Week 6-Social Influence Flashcards
(39 cards)
Define Norms
Attitudes and behaviours that define group membership and
differentiate between groups.
Define Social Influence
Process whereby attitudes and behaviour are influenced by
the real or implied presence of other people.
Define Compliance
Superficial, public change in behaviour and expressed
attitudes in response to requests, coercion or group pressure.
Define Obedience
Compliance with another’s authority
What procedure did Stanley Milgram (1974) do on obedience?
■Teacher (participant) and a learner (confederate)
■Learner had to remember and recall a list of paired associates
■Teacher administered an electric shock to the learner after every error made.
■Teacher administered progressively larger shocks to the learner.
■Shocks were fake however
Define the agentic state
-Unquestioning obedience in which personal responsibility is transferred to the person giving order
-Milgram (1963) – people are socialised to respect authority
What 3 factors influence obedience?
1.Sunk Cost Fallacy (Foot-in-the-door-technique of persuasion)
2.Immediacy of the victim
3.Immediacy of authority figure
How does immediacy of the victim influence obedience?
Milgram (1974)
■When victim was neither seen nor heard – 100%
■When the victim was visible (in the same room) – 40%
■When the teacher had to hold victims hand down – 30%
■ ↑ immediacy of victim may prevent dehumanisation of victim
How does immediacy of authority figure influence obedience
–When experimenter relayed instructions via telephone=20.5%
– When no orders were given at all=2.5%
–Presence of two disobedient peers=10%
–Presence of two obedient peers =92.5%
What’s conformity?
–Deep-seated private and enduring change in behavior and attitudes due to group pressure.
■Social influence can also operate in a less direct manner, through
conformity to social or group norms
What’s the convergence effect (Sherif, 1936)?
Linked with group norms: the need to be certain that behaviour is
correct and appropriate
What’s frame of reference?
Middle positions perceived to be more correct than fringe positions
– Allport (1924) – people in groups give less extreme judgements of
odours and weights in groups, as compared with when they are
alone
Do people still conform in
‘unambiguous’ situations?
■Sherif’s (1936) may have been considered ambiguous
–Participants likely felt uncertain regarding the level of movement – a norm arose and guided uncertain behaviour.
■Might it be true that if one is confident about what is appropriate and correct, then others’ behaviour will be irrelevant and less influential?
What was Asch’s (1951) procedure?
■Groups of seven to nine respondents
–Took it in turns in a fixed order to call aloud their response
–All were confederates except on naïve participant
■Participant always provided the penultimate response
–18 trials
■Confederates gave incorrect responses on 12 trials and correct responses on 6 trials.
What was Asch’s (1951) results?
■Control group – performed the same task privately
–1% of responses were incorrect – confirmation of unambiguity
■Main findings
–25% of naïve participants did not conform to confederates incorrect responses at all
–50% conformed to the erroneous majority on six or more trials
–5% conformed on all twelve erroneous trials
–Overall conformity rate of 33%
Why did participants conform in Asch’s study?
■Feelings of uncertainty and self-doubt
–Evolving into self-consciousness, feelings of anxiety
■Many participants knew that they saw differently to how the group responded
–This led to some doubting themselves
–Others believed they were correct but went with the majority to avoid standing out.
■Self-presentational concerns
■Neuroimaging data show stronger amygdala response to
nonconformity (Berns, Chappelow, Zink, Pagnoni, Martin-Skurski,
& Richard, 2005)
What variations were there of Asch’s task?
■Incorrect majority responded publicly but participant wrote their response down privately – 12.5% conformity rate
■Deutsch and Gerard (1955) 3 conditions:
1.Responded face-to-face with three confederates
2.Responded anonymously and privately in a cubicle
3.Responded face-to-face with confederates and was told to be as accurate as possible.
–Subjective certainty was also manipulated
■ Half of the participants responded whilst the stimulus was present
■ Half of the participants responded after the stimulus had been removed
(increased uncertainty)
What Individual and Group Characteristics are there of Conformity?
■Lack of expertise/familiarity may increase conformity (Sistruck and McDavid (1971))
■Males and females faced group pressures in identifying various stimuli
Stimuli were either:
■Typically masculine
■Typically feminine
■Neutral.
Individual and group characteristics of conformity: How can cultural variation affect it?
–Individualist vs collectivist cultures
■Bond and Smith (1996): Meta-analysis of the Asch paradigm in 17 countries
–People who score high on Hofstede’s (1980) collectivism scale conform more than people who score low.
–Conformity may be more favourable in collectivist cultures
■Acting as a form of social glue.
What situational factors are there in conformity?
■Group Size Asch (1952): as the unanimous group increased, conformity increased.
■Group unanimity:
–Conformity rates are significantly reduced if the majority is not unanimous
–Presence of a correct reporter – reduces conformity from 33% to 5.5%
What’s informational influence?
Accepting information from another as evidence about reality and affects us when we are uncertain:
■Ambiguity
■Social Disagreement
–Likely present in Sherif’s (1936) study
What’s Normative Influence?
To conform to the positive expectation of others to gain approval or avoid social disapproval. (Likely present in Asch’s (1951) experiments)
How did Herman, Roth, and Polivy (2003) investigate conformity in eating?
–Significant concern for most people is not being seen to eat
excessively.
■Often negative stereotypes have been applied to those who eat excessively.
■Eaters may then take care to ensure that their food intake is not
perceived as excessive.
–People might engage in social comparison to avoid this.
How’s the dual-process model of social influence an oversimplification?
More to social influence than only normative and informational forces