psychology - social influence

• what is conformity?


  when you choose a course of action that is favoured by the majority of group members
• why do people conform?

  compliance, internalisation and identification
• compliance


  the weakest form of conformity

  avoid disapproval / fear of rejection

  individuals want to fit in

  persons underlying attitude remains the same but express different view in public

  short term
• identification


  traits of both compliance and internalisation

  stronger than compliance

  individual might accept influence from a group as they want to be associated with them

  looking for guidance when with the group because they value them

  when not with group revert to original attitude

  typically short term
• internalisation


  strongest most permanent form of conformity

  accept the group's viewpoint

  unsure of the correct answer

  acceptance both publicly and privately

  long term
• explanations for conformity

  normative social influence and informational social influence
• normative social influence


  linked to compliance

  when people publicly go along with group majority without personally accepting view in private

  humans are social species/need for companionship (short term/weakest)

  need for approval

  individual feels like they are being observed by the group
• informational social influence


  linked to internalisation

  when someone accepts info from others as evidence about reality because they may be unsure

  course of action IS NOT CLEAR because you are unsure

  behaviour publicly and privately
• compliance = normative social influence


  internalisation = informational social influence
• EVALUATION

  "difficult to distinguish between compliance and internalisation?"


  difficult to know when each is taking place

  assumed that publicly agreeing but not in private must be compliance/internalisation??

  however you can accept a groups views in public but it can change later in private after time to think

  it could be because they've forgotten info or received new info

  can fluctuate and only the person themselves know
• "research support for informational influence"


  Exposure to other peoples beliefs has an influence on social stereotypes. Wittenbrink and Henley (1996) found exposure to negative information about African Americans (which they believed to be view of majority) later reported more negative beliefs about a black individual.

  These show the importance of informational influence in shaping behaviour.
• "normative influence may not be detected"


  NI has a powerful effect on individual's behaviour, but they don't recognise the behaviour of others as a factor of their own behaviour

  Nolan investigated energy conservation, people said that neighbours was the least contributing factor however results showed it had strongest impact

  This suggests that people rely on beliefs about what should motivate their behaviour - therefore under detect the influence of NI
• solomon asch


  famous for a series of studies that demonstrate the effects of social influencing on conformity
• KEY STUDY: Asch (1956)


  - showed how people were willing to go against compelling evidence from their senses in order to conform with majority

  - aka "Asch effect" - copying what people do rather than what we feel to be right

  - students volunteers took part in a test of vision, one student was placed against confederates to see HOW THE REAL PARTICIPANT WOULD REACT TO THE CONFEDERATES BEHAVIOUR
• confederates


  people in on the experiment
• procedure of test


  123 american students were tested

  ppts seated around a table and asked to look at 3 lines of different length

  called out which line was the same length as the target line

  real participant always answered 2nd from last

  asch wanted to know if the real ppt would stick to what they believed or follow the majority
• findings of the experiment


  on the 12 trials, the average conformity rate was 37%

  this decreased to 5% when an ally/support was present

  when asch interviewed ppts after, most believed their own judgment but swayed to avoid disapproval
• 3 variables affecting conformity


  group size, unanimity, task difficulty
• group size


  3 IS THE MAGIC NUMBER

  asch's research has found that as the majority group size increases, so does conformity BUT ONLY TO A POINT

  very little conformity with just 1 or 2 confederates

  3 confederates lead to ab 30% increase in conformity

  AN INCREASE IN GROUP SIZE LED TO GREATER CONFORMITY BECAUSE THE PPT WANTED TO FIT IN
• unanimity of the majority


  when all confederates gave the same incorrect answer, conformity was 37%

  when an ally confederate gave the right answer, conformity decreased to 5.5%

  ASCH CONCLUDED THAT BREAKING UNANIMITY BY HAVING A DIFFERENT POV WAS ENOUGH TO REDUCE CONFORMITY regardless of whether they supported the real ppt or not
• task difficulty


  AS THE TASK DIFFICULTY INCREASES AND THE CORRECT ANSWER BECOMES LESS OBVIOUS, CONFORMITY ALSO INCREASES

  line length less obvious = increased conformity

  people with high self efficacy = more independent as difficulty increased / did not conform
• EVALUATION

  "is this research dated - a child of its time"

  1956 was a period where people were scared to go against the majority

  Perrin and Spencer (1980) repeated experiment in UK - only 1/396 conforming response

  Conformity more likely if perceived cost of not conforming is high
• "independent behaviour rather than conformity"


  only 1/3 of trials where majority gave wrong answer produced a conforming wrong response

  so 2/3 of ppts stuck to their judgments despite OVERWHELMING OPPOSITION

  his study showed participants stuck to their beliefs showing independent behaviour
• "cultural differences in conformity"


  average rate across cultures was 31%

  average rate for individualist (more selfish) cultures, europe/us was 25%

  average rate for collectivist (more helpful) cultures, africa/asia was 37%

  conformity was higher in collectivist cultures because it is seen as binding communities together 'a social glue
• why did Zimbardo set up his Stanford prison study?


  attica prison riots in New York where 9 hostages and 28 prisoners died following a protest over inhumane conditions in the prison
• procedure of the Stanford Prison Experiment


  a mock prison was set up in the basement of Stanford Uni

  - 24 US male student volunteers

  - randomly assigned role of prisoner or guard

  - prisoners unexpectedly arrested at home (unethical)

  - deloused, given prison uniform and ID number (loss of identity)

  - given some rights eg 3 meals, 3 supervised toilet trips a day

  - guards were given khaki unis, clubs, whistles and wore reflective sunglasses (dehumanising, stopping eye-contact)

  - zimbardo was prison superintendent (unethical)

  - meant to last 2 weeks only lasted 6 days
• how long was the experiment meant to last?


  2 weeks but it only lasted 6 days
• why was Zimbardo taking the role of prison superintendent bad?


  - dual role

  - could lead to bias

  - unethical
• findings of the experiment (zimbardo)


  - first few days, guards became more abusive and tyrannical

  - woke prisoner and forced them to clean toilets with bare hands (more procedure)

  - some guards volunteered for extra hours without pay

  - ppts forgot it was a psychological study

  - one prisoner had enough and asked for parole (prison terminology) instead of leaving the study

  - 5 prisoners released early due to extreme behaviour (crying/rage/anxiety)

  - terminated after 6 days after it was decided that this study didn't justify these levels of abuse from ppt guards
• conclusion of zimbardo


  study showed that guard and prisoners conformed to social roles

  guards became cruel and prisoners became passive/accepting
• 1 prisoner asked to leave BUT...


  was offered an alternative role to be a snitch and provide info
• EVALUATION

  "conformity to roles is not automatic"

  Haslem and Reicher challenged Zimbardo's belief that guards cruel behaviour was because they embraced their roles

  They said in SPE - some guards were sadistic and some were good

  This shows that guards chose how to behave rather than blindly conforming to their social role
• "the problem of demand characteristics"


  Banuazizi and Movahedi argued that ppts behaviour was a consequence of them behaving how they thought the experiment wanted them to behave

  Students predicted that they would act according to their role; guards would be hostile while prisoners would behave passively

  This highlights the fact that Zimbardo's volunteers may simply have been "acting up" in their roles. They responded to powerful demand characteristics.
• "Were these studies ethical?"

  Study deemed as unethical

  Zimbardo himself took part in the action as a ppt observer

  He acknowledged study should've been stopped earlier due to emotional distress/psychological harm

  Ppts were not sufficiently informed when giving consent as they were unexpectedly arrested at home

  Reicher and Haslam carried out same experiment but took greater steps to reduce harm
• "The SPE and its relevance to Abu Ghraib"


  Zimbardo says that conformity to social role explains Abu Ghraib

  Believes that guards who committed abuses on prisoners were victims of situational factors

  Factors such as LACK OF TRAINING, BOREDOM, NO ACCOUNTABILITY TO HIGHER AUTHORITY

  these factors were present in SPE and Abu Ghraib

  These factors plus a misuse of power associated with a guards role led to abuse of victims
• situational factors affecting conformity


  key study: Milgram
• Stanley Milgram's experiment into obedience


  it was published 6 months after the execution of Adolph Eichmann (Hitler's right hand man) for his part in the murder of millions of Jews in the Holocaust

  During his trial he maintained he was "only obeying orders" given to him

  His research suggests - it's not evil people who carry out atrocities but ordinary people who are carrying out orders
• phrase that should be used referring to Milgram


  'unquestioning obedience
• obedience to authority


  a social influence where somebody acts in response to a direct order from perceived authority
• procedure of Milgram


  Yale University

  40 male participants selected

  ppts told it was to investigate how punishment affects learning

  two confederates - one - experimenter, one (47 year old) was a volunteer

  the two ppts drew lots to see who was the teacher or learner

  it was rigged so that the real ppt was teacher and the fake ppt was learner

  the fake ppt (learner) was given an electric shock (fake) by the teacher each time he got a question wrong

  voltage went from 15 to 450v in increments

  the (fake) learner gave mainly wrong answers and received fake shocks until they reached 300v

  he repeated this at 315v and said nothing (played dead)

  when teacher wanted to stop, experimenter said "Please continue - I will take responsibility"