Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Social Influence - Coggle Diagram
Social Influence
Types of Conformity + Explanations for Conformity
Explanations
Informational Social Influence
Humans have the need to be confident that their beliefs are right
Desire to be right
Conforming w experts
Normative Social Influence
Humans have a fear or rejection and the need for social companionship
Conforming to gain approval/ avoid disapproval
Nail (1986) claimed we conform in public but not in private
Evaluation
Weaknesses
Difficult to Distinguish:
Difficult to know when each is taking place
E.g. Compliance would be agree in public = deny in priv
However, acceptance of views occur in public and could dissipate later
Strengths
Research Support for Informational Influence:
Henley et al (1996)
Participants exposed to negative info about African American (believed to be majority)
Reported more negative attitudes towards black
Research Support For Normative Influence:
Perkins et al (2003) found adolescents exposed to message that ppl their age don't smoke --> less likely to smoke
Schults et al (2008) hotel guests that reuse towel --> more people likely to reuse towels
Types
Internalisation:
Go along w group due to acceptance of views
Examing own beliefs to see if others/they are right
Can lead to acceptance both publicly + privately
Identification:
Elements of both compliance and internalisation
Want to be associated with a group/person
Adopting views/ behaviours publicly + privately
Compliance:
May go along to gain approval/ avoid disapproval
Fitting in
Doesn't change person's attitudes, just views in public
Variables affecting Conformity
Variables
1) Group Size:
Little conformity with 1/2 confederates
3 Confederates= conformity increases
Further increases in size = little increases in conformity
In an individual is concerned w fitting in = larger crowd = the more likely they are to be swayed
2) Unanimity of majority:
Real participants given support by another then conformity is only 5.5%
If someone gave different answer from confederate and real = conformity 9%
3) Difficulty of task:
In variation, Asch made lines smaller so it was harder to tell
Conformity increased
Influence of task is moderated by self efficacy
Evaluation
Weaknesses
Independent Behaviour rather than Conformity:
2/3 stuck to original judgements despite majority against
Study demonstrated tendency to stick with what they believe
Asch's study
Procedure
1 Real participant. Other were confederates
123 undergraduates
Asked to look at 3 different lines of length
Another line shown + asked which is same
Real always answered second last
Confederates give wrong answers 12/18 trials
Findings
Average Conformity= 33%
Some individual differences
1/4 NEVER
1/2 6 or more trials
1/20 All trials
Control condition found that 1% actually make mistakes