Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
SOCIAL INFLUENCE (CONFORMITY) - Coggle Diagram
SOCIAL INFLUENCE (CONFORMITY)
COMPLIANCE
lowest level of conformity
still keeps personal beliefs, changes public opinion
IDENTIFICATION
an individual temporarily accepts the majority viewpoint leading them to conform both publicly and privately (temporary change in behaviour)
INTERNALISATION
when the individual accepts the majority viewpoint - conform both privately and publicly (permanent change in their behaviour)
2 REASONS WHY PEOPLE CONFORM
NORMATIVE SOCIAL INFLUENCE
desires to fit in
to not be isolated or judged
conform to avoid judgement and to be accepted by the majority
INFORMATIONAL SOCIAL INFLUENCE
Desire to learn and get things right, this leads to us looking for others who know more than we do
ASCH
Aim - to see whether participants would conform to a majority giving the wrong answer to an unambiguous task
Sample - 123 male students using volunteer sampling
Procedure - place naive participant 2nd from the end, everyone else answers a premeditated answer to see what the naive participant would do. First 6 trials the confederates gave the correct answer to build the trust then from then on they would give the wrong answer
Findings
75% conformed at least once
32% conformed on all trials
Compliance and normative
GRAVE
Application - police separate groups larger than 5, power in numbers
Generalisability - all volunteers, researching similar kinds of people
Reliability - could be replicated because its in highly controlled experiment, very standardised
good internal validity, potential for demand characteristics
Ethical - deception but they were debriefed
Tested 3 things
Unanimity (adding another person in that agrees) lead to 5% of participants conforming to the majority
changed group size (group of 3 all the way to 18) - group of 3 had lowest conformity then gradually increased to group of 5 then remained the same beyond that - shows group pressure
Task difficulty, made line sizes close together so it was harder to determine correct answer - increased conformity, they didn't know the answer so assumed the majority knew better
ZIMBARDO PRISON
to see if people who are assigned roles will conform to what is socially expected with that role
SAMPLE
Volunteers, responded to an advert
tested for health reasons
randomly allocated to the role of a guard or prisoner
24 in each group
prisoners were all arrested at their homes by real police men, once they arrived at the prison they did the usual procedure (finger prints, strip search) - taken to a cell and all given a number
guards were given guard uniforms and were given shifts, only 3 guards on at a time (run like a job could apply for over time)
Zimbardo was the head guard and would observe through cameras, only instruction he gave was for the guards to keep order in the prison
FINDINGS
became more aggressive as the days went on
forced the prisoners to refer to each other by number not name
made their own solitary confinement
prisoners started to genuinely believe they couldn't leave and they were actual prisoners
intense environement lead to one prisoner having a mental breakdown and having to leave
guards limited access to food
study had to be stopped after 6 days but was supposed to continue for 14 because of the level of aggression the guards were showing was inhumane
internalise the norms of the role they were given (informational social influence)
A03
volunteers so were all quite similar people
didn't abide to right to withdraw - 3 wanted to leave but 2 couldnt
ethically challenging as they were mentally stable before and one had a mental breakdown
elements of demand characteristics (zimbardo was watching them so they may have thought zimbardo expected that0