Social Influence
- Created by: EquiEllie
- Created on: 12-12-16 09:36
View mindmap
- Social Influence
- Obedience
- Milgram (1963)
- Participents were being tested on their ability to follow orders
- Particpents were told it was a study into how punishment affects learning
- There were two confederates: the experimenter and the 'learner'
- The subject was 'randomly' assigned the role as 'teacher'
- The teacher was required to test the learner on his ability to remeber word pairs
- For every wrong answer given, the teacher had to give the learner an electric shock
- The voltage of the shocks went up each time in 15 volt steps (from 15v to 450v)
- If the teacher ask to stop, the experimenter had a series of 'prods' to repeat
- "It is absolutely essential that you continue"
- "You have no other choice, you must go on"
- Professionals predicted that very few would go beyond 150v
- They said only 1 in a 1000 would go to 450v
- However, the study revealed the 26 out of 40 (65%) participants went to 450v
- Despite the fact that they had been told that 450v was leathal
- All participants went up to 300v
- Only 5 (12,5%) stopped there
- Evaluation
- Strengths
- Untitled
- Weaknesses
- Ethical Issues
- Lack of informed consent
- Psychological damage to subjects?
- No right to withdraw
- Lack of Realism
- Some participants doubted that the shocks were real
- Some participants have learned to be skeptical of the experimenter as they know information can be withheld from them
- The experimenter remained un-bothered by the cries of pain from the learner
- This lead some subject to question the reality of the experiment
- Ethical Issues
- Strengths
- Factors
- Proximity (as shown in Milgram's study)
- When the experimenter left the room obedience dropped to 21%
- When the learner was in the same room as the teacher obedience dropped to 40%
- When the teacher held the learners hand on a metal plate obedience dropped to 30%
- The closer you are to an authority figure, the more likely you are to obey them
- Location ( as shown in Milgram's study)
- When the study was relocated to a run down office obedience dropped to 48%
- The more formal the setting the more likely you are to obey orers
- Uniform (as shown in Milgram's study)
- If the experimenter was dressed in 'normal' clothes obedience dropped to 20%
- The more formally the authority figure is dresed, the more likely you are to obey orders
- Proximity (as shown in Milgram's study)
- Explanations
- Untitled
- Milgram (1963)
- Conformity
- Factors
- Normative Influence
- Change in behaviour to mimic the majority
- Because we want to fit in
- Schultz (2008)
- Gathered data from 132 hotels and 794 hotel rooms
- Rooms either assigned to a control or experimental group
- Control: informed guests of the benefits to the environment if they reused their towels
- Experimental: in addition to the message about the environment, guest were also informed that 75% of guests chose to reuse their towels
- Results showed that, in comparison to the control group, the experimental group reduced their need for towels by 25%
- Demonstrated the power of normative influence
- Informational Influence
- Change in behaviour or attitudes when we are unsure of the situation
- We follow others whom we perceive to have more knowledge than us
- When the situation is ambiguous
- Fein (2007)
- Supported the role of informational influence in political opinion
- Showed how judgements of candidate performace could be influenced by the mere knowledge of others' reactions
- Participants saw the reaction of others during the debate
- What they saw (good/bad reactions) produced large shifts in participants judgement of the candidates performance
- Demonstrated the power of informational influence
- Informational Influence
- Normative Influence
- Asch (1951)
- Told participants the task was about visual discrimination
- Participants took turns in calling out answers
- Only one participant was a real subject
- On 12 out of 18 trials the confederates all gave the same wrong answer
- Individual Differences
- 25% didn't conform at all
- 20% conformed between 1 and 5 times
- 50% conformed in 6 or mores trials
- 5% conformed on every trial
- Evaluation
- Weaknesses
- Lab based study; lacks ecological validity
- Not many people go home and look at lengths of lines
- 1950's America was a collectivist culture
- Individualist cultures have lower conformity rates
- More of a limitation than a weakness
- The results of the study show low levels of conformity
- 33% conformity rate shows more independent behaviour
- 25% did not conform at all
- Lab based study; lacks ecological validity
- Strengths
- The task was easy
- Conformity would have been obvious
- No ethical issues
- The task was easy
- Weaknesses
- Zimbardo (1973)
- Stanford Prison Study
- Aim
- To see what the effect of social roles was
- Could you change someones behaviour simply by assigning them a role
- Results
- Prisoners fell into line and began to obey guards
- Guards became sadistic and uncaring
- All participants began conforming to their given social roles
- Some appeared to forget that it was only a study
- Study terminated after 6 days; was supposed to be carried out for 14
- Method
- Mock prison was set up at Stanford University
- 24 male participants were selected to be either prisoners or guards
- Prisoners were given uniforms and ID numbers instead of names
- Guards were given uniforms and tools to demonstrate their power
- Evaluation
- Strengths
- Ecological Validity
- Zimbardo argued that the same conformity to social roles could be seen in Abu Ghraib
- Zimbardo suggests that situational factors ... are to blame in both instances for guards behaviour
- Lack of training
- No accountability to higher authority
- Unrelenting boredom
- He suggested that this could be linked into to real life senarios
- Ecological Validity
- Weaknesses
- Demand Characteristic
- Banuazzi and Movahedi (1975)
- Felt that the behaviour of participants was not due to conformity
- Some guards even admitted to 'playing a role'
- Banuazzi and Movahedi (1975)
- Ethical Issues
- Lack of informed consent
- There was a right to withdraw but many participants felt that it was not possible
- Psychological harm to both prisoners and guards
- Demand Characteristic
- Strengths
- Factors
- Unanimity
- When unanimity within the majority is diminished, people are less likely to conform
- When participant was given an ally, conformity dropped to 5.5%
- Group Size
- Little effect when majority consists of less than 3
- Size of majority is important... to a point
- No further increase in conformity after majority of 3 people
- Task Difficulty
- People are more likely to conform when unsure of the correct answer
- Conformity rates increase the more difficult a task is
- Informational Influence
- Unanimity
- Factors
- Key Terms
- Conformity
- Change in behaviour or opinions
- Result of real or imagined social pressure
- Compliance
- Change in public attitudes or behaviour
- Only when a majority group is present
- Private opinion remains the same
- Internalisation
- Permanent adoption of behaviour or attitudes
- Both public and private
- Belief that this is the right way to think or behave
- Idnetification
- Change in attitudes or behaviours to conform to a particular role
- Only lasts as long as the person identifies with the role
- Involves both internalisation and compliance
- Conformity
- Obedience
Comments
No comments have yet been made