Social Influence

  • Created by: Tigs22
  • Created on: 23-05-18 17:40
What is conformity?
The convergence of an individual's thoughts, feelings or behaviours towards a group norm.
1 of 80
What are the types of conformity?
Internalisation(own private beliefs change), Identification(identify with group so publically conform), Compliance(go along with others- superficial)
2 of 80
Two explanations of conformity
Normative social influence, Informational Social influence
3 of 80
What is Normative social influence?
Conforming to gain social approval or acceptance, yielding to group pressure, to avoid rejection. EMOTIONAL
4 of 80
Informational Social influence
When you lack knowledge and unsure how to act- occurs in ambiguous situations, COGNITIVE
5 of 80
Study of ambiguity
SHERIF- used autokinetic effect (sport of light in dark room seems to move). Asked ppts how far it moved (cm). Alone: varied 20-80cm. Groups of 3 w/2 similar answers and one diff: 1 diff changed answer
6 of 80
Eval of ISI and NSI
GOOD- research support of ISI and NSI. BAD-individual differences- nAffiliators don't feel the need to conform so it depends on the person. NSI&ISI often happen together in real life- hard to distinguish, lab experiments
7 of 80
Study of ISI
LUCAS ET AL- students given easy or difficult maths questions, more conformity on harder qs.
8 of 80
Study of NSI
ASCH(1951)-123 male american undergrad ppts shown 2 cards. one=standard line one=3 different comparison lines. obvious correct line. group=6confeds, 1naive ppt. confeds got qs right at start, then started to lie, all giving same wrong answer(12/18qs)
9 of 80
Results
Ppts conformed to 36.8% of qs. 75% conformed at least once. When debreifed, ppts said they did it due to NSI.
10 of 80
What were Asch's 3 variations?
Group size, Unanimity, task difficulty
11 of 80
Group size
When majority was 2 or 3, low conformity. 3 or more = 30% increase
12 of 80
Unanimity
If there is one dissenter, conformity decreases to 5%
13 of 80
Task difficulty
When lines were more similar, conformity rose -ISI. those w/more self-efficacy less likely to conform.(engineering students)
14 of 80
Eval of Asch
Temporal validity- carried out in conformist era (50s). Perrin&Spencer repeated in Uk- only 1/396 conformed. Artificial task & situation- demand characteristics, low ecological validity, ungeneralisable, sample bias
15 of 80
Eval
Cultural differences- western= individualist culture. studies in collectivist culture- more conformity. Ethics- deceived.
16 of 80
Conformity to social roles study and aim
Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment(1973)-testing situational hypothesis that people conform due to environment not dispoition
17 of 80
Sample
24,white,middle class, american males. chosen as the most mentally stable, mature and least antisocial out of 75 ppts- randomly assigned prisoner or guard
18 of 80
Prodecure
Guards breifed to 'maintain reasonable degree of order' 'simulate prison environment' 'within ethical considerations'-not allowed physical punishment/agression. Prisoners arrested at home, stripped, deloused, blindfolded, called by number.
19 of 80
Prodecure
Prisoner's daily routine heavily regulated, divided form guards, strict rules, guards controlled everything, even toilet and food and sleep.
20 of 80
Uniforms
Guards- khaki trousers and shirt, baton, cuffs, reflective shades. Prisoners- smocks, no underwear, lock and chain, stocking caps, shower shoes
21 of 80
effects of uniforms
prisoners- emasculation, loss of identity, deindividuation. Both- dehumanisation
22 of 80
Results
stopped after 6 days instead of 14. Guards punished and humiliated prisoners- threatened their psychological health, suffered mental and emotional distress. Day 2-rebellion, guards fought back. 3rd day-acted passively and helplessly, depressed
23 of 80
Results
When one prisoner temporarily stopped from leaving- major psychological shift- pathological prisoner syndrome:one went insane and so left- got replaced- new one rebelled- others turned against him. Guards enjoyed power
24 of 80
Conclusion
proves situational hypothesis- occurred due to environment- in just 6 days
25 of 80
Positive Eval
Control- stable ppts. Realistic prison- mundane realism- arrested e.t.c.-found 90% convos about prison life- not outside
26 of 80
Negative eval
Just plat acting- stereotypes, cool hand luke- not conforming. Over exaggerated power of situation-only 1/2 guards aggressive. Ethics- protection of ppts, right to withdraw, humiliation, informed consent, sample bais,
27 of 80
Replication study
BBC study in 2013 Reicher&Haslam- different findings, prisoners took control and harrassed guards- guards didnt identify.
28 of 80
Zimbardo's arguments
Signed consent forms, stopped early, approved by navy, worth it for results
29 of 80
Obedience study
Milgram(1963)-test how far ppts will obey when they are causing harm. Method-40 male volunteers.20-50ys. Told it as a test of memory. Drew sticks (rigged) for role. Ppts always got teacher. Saw learner be rigged to shock machine.
30 of 80
procedure continued
ppts had to shock learner for every wrong answer (15v slight shock-450v danger severe). at 300v learner screamed and hit wall- then no response. Prods used if ppt unsure
31 of 80
What were the prods?
Please continue, the experiment requires you to continue, you must continue, you have no other choice
32 of 80
Results
100% went to 300v, 12.5% stopped at 300v. 65% went to 450V (2/3). Qualitative data: trembling, stutter, sweat, groan, 3 had seizures.
33 of 80
Positive eval
external validity- reflects real life authority. Mundane realism- 70% said they believed it. Ethics- 84% said glad they did it
34 of 80
Supporting study
Le Jeu de la Mort- French documentary replicated it- 21/22 obeyed.
35 of 80
Negative eval
Ethics- deception, protection of ppts, right to withdraw. sample bias. low internal valdity- mundane realism, could be due to social idenity- identified w/experimentor
36 of 80
the aim of milgram's Situational Variables
place a numerical value on rate of obedience. Show situational variables explain obedience better than disposition
37 of 80
3 variations?
Proximity, Location, Uniform
38 of 80
Proximity variation
physical closeness- teacher and learner in same room - 40%. Touch proximity-forced hand on plate-30%. Experimentor gave orders over phone-remote proximity-20.5%
39 of 80
Location
Yale Uni-65% Run down office in town- 47.5%
40 of 80
Uniform
Original- lab coat. Casual clothes-20%
41 of 80
Uniform supporting study
Bickman-tested ecological validity of it- did it in real world. Confeds dressed as police man, milkman, civilian. Gave NYC pedestrians (153) orders e.g. pick up this bag. Police-80%, milkman-40%, civilian, 40%
42 of 80
Positive Eval of situational variables
controlled studies- replicable. Replicable in other cultures-MIRANDA-Spain. - cross cultural replication
43 of 80
Negative eval
Smith&Bond say spain isn't very different. Lacks internal validity- mundane realism- BUT they were stressed. Obedience Alibi- switched responsibility to experimenter.
44 of 80
What are the two social-psychological factors of obedience?
Agentic state and legitimacy of authority
45 of 80
What is agentic state?
When we act as an agent of someone in authority. Easier to deny personal responsibility- they told them to do it- their responsibility.
46 of 80
What is the opposite?
Autonomous state- direct own behaviour and take responsibility
47 of 80
What is the agentic shift?
When people shift from autonomous state to agentic state after confronted by authourity
48 of 80
What are binding factors?
Factors that explain why people remain in agentic state despite distress: aspects of situation that reduce moral strain e.g. 'he's fine' 'his fault for volunteering'
49 of 80
Eval of agentic state?
GOOD-supporting study- Blass&Schmitt-showed students video of milgram's study. all said experimenter was responsible. BAD-limited explanation- doesn't explain why 1/3 didn't obey ... could be due to personality
50 of 80
What is legitimacy of authority?
We are more likely to obey those with authority which is justified by power and position
51 of 80
3 parts of legitimacy of authority
Legitimacy of system (e.g school,army,gov). Legitimacy of authority within system (their position in hierarchy). Legitimacy of orders (teacher asking you to wash their car)
52 of 80
Eval of legitimacy of authority
GOOD- cultural differences- explains why in some cultures authority is more accepted (Aus-18%, germany-80%). Explains how obedience can lead to war crimes-application
53 of 80
Dispositional Factor
Authoritarian personality-ADORNO et al.
54 of 80
Study
2000+ middle class, white americans. tested w/F-scale to measure Authoritarian persosnality.
55 of 80
Example of questions of Fascism scale
obedience and respect are the 2 most important values kids should learn
56 of 80
Findings
high scorers on f-scale identfied as 'strong' people, aware of status, excessive respect to authority, dismissiveness to lower statuses, positive correlation between Authoritarian personality and prejudice
57 of 80
Authoritarian characteristics (other than already mentioned)
Traditional attitudes towards sex, gender and race. Need of powerful leaders. Inflexible outlook. Everything is right or wrong. Uncomfortable w/uncertainty
58 of 80
What is the origin of a authoritarian personality?
Formed in childhood, strict discipline, expectation of complete loyalty, impossibly high standards, conditional love, criticism- LEADS TO hostility, can't express feelings - displaced onto others- scapegoating
59 of 80
Positive eval
Study- milgram&elms- highly obedient-scored highly.
60 of 80
Negative
milgram&elms- just correlation. Social identity seems more likely-unlikely whole nazi state was authoritarian- but identified,
61 of 80
Negative
political bias-only measures right wing- left wing has similar aspects (complete obedience)- so not comprehensible explanation across political spectrum, methological problem- worded in same direction(measure tendency to agree w/all-acquiescence bias
62 of 80
What is minority influence?
When a minority group of people reject the norm of a group a persuades the majority to move to the position of the minority-likely leads to internalisation
63 of 80
Study
Moscovici-Blue slide, green slide. Ppts given eye tests. Placed in group of 4ppts and 2 confeds. Had to look at 36 blue slides(different shades) and say if they are green or blue.
64 of 80
Findings
If minority was consistent- majority gave same answers as minority 8.42% of time. If inconsistent (2/3)- 1.25%. CONTROL GROUP(no confeds)-0.25% said green
65 of 80
What 3 factors that affect minority influence
Consistency, commitment, flexibility
66 of 80
How does consistency influence it?
Over time it increases people's interest and they rethink. Diachronic synchrony- say same thing for long time.
67 of 80
commitment?
May do extreme activities- draws attention- augmentation principle
68 of 80
flexibility
Nemeth: if the minority is seen as inflexible majority less likely to change
69 of 80
Flexibility study
Nemeth: mock jury- 3ppts , 1 confed. Had to decide on how much compensation to give ski lift accident victim. When confed wouldn't budge from v.low amount- majority stuck together. When confed compromised- so did majority
70 of 80
What is the process of change?
Consistency-deeper processing-commitment-augmentation principle-flexible-snowball effect-social cryptomnesia
71 of 80
Positive eval of minority influence
Research support-Moscovici. Wood et al- meta analysis of 100 studies:most influential when consistent. Internalisation support- moscovici found higher agreement when they wrote down answers.
72 of 80
Negative eval
Artificial tasks- lack external validity- real life more complicated. Some may not want to convert publically
73 of 80
What is social change?
When whole societies adopt new attitudes, beliefs and behaviours.
74 of 80
6 steps to social change
Consistency-deeper processing-commitment-augmentation principle-flexible-snowball effect-social cryptomnesia
75 of 80
What does conformity research tell us about social change?
Asch- one dissenter breaks majority- allows others to change- leads to social change. NSI- campaigns say what everyone else is doing- others conform
76 of 80
What does obedience research tell us about social change?
Milgram- taught us disobedient parteners help others disobey.
77 of 80
Positive eval of social change
NSI support- Nolan- reduce energy campaign- hung messages on doors 1 week for a month. Some said others was reducing energy, some didn't mention others. The 'most people' group- significant reduction in energy usage
78 of 80
Negative eval
Nemeth- the effects of minority influence are indirect (only affects minor issue- not major one) and delayed (takes ages for it to have an effect). Majorities focus on how deviant minority is, not their message. don't wanna be associated w/them.
79 of 80
Negative eval
explantaions all rely on Asch, Milgram and Moscovici- can all be evaluated negatively- validity
80 of 80

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

What are the types of conformity?

Back

Internalisation(own private beliefs change), Identification(identify with group so publically conform), Compliance(go along with others- superficial)

Card 3

Front

Two explanations of conformity

Back

Preview of the front of card 3

Card 4

Front

What is Normative social influence?

Back

Preview of the front of card 4

Card 5

Front

Informational Social influence

Back

Preview of the front of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Psychology resources:

See all Psychology resources »See all Social Influence resources »