCIAL INFLUENCE
EXPLANATION - CONFORMITY: What is normative social influence ? ( NSI )
- The need to be accepted by others to avoid rejection - leads to compliance ( private disagreement/ public agreement )
SOCIAL INFLUENCE
CONFORMITY ( to social roles ) : RESEARCHER - ZIMBARDO ( 1971 )
Explain his procedure and his results
PROCEDURE:
- Took place in the basement building of Standford University
- There were 25 male volunteers and this was a study into “prison life”
- All participants were healthy and this is a good example of control. Moreover, each “guard” or “prisoner” were allocated at random. Also, local police were recruited
- “Prisoners” were given numbers to memorize which deinvindualizes them and they were refered to by this number and supervised all the time which causes dehumanisation
- The guards were given work shifts and they would have to line up the prisoners to be counted
- In addition, the guards wore khaki shirts and trousers, dark glasses and carried wooded baltons
- There are no IVs in this study, as it was a controlled observation which used laboratory settings ( but as no IVs were present nor manipulated, it isn’t classed as a lab experiment )
RESULTS:
- The guards took to their roles with such zeal that the the study had to be discontinued after six days
- And some prisoners exhibited passive behaviour, depression, crying and anxiety, somatic symptoms
SOCIAL INFLUENCE
Zimbardo - EVALUATION
Furthermore, individual differences and personality also determine the extent to which a person conforms to social roles. In Zimbardo’s original experiment the behaviour of the guards varied dramatically, from extremely sadistic behaviour to a few good guards who helped the prisoners. This suggests that situational factors are not the only cause of conformity to social roles and dispositional factors also play a role.
Zimbardo’s experiment has been heavily criticised for breaking many ethical guidelines, in particular, protection from harm. Five of the prisoners left the experiment early because of their adverse reactions to the physical and mental torment. Furthermore, some of the guards reported feelings of anxiety and guilt, as a result of their actions during the Stanford Prison Experiment. Although Zimbardo followed the ethical guidelines of Stanford University and debriefed his participants afterwards, he acknowledged that the study should have been stopped earlier.
A recent replication of the Stanford Prison Experiment, carried out by Reicher and Haslam (2006), contradicts the findings of Zimbardo.
Reicher and Haslam replicated Zimbardo’s research by randomly assigning 15 men to the role of prisoner or guard. In this replication, the participants did not conform to their social roles automatically. For example, the guards did not identify with their status and refused to impose their authority; the prisoners identified as a group to challenge the guard’s authority, which resulted in a shift of power and a collapse of the prison system. These results clearly contradict the findings of Zimbardo and suggest that conformity to social roles may not automatic, as Zimbardo originally implied.
SOCIAL INFLUENCE
Describe Solomon Asch experiment
AIMS: The extent to which social pressure form a majority group could affect a person to conform
SAMPLE: 123 male participants - 50 male students
METHOD: Used a lab experiment to sudy conformity
Using a line judgement
Asch pit a naive participant in a room with seven confederates who had agreed in advance what their response would be
Each person in the room had to state aloud which comparison line, and then after a while the confederates gave the incorrect answers
18 trias took place and within 12 trails the confederates gave the wrong answer
RESULTS: Over the 12 trials, 75% of ppts conformed at least once, 25% of ppts never conformed
Control group –> With no pressure to conform to confederates, less than 1% of ppts gave the wrong answer
SOCIAL INFLUENCE
What did Solomon Asch concluded about his results?
most of them did not believe their conforming answers, but had gone along with the groups for fear of being ridiculed or thought ‘ perculia’
a few of them said that they did believe the groupps answers were correct
TWO MAIN REASONS:
because they want to fit in with the group
and because they believe the group is better informed than they are
SOCIAL INFLUENCE
What are the strenghts and weakness of Solomon Asch experiment?
STRENGTHS:
provides insight into the process that controls the influence of the group
WEAKNESSES:
used an artificial task to measure conformity
lacks population validity
low ecological validity
biased sample
SOCIAL INFLUENCE:
EVALUATION : Solomon Asch
Generalisability : Asch’s sample consisted of only male, American students, limiting the findings’ generalisability to the wider population and might not reflect conformity across cultures. The US is an individualist culture; it can be argued that the degree of conformity would be higher in collectivist cultures that have a greater emphasis on the group. It’s also possible that conformity differs in women compared to men, as women in many cultures can be more oriented towards maintaining social relationships. ( CONS )
Validity of findings: Asch’s conformity study was a laboratory experiment, which allowed to control of potential confounding variables and therefore has high internal validity and minimal issues with extraneous variables. However, it has been criticised for low ecological validity. The task used is artificial and quite different from how we experience conformity in our daily lives. ( PROS )
Conformity is far more complex than Asch suggests. For example, Lucas et al, found that people confirm in situations where they feel they don’t know the answer, which is exactly the outcome predicited by the ISI explanation. This means that we look to people and assume they know better than us and must be right. ( CON )
The first ethical issue to consider concerning Asch’s experiment is the use of deception. Participants were deceived about the character of the study (they thought they were taking part in a visual test experiment) and about the other group members (they thought the confederates were real participants). While deceiving participants is unethical, it can be argued it was necessary for conducting this environment. If participants knew the study investigated conformity and they were the only subject, they wouldn’t conform. ( PRO/ CON )
SOCIAL INFLUENCE
AO1 - ISI and NSI conformity
Conformity is the tendency to change what we think, do or say in response to influence of pressure from others.
In terms of explanations for conformity, social psychologists suggest we have psychological needs which lead to conformity: (1) ISI (2) NSI.
Deutsch and Gerard (1955) proposed a two process theory which suggests there are two main reasons as to why we conform: (1) the need to be liked (2) the need to be right.
Normative social influence is when we agree with the majority to fit in and be liked even though we may disagree.
Informational social influence is when we look to the majority for information as we are unsure of how to behave
SOCIAL INFLUENCE
AO3 - EVALUATION OF NSI AND ISI
PEEL #1 - RESEARCH SUPPORT FOR ISI
there is research to support the definition of informational social influence, showing how it’s explanation is correct. This can be shown through Lucas et al (2006) who conducted an experiment with a group of students and gave them mathematical problems ranging from easy to difficult. The results showed greater conformity with incorrect answers on difficult questions. This was more common for those who rated their mathematical ability as poor. This shows how people conform under situations where they do not know the answer, which is the exact definition of ISI.
SOCIAL INFLUENCE
AO3 - EVALUATION OF NSI AND ISI
PEEL #2 - INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES FOR NSI
There has been research conducted which contradicts the definition of NSI and suggests that not everyone behaves the same way. An example of this would be how some people may not worry about other people’s perception of them and therefore are less affected by NSI. Such people are called nAffiliators - people who do not have an increasing need to be affiliated - have a relationship with others. This shows how NSI does not affect everyone in the same way and shows how the desire to be liked underlies conformity as it is greater for some than others.
SOCIAL INFLUENCE
AO3 - EVALUATION OF NSI AND ISI
PEEL #3 - NSI AND ISI WORK TOGETHER
The idea of Deutsch and Gerard’s two-process approach is that ISI and NSI work separately, however, more often than not, both processes work together. For example, in Asch’s line study, adding a dissenting participant decreased conformity rates. This could be due to it decreasing the power of NSI as there is an increase in social support, or it could be decreasing the power of ISI as there is an alternative source of information. This shows how it is difficult to tell whether ISI or NSI are at work. This casts doubt over the idea of NSI and ISI working independently as forms of conforming behaviour.
