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
      • 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
      • Explanations
        • Untitled
    • 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
      • 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
          • Strengths
            • The task was easy
              • Conformity would have been obvious
            • No ethical issues
      • 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
          • 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'
            • 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
      • 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
    • 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

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Psychology resources:

See all Psychology resources »See all Conformity resources »