AO1 + A03 - social influence notes PDF

Preview

Summary

social influence notes ...

Description

Types of conformity

Explanations for conformity

Internalisation

Informational social Influence

Key Term: Person genuinely accepts group norms = private as well as public change of opinions/behaviour. Change is more likely to be permanent + persist in the absence of group members because attitudes have become part of how the person thinks (internalised)

Key Term: ISI=info, a desire to be right. Uncertain a behaviour or beliefs are right or wrong. You may no answer to a question in class, but if most of other s agree, you go along with them because you feel th probably right. Cognitive process: (people generall be right) ISI occurs in situations that are ambiguous. Occurs in new situations or ambiguity. when a decision must be made quickly. Or one person/group is regarded as being more expert.

Identification Key Term: identify with a group that we value, we want to become part of it. Publically change our opinions/behaviour, even if we don’t privately agree with everything the group stands for.

Normative Social Influence Key term: NSI= Norm desire to behave like others a look foolish. NSI = ‘normal’ or typical behaviour for group. Norms regulate behaviour of groups + indiv not surprising that we pay attention to them. Emot process: (prefer social approval rather than rejectio NSI occurs in unfamiliar situations: e.g. you don’t k norms and look to others about how to behave. With people, you know: e.g. important people kno than strangers because people are concerned about the social approval. Stressful situations: e.g. need for social support

Compliance Key Term: Involves ‘going along with others’ in public, but privately not changing opinions/behaviour. Results in only a superficial change and the opinion/behaviour stops as soon as group pressure ceases.

Strengths P: A strength of ISI is that there is research support E: Researcher asked students give answers to easy + more difficult maths problems E: More conformity to incorrect answers when difficult. Most true for students who rated their maths ability as poor L: Conform in situations where they feel they don’t know the answer (ISI). Look to others and assume they know better than us and must be right

P: A strength of NSI is that there is research support E: Asch 1951 asked participants to explain why they agreed with the wrong answer. Some said they felt selfconscious giving the right answer + were afraid of disapproval E: When Asch asked participants to write down their answers, conformity rates fell to 12.5% L: This supports the participants own reports that they were conforming because of NSI.

limitations P: A limitation of ISI is that there are individual differences E: Asch 1995, students less conformist (28%) than other participants (37%) E: Perrin + Spencer’s 1980 found less conformity in students, STUDY: engineering students (i.e. Confident about precision). Knowledgeable + more confident are less influenced by the apparently ‘right’ view of a maj. L: Therefore, differences in how individual respond to ISI

P: A limitation of ISI and NSI is that the ‘two-process’ approach is oversimplified E: This approach states that behaviour is due to either NSI or ISI E: However, conformity reduced when there was a dissenting partner in Asch experiment. This dissenter may reduce the power of NSI (by providing social support) or reduce power of ISI (because they are an alternative source of info). L: Therefore, isn’t possible to know whether NSI or ISI is at work. Questions the view of ISI + NSI as operating independently in conforming behaviour.

Theoretical basis P: A limitation of NSI is that there are individual differences E: People who care more about being liked are more affected by NSI = nAffliators people who have a greater need for social relationships. E: McGhee and Teevan 1967 found that students who were nAffliators were more likely to conform. L: The desire to be liked underlies conformity for some people more than others. One general theory doesn’t cover the fact there are

differences.

Conformity: Asch’s research Key Study 1: Asch (1951) Conformity research

Key Study 2: Asch (1955) Variables affecting

conformity Procedure Solomon Asch recruited 123 American male students. Each tested individually with group between 6 + 8 Confederates. Each trial participants identified length of standard line First few trials confederates gave correct answers but then all selected same wrong answers. Each participant completed 18 trials. 12 ‘critical trials’ confederates gave wrong answer.

Findings + Conclusions Naïve participants gave wrong answer 36.8% of the time. This shows a high level of conformity, called the Asch effect, people conform even in an unambiguous situation. There were considerable individual differences: 25% never gave wrong answer, 75% conformed at least once. Few conformed most of the time. Conformed to avoid rejection(NSI) + continued privately to trust their own opinions (Compliance, going along with others publicly, not privately).

Procedure Group size: Number of confederates varied between 1 + 15 Unanimity: Asch introduced truthful confederate or a confederate who dissenting but inaccurate Task difficulty: Asch made line judging task harder by making the stimulus line + comparison lines more similar in length.

Findings + Conclusions Group size: With Two confederates, conformity to wrong answer was 13.6%, with 3 it rose to 31.8%. Adding more confederates made little difference. Unanimity: Dissenting confederate reduced conformity, whether dissenter is wrong or right. Average, 25% wrong answers. Dissenter enabled a naïve participant to behave more independently. Task difficulty: Conformity increased when task more difficult. ISI plays greater role when task becomes harder. Ambiguous, more likely look others for guidance + assume they are right.

P: One limitation is that Asch’s findings may be a “child of the time”

P: A second limitation is that the situation + task w artificial.

E: Perrin + Spencer found just one conforming response in 396 trails. Participants (UK engineering students) felt more confident measuring lines than Asch’s Og sample. Less conformist.

E: Participants knew they were in study so may hav responded to demand characteristics.

E: 1950s were a conformist time in US + people less likely conform in subsequent decades

to

L: Asch effect not consistent over time, not enduring feature of human behaviour.

E: The line task was trivial so there was no reason n conform. Also, naïve participants were in a group b like groups found in everyday life. L: Findings don’t generalise to everyday situations where consequences of conformity are important, + where we interact with groups more directly.

P: Another limitation is that the findings only apply to certain groups.

P: A limitation is that the findings only apply to ce situations

E: Only men were tested by Asch. Neto suggested that women might be more conformist, possibly because they are more concerned about social relationships.

E: Participants answered out loud + were with a gro strangers they wanted to impress. Conformity coul higher than usual.

E: Participants were from the USA, an individualist culture (people who are more concerned with themselves than their social group). Smith + Bond suggest that conformity rates are higher in collectivist cultures e.g. China which are more concerned with group needs.

E: But Williams + Sogan found conformity was high the Maj were friends rather than strangers.

L: This suggests that conformity levels are sometimes even higher than Asch found; his findings may be limited to American men.

L: Therefore, the Asch effect varies depending on circumstances.

Theoretical basis P: There are ethical issues associated with Asch’s research. E: Naïve participants were deceived. They thought the others in the procedure were genuine. E: But this ethical cost should be weighed against the benefits of the study. L: Main benefit was highlighting people’s susceptibility to group conformity + the variables affecting it.

Variables Procedure

Key Study: The Stanford Prison Experiment Z + colleagues set up a mock prison in the basement of the psychology dept. @ Stanford to test whether the brutality of prison guards was the result of sadistic personalities or whether it was created by the situation. Recruited 24 emotionally stable students determined by psychological testing- randomly assigned roles of guards or prisoners. Increase realism, prisoners were arrested in their homes + delivered to the prison e.g. blindfolded, strip-searched, deloused + issued a uniform + number. Prisoners daily routine heavily regulated. 16 rules to follow, issued by guards working shi De-individuation: -

Findings + conclusions

Names never used only their numbers Guards had their own uniform – wooden club, handcuffs, keys + mirror shades. They were told they had complete power over the prisoners, e.g. deciding when they could go to the toilet.

2 days, prisoners rebelled against their treatment. Ripped their uniforms + shouted + sw @ the guards, who retaliated w/ fire extinguishers. Guards harassed the prisoners constantly by conducting frequent headcounts, sometime middle of night. Guards highlighted the differences in social roles by creating opportunities to enforce the rules + punish slight misdemeanours. Took roles with enthusiasm. Their behaviour threatened prisoners’ psychological + physi health. E.g. 1. After the rebellion was put down, prisoners became subdued, anxious + depress

2. 3 prisoners were released early because they showed signs of psychological disturbance. 3. One prisoner went on hunger strike; the guards attempted to force feed him + punished him by putting him in a hole. STUDY STOPPED AFTER 6 DAYS INSTEAD O 8. Simulation revealed power of the situation to influence people’s behaviour. Guards + prisoners + researchers all conf r social roles within the s identified utal + became.

Co

rdo’s research

P: A potential limitation with the SPE is a lack of r

P: A strength of the SPE is that the researchers had some control over variables. E: Emotionally stable participants were recruited + randomly assigned the roles of guard or prisoner.

E: Banuazizi + Mohavedi suggest participants were acting. Their performances reflected stereotypes o prisoners + guards are supposed to behave.

E: The guards + prisoners had those roles only by chance. So, their behaviour was due to pressures of the situation + not their personalities.

E: One guard based his role on a character from the ‘COOL HAND LUKE.’ Prisoners rioted because they t is what real prisoners did.

L: Control increases the study’s internal validit more confident in drawing conclusion s about social roles on behaviour.

L: But Zimbardo’s data showed conversations were about priso seemed to real to them, increa

s of

P: Fromm argues that Zimbardo understated dispositional influences.

P: SPE lacks research support + has been contradi subsequent research.

E: Only 1/3 of the guards behaved brutally. Another 1/3 applied the rules fairly. The rest supported the prisoners, offering them cigs + reinstating privileges.

E: Reicher + Haslam partially replicated the SPE, wi different findings. Prisoners eventually took contro

E: Zimbardo’s conclusion that participants conformed to social roles may be over-stated, exaggerating the power of the situation. L: Difference in the guard’s behaviour show that they could exercise right + wrong choices, despite situational pressures to conform to a role.

E: Tajfel’s SIT explains this. Guards in the replication to develop shared social identity as a group, but pr did + refused to accept limits of their assigned role L: Therefore, the Asch effect varies depending on circumstances.

Theoretical basis P: A limitation is that there were major ethical issues with the SPE. E: Zimbardo was both lead researcher + prison superintendent. E: Student who wanted to leave study spoke to Zimbardo, who responded as a superintendent worried about the running of his prison rather than as a researcher. L: This limited Zimbardo’s ability to protect hi participants from harm because his superintendent role conflicted with his lead researcher role.

Obedience: Milgram’s research Variables Procedure

Key Study: Milgram original obedience study (1963) Recruited 40 male participants through newspaper ads + postal flyers. The ad said he wa looking for participant for a memory study. Aged between 20 + 50 years, in jobs ranging from unskilled to professional. Given $4.50 for turning up. Learner = Confederate “Mr. Wallace” = true participants (could leave any time) Another confederate (wore lab coat)

Teac Experimenter =

Learner is strapped into chair in another room + wired with electrodes. Teacher had to give the learner an increasingly severe electric “shook” each time he made a mistake on task. (teachers told that shocks were all fake + Mr. Wallace was an actor.) Started at 15v= slight shock, 30 levels to 450v= severe shock, 300v= intense shock (pounded on wall + no response to next question. If teacher felt unsure about continuing, experimenter used 4 standard prods: -prod 1 = please continue or please go on -prod 2 = the experimenter requires you continue -prod 3 = absolutely essential that you continue -prod 4 = have no other choice, must go on when teacher turned for guidance he gave instructions = “absence of response should be treated as wrong answer” Findings + conclusions

Findings + Conclusions   

No participant stopped below 300v 12.5% stopped at 300v 65% continued to 45v

Qualitative observation: indicated that participants showed signs of extreme tensions, m

seen to ‘sweet, tremble, bite their lips, groan. 3 had full blown seizures. Prior to the study, Milgram asked 14 psychology students to predict the naïve participant behaviour. They estimated no more than 3% of them would continue to 450v. findings = unpredicted Participants debriefed + assured that their behaviour was normal. Questionnaire = 84% reported glad to have participated. 74% felt learnt something about self-importance.

P: A strength of Milgram’s research is that it has good external validity.

P: A Limitation of Milgram’s study Is that it lacked internal validity

E: Milgram argued lab-based relationship between experimenter + participant reflected wider real-life authority relationships.

E: Orne + Holland suggest participants guessed the electric shocks were fake. So, Milgram wasn’t testing what he intended to test.

E: Hofling found that levels of obedience in nurses on hospital ward to unjustified demands by doctors were very high (21/22 obeyed)

E: However, in another study participants gave real shocks to a puppy; 54% of males + 100% of females delivered what they thought was a fatal shock.

L: Therefore, processes of obedience can be generalised.

P: Replications have supported Milgram’s research findings. E: In a French documentary contestants in a reality TV game show were paid to give fake shocks, when ordered by the presenter to other participants E: 80% gave the max 450v to an apparently unconscious man. Their behaviour was like that of Milgram’s participants, e.g. many signs of anxiety. L: This supports Milgram’s OG conclusions about obedience to authority + shows that his findings were not just one –off.

L: Obedience in Milgram’s study might be genuine, 70 % of Milgram’s participants believed the shocks were genuine. P: SIT is an alternative explanation to Milgram’s E: Obedience is about group identification Milgram’s participants identified with the experimenter. When obedience levels fell, participants identified more with the victim. E: researchers suggest the first 3 prods are appeals for help with science. Only the 4th prod demands obedience. Every time this was used the participant quit. L: Participants didn’t give shocks due to obedience, but due to their identification with the experimenter as a scientist.

Theoretical basis P: A limitation is there are ethical issues associated with Milgram’s research

E: Baumrind criticised Milgram’s deceptions. Participants believed the allocation of roles was randomly assigned, but it was fixed. E: Most significant deception was that participants believed the electric shocks were real. Baumrind objected because deception is a betrayal of trust that damages the reputation of psychologists + their research. L: Deception of participants make them less likely to volunteer for future research.

Obedience: Situational Variables Variables Proximity

Location

Explanation for obedience based on situational variables -Milgram’s OG study, teacher + learner was in the adjoining rooms. (Teacher could hear learner but not see him). -proximity variation, teacher + learner was in same room obedience rate dropped from 65% to 40%. - Touch proximity variation, teacher had to force the learners hand onto shock plate. Obedience rate dropped 30%. – remote instruction proximity variation, experimenter left the room + gave instructions by telephone. Obedience rate dropped again to 20.5%. Participants frequently pretended to give shocks or gave weaker ones when they were ordered to.

Location: run down building rather than Yale uni were it was originally set obedience fell to 47.5%. This indicates that the experimenter had less authority in this setting

Uniform

OG = experimenter wore grey lab coat as symbol of authority. One variation experimenter called away because of inconvenient telephone call right at start of procedure. Taken over by an ‘ordinary member of public’ in everyday clothes. Obedience rate dropped 20%, lowest of these variations. This suggests that uniform does act as a strong visual authority symbol + cue to behave in an obedient manner.

P: There is research support for the influence of situational variables E: In 1974 looked at the effect of authority on obedience (confederate dressed in jacket/ tie, milkman or security guard) The confederate asked passers-by to provide a coin for the parking meter, for example. E: People were twice as likely to obey the ‘security guard’ than the ‘jacket/tie’ confederate. L: This support Milgram’s conclusion that a uniform conveys authority + is a situational factor producing obedience.

P: A limitation is Milgram’s variations may lack int validity E: 1968 suggest participants in Milgram’s variations even more likely to realise the procedure was faked because of the extra experimental manipulation. E: In the variation experimenter was replaced by ‘a member of the public’, even Milgram recognised th so contrived that some participants may have work out. L: So, it is unclear whether the results are due to obedience or because the participants saw the deception + play acted.

P: A strength is that Milgram’s research has been replicated in P: A strength is that Milgram’s research has contro other cultures variables E: 1981 found over 90% obedience in Spanish students. Milgram’s findings aren’t limited to American males.

E: Milgram systematically altered one variable at a test effects on obedience.

E: However, Smith + Bond 1998 note that most replications have taken place in Western societies e.g. Spain, culturally

E: Other variables were kept constant as the study replicated many times with over 1000 participants.

not that different from the USA. L: It is premature to conclude tha...