Social Influence

?
  • Created by: Jesssully
  • Created on: 29-01-18 20:44

Types of Conformity

Kelman suggested that there are three ways in which people conform to a majority's opinion:

  • Internalisation- conformity due to genuinely accepting a groups norms. They have both a private and public change of opinions/attitudes even in the absence of group(have become internalised).

  • Identification- conformity due to valuing something about the group, and identifying with the group, thus wanting to be a part of it. They have a public change of opinions to achieve this goal, but may not privately agree with everything the group stands for.

  • Compliance- conforming by simply 'going along with others' in public. They have no private change of opinions and/or behaviours. This is a superficial change, as opinions/behaviours stop when the pressure group stops.
1 of 11

Explanations for conformity- Deutsch&Gerard

ISI- conformity due to believing the majority is right/has better information and is a cognitive process. Mostly occurs in new/uncertain situations, with experts, or in a crisis.
Supporting research-Lucas et al- gave math problems to students,  more difficult ones had a greater conformity to incorrect answers, especially those with poor self-ratings of mathematical ability.  Shows people conform when they are uncertain and don’t know the answer.

NSI-conformity due to wanting to be liked/accepted by a group by following their norms, and is an emotional process. Mostly occurs when fearing rejection by strangers, needing social approval from friends or in stressful situations where someone needs social support. 
Supporting research-Asch’s study-participants reported giving incorrect answer due to being afraid of disproval, therefore when the test was repeated, with participants instead writing down answers instead of calling them out, conformity dropped to 12.5%
Individual differences- McGhee&Teevan-those less concerned about being liked are less affected by NSI, compared to people who care more(nAffiliators). They have a high need for affiliation, thus are more likely to conform, showing individual desire to be liked, changes the way people respond.

ISI&NSI-Asch’s experiment-conformity reduced with a dissenting participant, reduced both powers of NSI, (dissenter provides social support) and ISI (alternate source of information). This shows that you can't be sure whether NSI or ISI is at work, meaning the study should be treated with caution.

2 of 11

Asch’s Research into conformity

  • Procedure- participants shown 2 cards, one with 3 lines, two of which were substantially different to the ‘standard’ line on the second card. 123 American male students were tested with a group of 6 and 8 confederates, giving correct answers at first but then giving the same wrong answers.

  • Findings- participants gave the wrong answer 36.8% of the time, 75% of participants conformed at least once. In an interview afterwards, participants said they conformed to avoid rejection(NSI)

  • Variations:
    ⚬Group size- with 3 confederates, conformity rose to 31.8%, but additional confederates made little difference, therefore no need for a majority of more than 3.
    ⚬Unanimity- a confederate disagreed with others, and sometimes gave the correct answer reduced conformity by a quarter, therefore the influence of the majority depends on group unanimity.
    ⚬Task difficulty-made the task harder by making comparison lines more similar to the standard line, causing conformity to increase, suggesting that ISI plays a greater role when the task is harder.
3 of 11

A03 of Asch’s Research

Conflicting evidence-Perrin&Spencer repeated Asch’s study in England using engineering students. 1 student conformed out of 396 trials, possibly due to the students being more confident, or the 1950s being a particular conformist time, especially in America. Whereas today people tend to be less conformist. This shows the research was only significant at the time and is therefore not a fundamental feature of human behaviour.  

Methodological issues-lacks validity-situation/task artificial highly controlled lab. Participants knew they were part of a research study, therefore the study may have demand characteristics. Also, the task is relatively trivial as the participants had no reason not to conform as groups didn't resemble those from everyday situations. The findings can’t be generalised to everyday situations, lacking ecological validity.

Limited applications-culturally biased-Asch only tested his theory in America, an individualist culture. Similar studies conducted in collectivist cultures such as China have been found to have higher conformity rates. Also, the study has a gender bias, and other research by Neto 1995 suggests women may be more conformist than men. Due to differing levels of conformity, it shows Asch's study lacks understanding of conformity and should be treated with caution.

Ethical issues-participants deceived by Confederates, but need to weigh benefits gained against the costs.

4 of 11

Conformity to social roles-Zimbardo

Zimbardo's Stanford prison experiment:

 Procedure- mock prison set up in the basement of the psychology department at Stanford University and used volunteer sample of students, selecting those deemed 'emotionally stable' after psychological tests. Each student was randomly assigned to the roles of prisoners and guards. To increase reality, prisoners were arrested at their homes by local police and taken to the prison while blindfolded. Social roles were clearly divided by uniforms worn by both the prisoners and guards, and the guards were granted complete power over the prisoners.

Findings- everyone conformed to their roles within the prison, which were easily taken on by all participants who acted as though they were in a real prison, rather than being part of a psychological study. However, the study had to be stopped after 6 days out of the intended 14, as guards became a threat to prisoner’s psychological and physical health as they displayed sadistic enjoyment of aggressive behaviour and harassment towards prisoners. For example, guards conducted frequent headcounts (sometimes in the middle of the night) when prisoners had to line up and call out their numbers. One participant had to be released after the first day due to showing psychological disturbance, with 2 more being released on day 4. 

5 of 11

Stanford prison experiment AO3

Methodological strengths-high control over variables, e.g. selection of participants, (based on emotional stability) then randomly assigned to the roles of prisoner or guard. This rules out individual personality differences to explain findings, as behaviour then must have been due to pressures of the situation. Thus, the study has good internal validity and is useful in explaining the influence of roles on behaviour. 

Lacks Realism- Banuazizi& Mohavedi- participants weren’t conforming to their roles, and instead, play acting. Their performances were stereotypical prisoners and guards, with one guard claiming he based his role on a brutal character from a film, which may explain the rioting as they believed this is what they do.
However, quantitative data gathered showed that 90% of prisoner’s conversations were about prison life and prisoner 416 even discussed how the prison was real, but instead run by psychologists. Therefore, the situation seemed real to the participants, giving the study a high degree of internal validity.

Dispositional Influences-Fromm-accused Zimbardo of exaggerating the power of the situation to influence behaviour, minimising the role of personality factors- only 1/3 of guards behaved in a brutal manner, 1/3 applied rules fairly, the rest tried to help and support prisoners-suggests conclusion may be over-stated, guards were able to exercise right and wrong choices.

Ethical issues-caused by Z's dual-role, a student wanting to leave the study spoke to Z while in the superintendent role who acted as such by expressing his concern over the running of his prison, rather than a researcher with responsibility for his participants

6 of 11

Obedience - Milgram's Research

Procedure:
 
40 male participants 20-50years old, with jobs both unskilled and professional-recruited through adverts for a study on memory, offered $4.50 to take part. There was a rigged draw for the role, the confederate was always the learner, participants the teacher. Learner strapped to a chair, wired with electrodes, teacher shocked them for every wrong answer. The task was to do with word pairs. Shocks ranged from 15volts to 450volts (labelled 'danger severe shock'). At 300v, learner banged on the wall and didn't answer next question- after 315v, banged again, not giving any responses after this. The teacher was given a standard instruction 'An absence of response should be treated as a wrong answer'. the experimenter would use 1 of 4 prods if the participant was hesitant: 'please continue', 'the experiment requires you to continue', 'it is absolutely essential that you continue' and 'you have no other choice, you must go on'.

Findings: 
No ppts stopped below 300v, 12.5% stopped at 300v and 65% continued to 450v. 
Qualitative data was collected - observations saw participants showed signs of extreme tension; sweat, trembling, stutters, groaning etc, with 3 ppts having 'full-blown uncontrollable seizures'.
Prior to the study, 14 psychology students to predicted that no more than 3% of pts would go to 450v. 
All ppts were debriefed and assured their behaviour was normal. A follow-up questionnaire was also sent around after the experiment - 84% of ppts felt glad they had participated in the study.

7 of 11

A03 of Milgram's Research

Low Internal Validity: Orne&Holland-participants only obeyed because they didn't really believe the setup, and/or guessed that the electric shocks weren't real, thus the experiment didn't test what was intended. Perry- listened to tapes of Milgram’s participants, many expressed doubts that the shocks were real. However, supporting research-Sheridan& King-found 54% of males and 100% of females gave real 'fatal' shocks to puppies. This suggests the behaviours in M's study were genuine as people reacted the same with real shocks. M reported that 70% of his participants said they believed the shocks were real.

Good External Validity- M-lab setting accurately reflected wider authority relationships, Hofling et al research supports this-studied nurses and found that 21/22 nurses obeyed unjustified demands from a doctor. This suggests that M's study can be generalised to other situations, and his findings are valuable in explaining how obedience operates in real life- ecological validity, practical applications.

Supporting Research-Le Jehu de la Mort (The Game of Death) is a documentary about reality TV which included a replication of M's study. Participants believed they were contestants in a pilot episode for a new game show and were paid to give (fake) electric shocks, to other ppts (actually actors) in front of a studio audience.  80% of ppts gave the maximum 460v shock to an unconscious man. Extremely identical to M's study; participants displayed signs of anxiety e.g. nervous laughter, nail-biting etc. Concludes M's findings weren't a one-off, chance occurrence.

Ethical issues- Baumring-extremely critical of how M deceived participants, as he led them to believe the role allocation was random. More significantly, participants believed the electric shocks were real. She objected as she saw deception as a betrayal of trust, which could damage the reputation of psychologists and their research. 

8 of 11

Obedience - Situational Variables

⚬Uniform- in the original study the experimenter wore a grey lab coat as a sign of authority whereas in the variation, the experimenter was called away to a telephone call and the role was taken over by an 'ordinary member of the public' in everyday clothes and the obedience rate dropped to 20%, the lowest of all the variations.
Lack of Internal Validity-extra manipulation-more likely for participants to realise shocks are fake, M recognised 'member of the public' was contrived, so some ppts may have worked out the truth. Thus, unclear whether results are actually due to an operation of obedience or because the ppts saw through the deception and acted accordingly.
Supporting research-Bickman-field experiment-3 confederates with 3 outfits; jacket&tie, milkman, and security guard. Confederates asked passers-by in a street to perform tasks e.g. picking up litter-people twice as likely to obey the security guard than the one dressed in a jacket&tie. Supports M's conclusion about uniform conveying authority.
⚬Proximity- when the teacher and learner were in the same room, obedience rate dropped from 65% to 40%
'Touch proximity'- when the teacher had to force learner's hand onto an 'electroshock plate', obedience dropped to 30%
Another proximity variation- when experimenter left the room and gave instructions over the phone, obedience rate dropped again to 20.5%. Participants also pretended to give shocks or gave weaker ones than they were supposed to.
⚬Location- the study was originally based at Yale University, a prestigious setting- when repeated in a run-down building, the experimenter had less authority in the situation and obedience rates dropped to 47.5%

Findings have been replicated in other cultures. Miranda et al found an obedience rate of over 90% amongst Spanish students- the conclusions aren't limited to American males. Smith and Bond-most replications are in western, developed societies- culturally not that different to the USA, so premature to conclude M's findings on variables apply to people everywhere.
Methodological strengths-systematically altered one variable at a time, testing the individual effect without changing other variables, accumulated over 1000 participants in total.

9 of 11

Obedience- Social-Psychological Factors

Milgram became interested in the trial of Eichmann (1961), who oversaw Nazi death camps and his defence was that he was only obeying orders. Therefore, M proposed that obedience to destructive authority occurs as the individual doesn’t take responsibility.  However, agents experience high anxiety; know they’re doing wrong but feel powerless to disobey.

  • Autonomous State-autonomy means independent or free, thus able to behave according to their own principles and feels a sense of responsibility for actions.

  • Agentic shift-from autonomy to agency. M-occurs when a person perceives someone else as a figure of authority - a person has greater power due to their position in the social hierarchy. Usually occurs in social groups when someone leads, others shift to agency.

  • Binding factors- M raised the question of why people stay in the agentic state – many of his ppts said they wanted to quit but seemed unable to do so. Binding factors are an aspect of a situation that allows the person to ignore/minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour, reducing ‘moral strain'. Strategies e.g. shifting responsibility to the victim (foolish for volunteering) or denying damage to the victim.

  • Legitimacy of Authority-Most societies structured in a hierarchical way, thus people in certain positions hold authority over others. Power is legitimised because society agrees it’s necessary for smooth running. Consequently, some people are granted power to punish others, e.g. the police and courts have the power to punish criminals. People are willing to give up independence by handing over control. Acceptance of authority is learned in childhood from parents and teachers/adults.

  • Destructive Authority-where problems arise. History has shown that powerful leaders can use their legitimate powers for destructive purposes such as by ordering people to behave in ways that are cruel, stupid and dangerous. Milgram's study shows this as the experimenter used prods to make the ppt do something they didn't want to.
10 of 11

A03 of social-psychological factors

Supporting research-Blass and Schmitt (2001) showed a film of M’s study to students, asking who they felt was responsible for the harm to the learner. They blamed the experimenter rather than the participant, and the responsibility was of the legitimate(experimenter) and expert authority(scientist)

A Limited Explanation- doesn't explain why some participants didn't obey in M study.  Also, the agentic state doesn’t explain findings from Hofling et al's study with nurses- handed over responsibility to the doctor, but they didn’t show anxiety like M's participants. This suggests at the most agentic shift can only account for some situations of obedience. Lack of validity and understanding.

Cultural Differences-LOA is useful for explaining cultural differences in obedience. M's study was replicated by Kilham and Mann (1974) in Australia, with only 16% going to the full 450v shock. Whereas Mantell (1971) found a very different figure for Germany - 85%. This shows that in some cultures authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimate, reflecting the ways that different societies are structured and how children are raised to perceive authority figures. Findings increase the validity of socially created norms of authority.

Real-life examples- the My Lai massacre can be explained by the agentic state and legitimacy of authority as American soldiers killed unarmed civilians, gang-***** women, and killed all animals in the village in Vietnam. Only one soldier was charged, and his defence was that he was just following orders. Valid, credible good understanding. 

11 of 11

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Psychology resources:

See all Psychology resources »See all Social Influence resources »