Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Social Influence, His conclusion was that people quickly conform to social…

- - - - Zimbardo was criticised for breaking a number of ethical guidelines, but mainly the lack of protection from harm for the participants. Although none of them had lasting psychological effects, many of the prisoners experienced severe distress whilst in the experiment.
      - Ethnocentricism and androcentricism are both evident in this research. All participants were white, American males. This means that generalisation of these findings may not accurately represent other people, and therefore reduces population validty.
      - Applicability
        
        A 2006 replication by Reicher and Haslam found wildly different results. The prisoners refused to submit to the guards, and creted a shift of power. This clearly contradicts Zimbardo's findings.
        
        Zimbardo used his findings to explain a situation where US soldiers tortured and abused prisoners. This shows a potential real-world application of his findings, giving external validity.
  - - - Conformity is more likely if the group is all in agreement. If there is another dissenter, this means that the individual will have another person to be 'outcasted' with, and therefore reduces the effect of NSI. If they have support for their belief, they are more likely to resist the pressure to conform.
    - - The more difficult the task, the more likely it is for conformity to occur. As the task becomes more ambiguous, the individual will be more inclined to look towards other members of the group to find the correct answer (ISI).
    - - Smaller group sizes put more pressure on the individual to conform as it becomes more personal. Large groups become more impersonal and lose the influence on conformity, as the individual feels 'lost' amongst the group and the pressure decreases.
    - - Asch's original study took 123 male students and placed one in a group of confederates. They had to complete a line judgement test, and all the confederates would give an incorrect answer. If the participant also gave the wrong answer, this was counted as conformity. The conformity rate was 33%,
      - His variations tested the variables of group size, task difficulty, and unanimity of the group.
        
        Group size: 1 confederate led to a conformity rate of 3%; 2 confederates to 12.8%, and 3 confederates to 33% - the same as the original study (which used 7 confederates). The larger the group size after this, the lower the conformity rate. This suggests conformity is at its highest with 3-7 other members of the group.
        
        Task difficulty: In the original experiment, the correct answer was always obvious. In this variation, the difference was harder to judge. Asch found that this increased the rate of conformity.
        
        Unanimity of the group: In the original study, all confederates gave the same incorrect answer. In one variation, one confederate gave the correct answer - dropping the conformity rate to 5%. In another variation, the confederate gave another incorrect answer. This dropped the rate to 9%.
      - Evaluation
        
        Ethnocentricism and androcentricism: All participants were white American males, which may not accurately represent how other cultures may conform. The assumption of female response to be the same demonstrates beta bias.
        
        Ethical issues: Participants were deceived into believing they were taking part in an eye test, and so may not have been able to give full consent. Some participants reported feeling distressed throughout the experiment, suggesting a lack of protection from psychological harm.
- - - - Moscovici then repeated this experiment, but had the confederates be inconsistent in their answer. When shown the same slide, they would answer green one time and blue the next. This led to an influence rate of only 1%, suggesting a consistent minority is more likely to influence the majority than an inconsistent minority.
  - - - Cognitive conflict
        
        Consistency of position
        
        The snowball effect
        
        The augmentation principle
        
        Social cryptomnesia
  - - - Xie (2011) reported that when 10% of the population holds an unshakeable belief, their belief will always be adopted by the majority. They constructed a social network containing a majority with a 'traditional' viewpoint, but said they were open to change and a small number of individuals with a different viewpoint. If the listener held the same belief as another, this belief would be reinforced - if different, they considered this and moved on. If the next individual also held the different belief, the listener would adopt it. Once 10% of the group held this new belief, a tipping point was reached and the majority quickly accepted this new opinion. This suggests the importance of commitment in minority influence.
    - - Nemeth (1986) conducted a study where a group of four (three naïve participants and one confederate) were tasked with deciding the amount of compensation deserved for a victim of a ski lift accident. When the confederate argued for a low amount with no option for negotiation, he had little influence on the majority. However, when he compromised and moved slightly towards the majority position, they reciprocated this and changed their position. This suggests that if a minority demonstrates flexibility, they are more likely to be successful in influencing a majority.
    - - Moscovici's (1968) study demonstrated the importance of consistency. A consistent minority was more likely to influence the majority than an inconsistent minority.
      - Intra-individual/diachronic consistency: When a person or members of a group are consistent in their message over time.
        
        Inter-individual/synchronic consistency: When members of a group are consistent in their message together, even if this changes over time.
- - - - The predicted rate of those who would go up to 450 volts was 1.2% - but the results found 65% of participants administered a fatal shock.
    - - Proximity: When the participant was placed in the same room as the confederate, the rate went down to 40% as they were faced with the direct results of their action.
      - Remote authority: When the participant was given orders by telephone, and the authority was further away, the rate dropped the furthest out of all of the proximity variations to 20.5%. This suggests that the participants felt less pressure in this variation compared to the ones where they are directly observed.
      - Touch proximity: When the participant had to hold the confederate's hand onto the electrode to administer the shock, only 30% went up to 450 volts. This is because it was harder to enter the agentic state as they are actively participating and can see the results.
      - Venue: When the experiment was moved into a run-down office block instead of the university laboratory, the obedience rate decreased to 47.5%. This is potentially due to lack of trust, and therefore reliability and legitimacy of authority.
      - Legitimacy of authority: When the experimenter dressed 'casually' with no lab coat, the obedience rate dropped to 20%. This is because it is harder to affirm the legitimacy and reliability of the authority, and so harder to enter the agentic state.
- - - - A strong external locus of control describes someone who believes that they are largely not in control of their life, and that this is due to external forces (such as luck, fate, or other people). People with an external locus of control are more likely to be susceptible to social influence.
      - A strong internal locus of control describes someone who largely believes that they are in control of their life and what happens to them. People with an internal locus of control are less likely to be susceptible to social influence (and therefore more resistant).