Social influence

• Conformity

  Adjusting one's behaviour or thinking to coincide with a group standard to gain rewards or approval.

  
• Types of conformity

  Compliance, Identification, Internalisation

  
• Explanations for conformity

  Informational Social Influence (ISI) and Normative Social Influence (NSI)
• Publicly agreeing with the views or actions of the majority but privately disagreeing.

  Compliance
• An individual accepting influence and adopting the attitudes and behaviours as they want to be associated with a person or group.

  Identification
• Accepting the views or actions of a group as the content is consistent with their private views and values.

  Internalisation
• The desire to be liked. An individual conforms with the majority to gain social approval or avoid disapproval.

  Normative Social Influence
• The desire to be right. Usually occurs when an individual is unsure how to act and relies on the information of others.

  Informational Social Influence
• Asch Experiment Procedure

  123 white American male participants. group of confederates, real ppt seated last or 2nd to last. easy visual task (obvious correct answer). 18 trials in total.
• Asch Experiment Findings

  -12 trials: 33% conformity rate-all ppts conformed at least once
• Group size and conformity

  -Conformity increases with group size up to about 4-7 people-Adding additional persons has little effect-One dissenter can reduce conformity by up to 80 percent
• Unanimity of the majority

  The extent at which a group agrees. The study was unanimous when all the confederates picked the same line. This increased the likelihood that the participant would conform even if they privately disagreed. When tested with another confederate that would give the wrong answer, conformity levels dropped from 33% to 6%.
• Difficulty of the Task and Conformity

  The higher the difficulty of the task, the greater the levels of conformity.
• Studies for NSI

  Linkenbach and Perkins (smoking in adolescents), Schultz (hotel guests), Nolan (neighbours).
• strengths of NSI

  Research support, NSI shaping behaviour through normative beliefs, people thus shape behaviour to fit with reference group.
• limitations of NSI

  Possibility of oversimplistic explanation, people do not recognise behaviour of others as a factor in their own, thus underestimating the impact of normative influence.
• Strengths of ISI

  Demonstrates support that exposure to other beliefs/info shapes aspects of social behaviour - shifts of judgement.
• Limitations of Asch’s study

  Child of its time (less relevance = low historical validity), ignorance of individual and cultural differences (low population validity), only white American males used (ethnocentric and androcentric), 2/3 of trials did participants not conform, independent behaviour.
• Strengths of Asch’s study

  extraneous variables highly controlled, cause-effect relationship between IV and DV established, lab setting, high internal validity.
• where did zimbardo’s study take place?

  Stanford University - mock prison in the basement.
• how were participants assigned roles?

  randomly to avoid researcher bias.
• how did zimbardo try to make the experiment realistic?

  arresting participants unexpectedly at their home, giving them uniforms, and simulating the rota of prison life.
• why was it effective to make the prison study realistic?

  gives the study ecological validity and mundane realism.
• when was the study stopped?


  six days in out of two weeks
• what did the study ultimately show?

  how people conform to social roles with the absence of an authority figure.
• obedience: following a direct order from an authority figure.
• Limitations of zimbardo’s study - independence

  Not all guards conformed to social roles, some acted nicely towards the prisoners showing they chose how to behave not blindly conforming to a role.
• Limitations of zimbardo’s study - demand characteristics


  Research suggests participants behaved the way they did due to guessing how they were supposed to act in the study. Students shown the study guessed that it would involve guards acting hostile and prisoners acting passive. Thus the study would have low external validity.
• ethical issues with zimbardo’s study

  Deception (unexpected arresting), ROW (ppts not reminded of right to withdraw), protection (many prisoners expressed extreme anxiety, crying, rage), informed consent (None with deception)
• what was the aim of Milgram’s study?

  To investigate obedience to authority and the willingness of participants to administer electric shocks to others.
• How many participants administered 300 volt shocks?

  all
• How many participants administered 450 volt shocks?

  65%
• How were participants encouraged to continue the study?

  prods from the authority figure - ’you have no other choice’
• what are the situational factors in obedience?

  proximity, location and uniform.
• what effect did proximity of the learner have on obedience (Milgram)?

  obedience fell when learner and teacher were in the same room, fell further when forcing learner‘s hand on shock plate.
• what effect did proximity of the authority have on obedience (Milgram)?

  majority did not obey when authority was giving orders by telephone.
• what effect did location have on obedience?

  obedience fell when the study was conducted in a run-down office not a university.
• what effect did uniform have on obedience?

  uniform acts as a symbol, conveying power and legitimacy. wearing a lab coat as opposed to casual clothes increases the likelihood of obedience.
• strength of Milgram’s study

  Has historical validity, even though it was conducted over 50 years ago, similar studies have been conducted more recently, giving very similar results (Burger 2009).
• limitation of Milgram’s study

  Lacks mundane realism thus ecological validity, because it was conducted in a lab setting, testing an obviously scientific experiment, irrelevant to the real world. Hard to generalise to the wider population.