Social Influence

• Name the 3 types of Conformity (a change in a persons behaviour):


  Internalisation, Indentification, Compliance
• What does Internalisation mean?


  An individual changes their public and private behaviour to match those of the group. This is a permanent and will continue outside of the group situation. Linked to informational social influence
• What does Identification mean?


  An individual changes their public views to match those of a group because they value the group and wish to be part of it. The change is likely to last as long as the individual is with the group.
• What does Compliance mean?

  An individual changes their public but not private views. This is temporary and lasts only as long as the group is present. It is linked to Normative Social Influence
• (Explanations for conformity) Normative Social Influence


  It is going along with the majority to fit in, it occurs because of a desire to be accepted or to avoid rejection, conforming for EMOTIONAL reasons, leads to compliance and is a temporary change in view.
• (explanations for conformity) what is informational social influence?


  Going along with the majority acceptance of new information, it occurs because of a desire to be right and occurs in difficult situations where you don’t know what to do so you watch others to make sure that you were doing the right thing. It is conforming to cognitive reasons., leads to internalisation and a permanent change in behaviour
• Supporting Evaluation of explanation of conformity: research support


  Research support for both ISI and NSI. Lucas asked students to give answers to easy or difficult maths problems. Conformity was higher in questions were more difficult.-people conform when they are unsure of the answer (ISI). Asch said some participants said they gave the wrong answer because they were afraid of disapproval (NSI) There is supporting evidence for both ISI and NSI.
• Rejecting Evaluation of explanation of conformity: harder to distinguish between NSI and ISI


  Asch found conformity is lower when there is another participant, not conforming. The participant who does not conform, maybe reduce the power of the NSI (because they provide social support) or reduce the power of the ISI (because they provide an alternative source of information]. It is hard to separate the influence of NSI and ISI, and both purposes are likely to be involved.
• Rejecting Evaluation of explanation of conformity: Individual differences


  Some people are more bothered about being liked and fitting in from others. These people are called nAffiliators, - they have a great need for affiliation (relating to others) McGhee and Teevan found students who were nAffiliators were more likely to conform. This shows that the desire to be liked (NSI) is more important for some people than others..
• What is meant by confirmity?

  conformity is when someone changes their actions, attitudes, or beliefs to match those of a group they belong to or want to belong to
• What was the method of Aschs’ study of conformity?


  123 Americans took part. Each group contained one real participant all the others were confederates (fakes). The real participant answered last or next to last and had to say which of the comparison lines, A, B or C matched the standard line ‘X’ out loud. Although there was an obvious, correct, answer, most of the confederates had given their ‘wrong’ answer
• What were the findings of the Asch’s conformity study?


  In 38% of the trials, the participants gave the same wrong answer

  75% of participants conformed at least once
• (Asch Variation TUGA) Task Difficulty:


  He tested task difficulty by making the right answer less obvious by having lines of similar length. When the lines of similar length, making the judgement, more difficult conformity levels increased. This task is more ambiguous so the participants looks to other members of the group for help (ISI)
• (Asch Variation TUGA) Unanimity (everyone agrees on the same thing)


  Arranging for confederate to give a different wrong answer to the majority or the correct answer. Conformity decreased (in the presence of the person who gave a different answer) to around 5%. The influence of the majority depends on it being unanimous, if it is less unanimous the real participant behaves more independently.
• (Asch Variation TUGA) group size


  He tested group size by varying the number of confederate. He found that group size affected level of conformity. The more confederates, the higher, the level of conformity. This suggests people are sensitive to the views of others as only a couple of confederates are needed to sway opinion.
• (Asch Variation TUGA) Answer written down


  When the participant was allowed to write their answer down in private , but rather than saying out loud conformity rates decreased to 12.5%. The participant is not exposed to NSI when the answer is not exposed to the group
• REJECTING evaluation of Aschs’ experiment: Lacks Realism


  The task was artificial - identifying the length of lines does not represent every day conformity. Conformity takes place in social context, and often with people we know rather than strangers. This is not a valid measure of real life conformity.
• REJECTING evaluation of Aschs’ experiment: Lacks temporal validity/ Irrelevant


  His findings may not be so relevant today. The outcome from the experiment may have been influenced by social attitudes of the 1950s. Post War attitudes that people should work together and consent rather than dissent
• REJECTING evaluation of Aschs’ experiment: Lacks ecological validity

  The research was carried out in a lab, so behaviour may not represent real world conformity. Demand characteristics may have occurred. The artificiality of the situation may have caused some participants to go along with the confederates reducing internal validity.
• REJECTING evaluation of Aschs’ experiment: lacks generalisability

  The study only used a male sample that may not represent female behaviour. His study lacks population validity the use of volunteer sample means behaviour may not represent that of a wider population so it lacks generalisability
• What was the procedure of the Stanford prison experiment by Zimbardo?


  24 US male, psychologically healthy student volunteers, agree to participate in a 7-14 day study they were paid $15 per day. They were randomly assigned role of prisoner or guard, the prisoners unexpectedly were arrested at home, given prison uniform, and ID. The small, mock prison cells housed three prisoners each. Guards were given uniforms, clubs, whistles, and were told to run prison, but not harmed the prisoners. Zimbardo was the chief of the prison.
• What was the purpose of Zimbardo’s prison experiment?


  To investigate the psychological effects of authority and powerlessness in a prison environment
• What were the findings of the Stanford prison experiment by Zimbardo?


  The plan of the SPE was two weeks, but it stopped after six days, because of increased passivity of the prisoners in the face of the increased brutality of the guards (who harassed the prisoners by conducting headcounts in the night)

  Some prisoners had pathological reactions, for example, showing signs of depression and anxiety
• Evaluation of Zimbardo‘s study: Methodological Issues


  The SPE only used American males, so the sample is biase— It may not be appropriate to assume women and other cultures would act in the same way. The participants also knew they were taking part so may have to speed demand characteristics so lacking internal validity. It also suffers from the lack of ecological validity Since they knew study would last two weeks and they weren’t exposed to prison violence, so the SPE does not reflect behaviour in real prison.
• Evaluation of Zimbardo‘s study: Zimbardo’s dual role


  Zimbardo play the role of a prison superintendent and lead researcher, so his own behaviour affected the way in which events unfolded. Therefore, the validity of the findings could be questioned.
• Evaluation of Zimbardo‘s study: ethical issues

  Lack of informed consent-the prisoners didn’t know or agreed to being arrested at home.

  lack of protection from psychological harm - participants soon became distressed. Participants should not have been placed at risk or gain new negative knowledge of themselves.

  Lack of right to withdraw- part as a patient should be free to leave when they choose, but prisoners in SPE were pressured
• What was the method of Milgrams obedience experiment?

  40 male Volunteers with recruiters for study, investigating the effects of punishment on learning. They were introduced to another participant who was a Confederate of the experimenter (they were the learner) The learner is taking to another room and strapped to a chair and attached a electrodes that he could receive shots of electricity if they got the answer to a question wrong. The shocks ranged from 15 to 450v. At 350v the learner banged on the wall and became silent after that
• What were the findings of Milgram’s prison experiment?


  All participants delivered shock up to 300v.

  65% of participants continued to 450v.

  participants showed signs of stress and anxiety
• (Situational factors of Milgrams prison experiment) proximity of the authority figure 


  The variation was that the experimenter left the room and gave the orders over the telephone, rather than being in the same room as the ppt. Obedience decrease the 20.5%, therefore if an authority figure is closer people are more likely to obey
• (Situational factors of Milgrams prison experiment) Touch proximity


  The teacher forced the learners hand down onto a shock plate. Obedience decreased to 30% as the participant is no longer protected from seeing the consequences of their actions.
• (Situational factors of Milgrams prison experiment) uniform


  In the original studies experiment wore a lab coat, In the variation, the experimenter called away an ordinary member of the public/confederate to be the authority figure. Obediane decrease to 20% because uniform is a visible sign of authority. The lack of a lab coat reduces the legitimacy, which meant the participants were less obedient.
• (Situational factors of Milgrams prison experiment) location 


  The study was moved to London, offices in the downtown location bother than taking place in Yale University . Obedience decreased to, 47.5%. Experiment seems less legitimate when it is not based in the University
• (Situational factors of Milgrams prison experiment) 2 teacher condition


  In the original study, 1 real participant played the role of a teacher but the variation is where 2 teachers (confederates) refuse to continue with experiment. Obedience decrease to 10% because social support gives the real participant the confidence to act more autonomously and model disobedience.
• What were the ethical issues in milligrams research?


  Deception, right to withdraw and protection from harm
• Supportive evaluation for Milgrams prison experiment: Cost benefit analysis


  deception and lack of informed consent can be justified as demand characteristics are reduced. Milgram was awarded a prize by the APA for his research. It was conducted at a time when ethical guidelines had not been established and led to the introduction of guidelines.
• REJECTING evaluation for Milgrams prison experiment: ecological validity


  An artificial test of obedience and therefore lacks mundane realism and in an artificial environment of a lab
• SUPPORTING evaluation of Milgram’s study: Research Support

  Bickman conducted a field experiment by either milkman, civilian, or guard asked participants in New York to ’Pick up this bag for me’. 80% of participants obey the order of the guard compared to 40% when the researcher was dressed as a civilian. This supports the importance of uniform.
• REJECTING evaluation of Milgram’s study: Ethical Issues


  Deception- ppts were misled or information is withheld. The electric shocks were fake but ppts thought they were real.

  Right to withdraw - participant should be given right to leave an experiment. But Milgrams participants were given ‘verbal prods’ to continue to shock the learner.

  protection from harm- pots. Should not be placed at risk or gain new negative knowledge of themselves. Participants were distressed, so had a seizure and many felt guilty..
• What did Milgram say in defence of the criticism of his research being unethical?


  • It was not unethical, because the results were unexpected
  • Participants could’ve left, they were not physically restrained
  • Participants were debriefed at the end of the study, introduced to the learners so that they could see he was not harmed and 84% said they were happy to have taken part in the study.
• REJECTING evaluation of Milgram’s study: Methodological issues


  It lacks ecological validity and mundane realism. The electric shock task does not resemble every day obedience and a lab is an artificial environment.

  Sample bias, the original study consisted of American males who volunteer to take part in making a sample unrepresentative, meaning the results may not generalise to females and other cultures. Therefore the findings may not represent every day obedience.