1.1 social influence

Question 1

conformity

Answer 1

a form of social influence in which one adjusts their behaviour or thinking as a result of real or imagined pressure from a group of people

Question 2

types of conformity

Answer 2

kelman (1958): compliance, internalisation and identification

Question 3

compliance

Answer 3

compliance is when individuals adjust the behaviour, attitudes or beliefs they show in public, so that they are in line with the majority.

there is no change to privately held behaviour, attitudes or beliefs and conformity only lasts while the group is present.

it is therefore a superficial and temporary form of conformity.

> eg. student pretending to find conversations interesting on their first day to fit in even though they find it incredibly dull

Question 4

internalisation

Answer 4

internalisation is when individuals adjust their behaviour, attitudes or beliefs publicly AND privately so that they are in line with the majority.

the individual examines their own behaviour and attitudes based on what others are saying and decide that the majority is correct.

this is deeper than compliance and a more permanent form of conformity.

> eg. a student watching other students closely on their first day of school, and eventually dressing and behaving like then because they agree and value their dress sense and behaviour

Question 5

identification

Answer 5

identification is when an individual accepts social influence because they want to be associated with a role model or a social group.

by adopting the role model/group’s behaviour, attitudes or beliefs they feel connected to the role model/group, even though we don’t necessarily agree with everything the majority believes

> eg. student looks up to another group of teenagers/admires them, so decides that they want to be like them and associated with them so they alter their behaviour to be in line with the majority

Question 6

explanations for conformity

Answer 6

deutsch and gerard (1955) developed a two process theory for the two reasons for conformity - normative social influence (the desire to be LIKED/accepted) and informational social influence (the desire to be RIGHT/sure)

Question 7

informational social influence

Answer 7

people conform if they are unsure of the correct answer or how to behave in social situations and want to be right along with the group.

the drive for conformity is often sensible. if the majority is right, they are too and if they are not, at least they won’t stand out.

> eg. in a classroom where a student doesn’t know the answer they may turn to those who they think know better

Question 8

ISI more likely + leads to

Answer 8

ISI leads to internalisation, where people publically AND privately change their opinions.

ISI is more likely to happen if the situation is ambiguous (the correct answer is not clear), a crisis (rapid action) or when others are more expert.

Question 9

normative social influence

Answer 9

people conform because they have a fundamental need to be liked and accepted by others in a group.

we avoid behaviour that will lead to rejection or ridicule, which leads to copying others behaviour to ‘fit in’.

research shows that people like people who are similar to them, so conformity can be an effective strategy to ensure acceptance into a group.

Question 10

NSI more likely + leads to

Answer 10

NSI leads to compliance, where people will agree publicly with the group but privately they do not change their personal opinions.

NSI is most likely to occur in situations with strangers (avoiding rejection) or stressful situations (greater need for social support)

Question 11

strength of explanations of conformity (NSI)

Answer 11

+ asch (1951) asked participants to say which of three ‘test lines’ was the same as the ‘standard line’.

the participants were in a group with confederates who purposefully gave the same wrong answer, even though the correct answer was obvious.

in 35% of the trials, the participants conformed to the group and gave the wrong answer (the chance of making a genuine mistake on this task was only 1%). they conformed due to normative social influence.

after the experiment they claimed that they knew the correct answer but were worried that the group would ridicule them if they answered differently to everyone else.

Question 12

strength of explanations of conformity (ISI)

Answer 12

+ lucas et al (2006) asked students to give answers to mathematical problems that were easy or more difficult.

he found higher conformity rates to incorrect answers in the more difficult questions rather than easy ones. this was especially true for those students who felt that their mathematical skills were poor.

this study supports ISI because it suggests that conformity is more likely to occur when the situation is ambiguous or difficult. in the study, those students who were poor at maths looked to others who they felt had more knowledge and were right.

Question 13

weakness of explanations of conformity (NSI)

Answer 13

• there are individual differences that this explanation does not account for. not every individual shows NSI.

individuals who are not concerned about being liked are less affected by NSI, but ‘nAffiliators’, for example, are. these are people who have a greater need to be liked and are more likely to conform (mcghee and teevan 1967).

this suggests that the NSI explanation for conformity may lack population validity (it doesn’t apply to everyone).

Question 14

weakness of explanations of conformity (ISI)

Answer 14

• similarly, ISI does not affect everyone’s behaviour in the same way. for example, asch (1955) found that students were not as conformist (28%) as other types of participants (37%), like those who work in offices. this suggests that even if the situation may be ambiguous we don’t always look to others for support and will not always conform.

Question 15

weakness of explanations of conformity: one concept

Answer 15

• we can see NSI and ISI as one concept on why we conform rather than two. for example, in asch’s experiments, conformity was reduced when there was one other dissenting participant.

the dissenter may have reduced the power of NSI because they provided social support to the participant.

or, they may have reduced the power of ISI by giving the participant an alternative source of information.

this shows that it is not always clear whether it is NSI or ISI at work in conformity situations.

Question 16

weakness of explanations of conformity: lab studies

Answer 16

• many supporting studies for NSI and ISI as explanations for conformity are lab studies which lack ecological validity.

for example, asch’s study asked about the length of lines which would never happen in real life, so we don’t know that people will behave the same way in the real world.

Question 17

jenness (1932)

Answer 17

+ jenness (1932) investigated whether individuals would change their opinions in an ambiguous situation in response to group discussion.

26 students were asked to estimate how many beans they thought were in a jar on their own, in a group of three and then on their own again

he found that nearly all participants changed their original answer when the task was carried out in a group (males by 256 and females by 382 beans).

this is likely to be an example of informational social influence as participants would be uncertain about the actual number of beans in the jar and so be genuinely influenced by the group.

Question 18

sherif (1935)

Answer 18

+ sherif (1935) used the autokinetic effect to investigate conformity. this is where a small spot of light (projected onto a screen) in a dark room will appear to move, even though it is still (i.e. it is a visual illusion).

it was discovered that when participants were tested individually their estimates of how far the light moved varied considerably (eg. from 20cm to 80cm).

the participants were then tested in groups of three. sherif manipulated the composition of the group by putting together two people whose estimates when alone were very similar, and one person whose estimate was very different.

each person in the group had to say aloud how far they thought the light had moved. sherif found that over numerous estimates of the movement of light, the group converged to a common estimate.

the person whose estimate of movement was greatly different from the other two in the group conformed to the view of the other two because of informational social influence. the task was ambiguous so they looked to others for the answer.

Question 19

asch (1951) procedure

Answer 19

asch (1951) studied 123 male american undergraduates in a ‘vision test’.

he placed 1 naïve participant in a group with up to 8 other confederates, who had previously agreed their answers to each question (they were only pretending to be participants)

the group was asked to look at a ‘standard line’ and then decide individually which of three other ‘test lines’ were the same length without discussing it with one another.

they gave their responses one at a time out loud, with the participant going last so they heard the rest of the groups’ responses before giving their own.

the answer was obvious, but the confederates gave the wrong answer on 12 of the 18 trials on purpose.

Question 20

asch (1951) results

Answer 20

the chance of making a genuine mistake on this task was only 1% but 35% of the responses given by participants were incorrect in the critical trials. 75% of participants conformed in at least one of the 18 trials.

when asch interviewed his participants afterwards, he discovered that the majority of participants who had conformed had continued to trust their own judgment but gave the same answer as the group to avoid disapproval (normative social influence).

the study supports the idea of compliance and normative social influence because participants wanted to be LIKED more than RIGHT

Question 21

asch’s variables affecting conformity

Answer 21

group size, unanimity, task difficulty

Question 22

group size

Answer 22

asch (1956) increased group size by adding more confederates (increasing the size of the majority).

groups with 1-2 confederates had low conformity rates, but this went up to around 30% with 3 confederates.

this shows that conformity occurs up to a certain point, as rates of conformity leveled off when the majority was greater than 3.

Question 23

group size: campbell and fairey

Answer 23

campbell and fairey (1989) said group size is affected depending on the JUDGEMENT being made and the MOTIVATION of the individual. ambiguous situations mean that people conform to follow the majority, otherwise its to fit in.

Question 24

unanimity

Answer 24

when the group had unanimity (everyone agreed) conformity increased.

however, when there was at least one dissenter (meaning that the group was not unanimous in their answer), conformity dropped.

asch (1956) found that even the presence of just one confederate who went against the majority reduced conformity from 33% to 5%.

even when the confederate gave a different wrong answer to the rest of the group conformity dropped from 33% to 9%.

Question 25

task difficulty

Answer 25

asch (1956) decided to adjust the task difficulty by making the test lines more similar in length (so the answer was more ambiguous).

under these circumstances the level of conformity increased, possibly because informational social influence was starting to have an impact.

this is because when we are uncertain, we look to others for confirmation. the more difficult the task became the greater the informational social influence and the conformity.

Question 26

task difficulty: lucas et al

Answer 26

lucas et al (2006) found that the influence of task difficulty is moderated by the self-efficacy of the individual

highly competent/confident participants remained more independent than participants of low self-efficacy even with higher task difficulty in solving maths problems

this shows that situational differences (task difficulty) and personality differences (efficacy) are both important in determining conformity.

Question 27

weakness of asch’s study: temporal validity

Answer 27

• asch (1951, ‘56) does not have temporal validity because his results are not consistent across situations of time, and conformity is not an essential part of human behaviour

asch’s study was conducted 80 years ago and it is possible that people may have been more conformist then than they are now.

post-war attitudes that people should work together and consent rather than dissent may have affected the results.

the study was repeated by perrin and spencer in 1980 on engineering students in the UK, and found only 1/396 participants conformed.

Question 28

weakness of asch’s study: ecological validity

Answer 28

• the task given to the participants, to match line lengths, is artificial and unlikely to occur in real life.

conformity usually takes place in a social context, often with people we know rather than strangers.

the study therefore lacks mundane realism (it does not reflect real life) and ecological validity (cannot be generalised to real life).

Question 29

weakness of asch’s study: bias

Answer 29

• this study is gender biased because the sample only contained male participants. this means that the study may not represent female behaviour. neto (1995) suggests women may be more conformist and concerned about social relationships

it is also culturally biased because it only included white american men and may not reflect the behaviour of other cultures. bond and smith (1996) say behaviours of people in individualist cultures like the US may not apply to places like china with a collectivist cultures, where the social group is more important than the individual (conformity rates would be higher).

however, this study has since been replicated with different samples and cultures, and has proven to be reliable (similar results have been found).

Question 30

weakness of asch’s study: ethics

Answer 30

• there are several ethical issues with this study.

deception, participants believed they were taking part in a test of perception

lack of informed consent, participants did not agree to take part in a study about conformity

psychological harm, participants were put in a stressful and embarrassing situation).

however, it was necessary to deceive participants about the purpose of the study to prevent demand characteristics, which would diminish the validity of the study.

Question 31

social roles

Answer 31

social roles are the behaviours expected of an individual who occupies a social position or status.

people can conform to the social roles assigned to them due to shared expectations of behaviour. eg. cashier’s should be polite

Question 32

stanford prison experiment: procedure

Answer 32

phillip zimbardo (1973) wanted to investigate whether brutality of american prison guards was due to their sadistic personalities or the prison environment (in other words, whether conformity to social roles would alter a person’s behaviour) through the stanford prison experiment.

a simulated prison was created in the basement of the stanford university psychology department. 24 emotionally and psychologically stable young men were recruited and randomly assigned to the role of prisoner or guard.

the guards had complete control over the prisoners who were confined to their cells around the clock except for meals, toilet privileges, head counts, and work.

the guards were told to maintain order using any means necessary, except for physical violence.

Question 33

stanford prison experiment: findings

Answer 33

during the experiment, the guards quickly became aggressive and the prisoners became submissive.

the guards used verbal abuse, sprayed them with carbon dioxide, took away their beds, stripped prisoners naked and forced the ringleaders into solitary confinement when they tried to rebel on the second day.

the guards became so aggressive that the study had to be ended after only six days (it was meant to last two weeks), because of concerns about the psychological health of the prisoners. the signs of severe distress were only pointed out by another psychologist.

Question 34

weakness of zimbardo: unethical

Answer 34

• the study was highly unethical as prisoners were subjected to psychological harm.

five prisoners had to be released early because of their extreme reactions, such as crying, rage and acute anxiety.

however, zimbardo did not expect the guards to behave in the way they did so this harm could not have been anticipated.

Question 35

weakness of zimbardo: questionable validity

Answer 35

• z took on the role of prison warden, became very involved in the experiment and lost his objectivity.

he had to be told by a colleague to end the experiment because of concerns over the distress of the prisoners.

this means the validity of the findings can be questioned.

Question 36

weakness of zimbardo: unrepresentative sample

Answer 36

• the sample was unrepresentative as all the participants were white, young, middle-class, male students from stanford university. they also volunteered. certain type of person

therefore, the results cannot be generalised to women (gender bias) or other cultures (cultural bias).

Question 37

weakness of zimbardo: demand characteristics

Answer 37

• the guards in z’s experiment may have behaved the way they did due to demand characteristics.

some of the participants reported afterward that they thought that the experimenters wanted them to behave aggressively, and this is why they behaved the way they did.

this means the study is not valid.

Question 38

weakness of zimbardo: individual differences

Answer 38

• some of the guards did not conform to the role given to them and were very reluctant to become involved in cruelty towards the prisoners, whereas other guards were very abusive.

this seems to suggest that individual differences are important in determining the extent to which participants will conform to social roles

Question 39

obedience

Answer 39

a form of social influence in which an individual follows a direct order. the person who issues the order is usually a person of authority who has the power to punish disobedient behaviour.

Question 40

milgram (1963): aim

Answer 40

milgram (1963) wanted to investigate the obedience of ordinary individuals when asked to administer electric shocks by an authority figure.

he used a male volunteer sample to take part in a study supposedly about ‘the effect of punishment on learning’. this was so he didn’t risk demand characteristics.

Question 41

milgram (1963): procedure

Answer 41

40 participants were invited to the psychology dept. at yale, and were met by an experimenter (a man in a white lab coat) and ‘mr wallace’ (a 47-year-old man with a weak heart). both were actually confederates.

the experimenter asked both mr wallace and the pp to pick notes out of a hat to determine whether they would play the role of a teacher or a learner in the experiment. this was rigged so the pp was always the teacher, who had to punish the learner if they made a mistake on a memory test.

Question 42

milgram (1963): experiment

Answer 42

the pps were asked to administer an electric shock from a separate room each time the learner made a mistake, increasing the voltage by 15 per chance. the controls were fake, but very convincing.

the voltage went from 450V with labels such as ‘slight shock’, ‘moderate shock’ to ‘danger: severe shock’ with XXX on the final switches

Question 43

milgram (1963): experiment (2)

Answer 43

as the experiment went on and mr wallace intentionally got questions wrong, the shocks became more severe. he (fake) demanded to be released from the experiment, screamed, kicked the wall, complained about his weak heart, refused to answer the questions and finally went silent.

when the teacher showed reluctance to shock the learner the experimenter prompted him to continue, using one of four statements, ‘please continue’, ‘the experiment requires that you continue’, and ‘it is absolutely essential that you continue’ and ‘you have no choice, you must continue’

Question 44

milgram (1963): findings

Answer 44

1. 100% of participants gave shocks up to 300V (when mr wallace banged on the wall and stopped answering).
2. milgram predicted only 2% would shock to the highest level because of a study he conducted prior with psychology students, but 65% of participants administered electric shocks up to the maximum 450V.
3. participants felt a high level of stress during the experiments, they showed symptoms including sweating, trembling, anxiety, and in some cases, hysterical laughter. despite this, most were obedient and willing to inflict potentially lethal shocks on a man with a weak heart.

Question 45

weakness of milgram: naive pps

Answer 45

• deception: told it was about learning when it was about obedience, electric shocks and wallace weren’t real
• informed consent: couldn’t have consented because they didn’t know the nature of the experiment

BUT

the deception was necessary to avoid demand characteristics and therefore increase the validity of the study

Question 46

weakness of milgram: distressed pps

Answer 46

• psychological harm: pps were extremely distressed (some became hysterical), and may have even thought that they had killed wallace
• right to withdraw: several participants asked to leave the experiment but were told that they were not allowed

BUT

milgram did not expect his participants to obey and so this psychological harm could not have been anticipated.

Question 47

weakness of milgram: sample

Answer 47

• the sample is unrepresentative as all of the participants were white american males. results cannot be generalised to women (gender bias) or other cultures (cultural bias).

the sample was also taken by placing an ad up, which means it was volunteer sampling. this could have affected the results as only a certain type of person agrees to volunteer (like a happier, more lenient, people pleaser for example)

however, this study has since been replicated with women and the obedience rates were not significantly different.

Question 48

strength of milgram: cost-benefit

Answer 48

+ despite the ethical issues, many psychologists feel that after conducting a cost-benefit analysis the study was worthwhile.

we now know that most people could potentially do the same thing, leading to people taking more responsibility and not blindly following orders. an example of this is the benefit of knowing the ‘germans are different hypothesis’ is false (holocaust), as normal people will follow authority.

the participants did not suffer any true long-term emotional disturbances and most (84%) of them said they were happy to have taken part and that they had learnt something important from the experience.

Question 49

situational variables affecting obedience

Answer 49

milgram (1974) conducted several variations of his original study. he wanted to determine which situational variables lead to high levels of obedience, and which reduce obedience. he found proximity, location and uniform are important factors.

Question 50

proximity

Answer 50

in the proximity variation both the teacher and the learner were seated in the same room. obedience levels fell to 40%, as the teacher was now able to experience mr. wallace’s anguish directly.

in a more extreme variation, known as the touch proximity variation, the teacher had to actually force the learner’s arm down onto a metal plate to administer the shocks. obedience rates were 30%.

the proximity of the experimenter is also important. in the remote instruction variation, the experimenter left the room after giving his instructions and gave subsequent orders by phone. most missed out on shocks or gave lower voltages than they were meant to. the obedience rate was 21%.

Question 51

location

Answer 51

to test the location’s effect, the experiment was carried out again in a rundown office by an experimenter wearing casual clothes. all the other variations were at the prestigious yale university.

obedience rates were 48% compared to the 65% at yale.

the experimenter had a higher authority at yale than in the run-down office. participants reported that this increased their confidence in the experimenter’s integrity.

this led to higher obedience rates because of the perceived legitimacy of the uni (location).

Question 52

uniform

Answer 52

uniforms have a powerful impact on obedience because they are visible symbols of authority.

in the original study, the experimenter wore a white lab coat as a symbol of his authority.

milgram carried out a variation in which the experimenter was called away because of a phone call right at the start of the procedure.

the role of the experimenter was then taken over by an ‘ordinary member of the public’ (a confederate in everyday clothes) rather than a lab coat. the obedience level dropped to 20%, the lowest of the variations.

Question 53

strengths of milgram’s variables: miranda (1981)

Answer 53

+ milgram’s research and his variations have been replicated in other cultures as well.

miranda et al (1981) found high obedience rates in spanish students (90%). this suggests that milgram’s conclusions about obedience are not limited to american males but apply to females too.

milgram repeated his study on american females too and found the same level of obedience as his male participants.

Question 54

strengths of milgram’s variables: bickman (1974)

Answer 54

+ uniform can show power and status (eg. a police officer’s uniform) or lack thereof (eg. a prisoner’s uniform).

bickman (1974) asked confederates to order passers-by to pick some litter off the street or move away from a bus stop.

the confederates were dressed as either a guard, milkman or just in smart clothes. 90% of people obeyed the guard but only 50% obeyed the civilian. a person in a guard uniform is more likely to be obeyed.

Question 55

weaknesses of milgram’s variables: demand characteristics

Answer 55

• the study was a fake scenario that the participants could have worked out and acted accordingly (because of the four prods, the phone call, forceful action etc.), hence why 35% didn’t shock to the full 450 volts

Question 56

weaknesses of milgram’s variables: mandel (1998)

Answer 56

• the obedience alibi: situational factors (uniform, location, proximity) are an explanation for obedience, proven through milgrams findings.

however, mandel argued that it is an excuse for evil or bad behaviour. he suggests the variables act as an excuse for the survivors of the holocaust

eg. saying the nazi’s did it due to situational factors beyond their control. this has social impacts.

Question 57

situational explanations for obedience

Answer 57

agentic state and legitimacy of authority

Question 58

agentic state

Answer 58

milgram (1974) argued that people can obey unethical order because of the situation rather than a sadistic personality. his initial interest was sparked from the events of the holocaust, in which camp leaders stated they were only obeying orders.

Question 59

agentic shift

Answer 59

milgram suggested that people following orders go from an autonomous state into an agentic state (called agentic shift).

once in an agentic state people ‘unthinkingly’ carry out orders and perceive themselves as merely the instrument of an authority figure.

Question 60

why people stay in the agentic state

Answer 60

they believe that the authority figure is trustworthy, and responsible for their actions (diffusion of responsibility). so, they do not follow their own conscience or feel guilt for their actions and are able to remain calm. they are just ‘agents’ following orders.

milgram argued that the reason people stay in this state was due to binding factors, which allow the person to ignore the damaging effects of their behaviour and reduce the ‘moral strain’ they are feeling.

Question 61

application to milgram

Answer 61

milgram applied this theory to his own study. he found that when participants were debriefed after the electric shock experiment, they reported continuing to deliver the dangerous shocks because they felt they had to obey the experimenter, despite knowing it was wrong.

this proves that participants viewed themselves as subordinates of the experimenter, and not responsible for their own actions.

Question 62

strength of the agentic state: blass and schmidt (2001)

Answer 62

this theory makes sense in explaining why we obey authority and is supported by research.

blass and schmitt (2001) showed a film of milgram’s study to some students and asked them who was responsible for harming the learner mr wallace.

the students blamed the experimenter rather than the participant, and suggested that because the experimenter was a scientist (top of the hierarchy) he had authority and participants were merely agents who followed orders from the scientist.

Question 63

weakness of agentic state: mandel (1998)

Answer 63

research evidence has refuted the idea that the behaviour of the nazi’s can be explained in terms of the agentic state.

mandel (1998) explained one incident involving the ‘german reserve police battalion 101’ where men shot civilians in poland.

they were not given any direct orders to do so and were told that they could do other duties if they preferred, but didn’t.

agentic state theory does not explain obedience since the police were not acting as agents as they did not have to shoot, yet they still did.

Question 64

legitimate authority

Answer 64

legitimate authority is another situational explanation of obedience.

most societies are structured in a hierarchy and from childhood we are socialised to obey certain legitimate authority figures (eg. teachers, parents, police). this is because we trust them and they have the power to punish those who don’t (eg. the court can punish criminals)

historically many have used their status to carry out destructive behaviour eg. hitler and the holocaust or milgrams 4 prods to encourage participants to administer lethal shocks to an innocent with a heart condition.

Question 65

factors that affect legitimate authority

Answer 65

legitimate authority is increased by visible symbols of authority (eg. uniform).

uniform is a symbol of legitimate authority eg. bickman (1974) police uniform or milgram (1963) shows increased obedience rates in a white lab coat because we are taught to respect scientists

Question 66

strength of legitimate authority: hofling (1966)

Answer 66

+ hofling (1966) found that nurses would obey a dangerous order from a doctor because they believed the doctor was higher up in the hierarchy

nurses received a phone call from an
unknown doctor (who was an actor). he asked her to administer 20mg of a drug called astrofen (really just a sugar pill) to a patient.

this broke hospital rules as it was twice the maximum dose (as indicated on the bottle), the instructions were given over the phone, the doctor was unknown, and the medicine was not on the stock list.

21/22 nurses carried out these instructions, despite the potential danger, because doctors have legitimate authority.

Question 67

weakness of legitimate authority: milgram (1963)

Answer 67

• legitimate authority does not explain why some people can resist the order of authority figures.

35% of people in milgram’s (1963) study refused to obey the experimenter, even though he had legitimate authority in that situation.

Question 68

strength of legitimate authority: bickman (1974)

Answer 68

+ uniform can show power and status (eg. a police officer’s uniform) or lack thereof (eg. a prisoner’s uniform).

bickman (1974) asked confederates to order passers-by to pick up some litter off the street or move away from a bus stop.

the confederates were dressed as either a guard, milkman, or just in smart clothes. 90% of people obeyed the guard but only 50% obeyed the civilian.

the guard is more likely to be obeyed because he was a more legitimate authority figure.

Question 69

authoritarian personality

Answer 69

adorno (1950) proposed a dispositional factor explained obedience better than situational, meaning an individual’s personality had more of an effect than the situation/environment they were in when they obeyed.

he argued that authoritarian personalities were more likely to obey authority figures because they have certain traits that make them more obedient

Question 70

traits of authoritarian personality

Answer 70

CoLD SHIP

• conformist and conventional (rule following)
• likely to categorise people as ‘them’ vs ‘us’
• dogmatic (intolerant to ambiguity)
• servile to those with a higher perceived status
• hostile to those with a lower status (scapegoating)
• inflexible in their beliefs and views
• preoccupied with power and status

Question 71

development of the authoritarian personality

Answer 71

adorno (1950) thought people developed these personalities through a harsh upbringings from their parents or caregivers, usually involving physical punishment.

this creates hostility which is directed towards weaker others who cannot fight back and are therefore safe.

they cannot take their anger out on the parents because they fear them, so they act submissively toward them and extend this behaviour toward all authority figures

Question 72

measuring the authoritarian personality

Answer 72

adorno developed the f (fascism) scale to measure authoritarian personality.

participants were asked to rate how much they agree with statements like ‘obedience and respect for authority is important for children to learn’ or ‘rules should be followed, not changed’

he tested over 2000 middle-class, white american participants for their unconscious attitudes to different racial groups, and found a relationship between an authoritarian personality and scoring high on the f scale quiz.

Question 73

strength of authoritarian personality: miller (1975)

Answer 73

+ miller (1975) found that high scorers on the f-scale test were more likely to obey the order to hold some electrical wiring whilst completing a test than those with low scores.

the study proves if you obey authority even if you’re harming yourself it must be due to personality.

Question 74

strength of authoritarian personality: altmeyer (1981)

Answer 74

+ altmeyer (1981) suggested participants should shock themselves if they made a mistake on a learning task.

findings showed that those who scored high on the f scale questionnaire were more likely to shock themselves, again showing a link between authoritarian personality and obedience.

Question 75

weakness of authoritarian personality: limited explanation

Answer 75

• saying that the reason why we obey authority is due to our authoritarian personality is a very limited explanation.

it does not explain why the majority of germans are very obedient, but not all germans can possess an authoritarian personality.

an alternative explanation is the social identity theory which explains obedience whereby the germans identified with the anti-semitic nazi state, and scapegoated the ‘outgroup’ of jews.

Question 76

weakness of authoritarian personality: methodological issues

Answer 76

• a limitation of the authoritarian personality explanation is that it is based on flawed methodology.

eg. adorno introduced the f scale questionnaire to measure the obedient personality. there are many problems with the questionnaire itself.

each item on the questionnaire is worded in the same direction meaning it is fairly easy to get a high score on the authoritarian personality.

the questions are all closed meaning there is no room for explanation.

although adorno did interview his participants about their childhood experiences, he already knew their score on the questionnaire meaning that he would have shown interviewer bias.

Question 77

resistance to social influence

Answer 77

the pressure to conform/obey can exert powerful influences over people’s behaviour and actions. however, in each significant study that was carried out in the field of social influence, some individuals resisted the pressure put upon them and retained their independence.

ash’s (1951) line study - 25% of pps did not conform on a single trial
milgram’s (1963) electric shock study - 35% of the 40 male participants did not obey authority and go to 450 volts
hofling (1966) - 1/22 nurses did not administer the drug
zimbardo (1973) - 2/3 guards resisted the pressure to behave sadistically towards prisoners

Question 78

two factors that led to resistance of social influence

Answer 78

obedience is influenced by both external (situational) and internal (dispositional e.g. personality) factors. thus, so is disobedience.

an important external factor is the presence of others who are also resisting the pressure to conform or obey, providing social support.

an internal (personality) factor which seems to be important is an internal locus of control.

Question 79

social support

Answer 79

social support is a situational explanation of resistance to social influence, which suggests that people can resist the pressure to conform/obey if they have an ally supporting them.

Question 80

social support: conformity

Answer 80

the ally refusing to conform breaks the unanimity of the group. people then start to think that there are other, equally legitimate, ways of thinking or responding.

the presence of an ally gives them more confidence in their decision and a better ability to stand up to the majority. since they do not fear being ridiculed or rejected, they can avoid normative social influence.

however, asch reported that if the dissenter returned to conforming/obeying, then so does the participant (short-term resistance).

Question 81

social support: obedience

Answer 81

people are also more likely to defy an authority figure if they see a disobedient role model refusing to obey.

this is because when a person rejects the instructions of an authority figure it challenges that person’s legitimate authority.

Question 82

strength of social support: asch (1951)

Answer 82

+ asch (1951) asked participants to say which of three ‘test lines’ was the same as the ‘standard line’.

the participants were in a group with confederates who purposefully gave the same wrong answer, even though the correct answer was obvious.

in 33% of the trials, the participants conformed to the group and gave the wrong answer (the chance of making a genuine mistake on this task was only 1%).

however, conformity dropped to 5% when one confederate acted as an ally to the participant and gave the right answer.

Question 83

strength of social support: milgram (1973)

Answer 83

+ milgram (1974) asked participants to deliver electric shocks to a confederate, mr. wallace, when he got a question wrong.

the shocks were not real, but the participants believed they were. 65% of participants shocked mr. wallace up to 450 volts.

however, when there was another confederate who acted as a disobedient role model and refused to shock mr. wallace, only 10% of the participants delivered electric shocks up to 450 volts.

Question 84

social support weaknesses: ecological validity

Answer 84

• this theory is strong for explaining if you have a group size of under 10 people. 1 dissenter can influence non conformity or disobedience.

in the real world, group sizes are massive (e.g. 100s) and having 1 dissenter in a big group will not have any influence on the majority.

studies explaining social support are restricted to small group sizes and may not represent the group sizes in the real world. more research would be required to establish the effects of social support on resistance to social influence.

Question 85

locus of control

Answer 85

julian rotter (1966) argued that a person’s personality determines whether they conform/obey or resist social influence (dispositional explanation).

a person’s locus of control refers to the extent to which they believe they have control over their own behaviour. we can have an internal or external locus of control.

Question 86

internal locus of control

Answer 86

people with a high internal locus of control believe that what occurs in their life is a result of their own behaviour and actions. they can therefore alter what happens to them.

for example, if a student does badly on a test they consider it to be a result of inadequate revision.

people with internal locus’ of control are less likely to conform/obey because they rely less on the opinions of others and take responsibility for their actions.

Question 87

external locus of control

Answer 87

people with an external locus of control believe strongly that what happens in their lives is outside of their control.

they think that what occurs in their lives is determined by chance or other people, so they cant change it.

if they do badly on a test for example, they will blame it on bad luck or inadequate teachers.

Question 88

strength of locus of control: oliner and oliner (1988)

Answer 88

+ they interviewed 406 german people who had sheltered jewish people from the nazis, vs 126 people who had not done this.

the group that rescued the jews had a more internal locus of control, which allowed them to disobey the nazis rather than leave the situation to fate

Question 89

strength of locus of control: milgram (1974)

Answer 89

+ milgram (1974) asked participants to deliver electric shocks to a confederate, mr. wallace, when he got a question wrong. the shocks were not real, but the participants believed they were. 65% of participants obeyed and shocked mr. wallace up to 450 volts.

milgram (1974) gave the participants a questionnaire to measure their locus of control and found that the 35% who had disobeyed were far more likely to have an internal locus of control than those who had obeyed.

Question 90

weakness of locus of control: williams and warchal (1981)

Answer 90

• williams and warchal (1981) found that conformers were less assertive than non-conformers but that the two groups did not score differently on a test to determine their locus of control.

this suggests that assertiveness is more important than locus of control in determining whether or not a person will refuse to conform/obey.

Question 91

weakness of locus of control: twenge (2004)

Answer 91

• found conflicting research evidence, as they analysed metadata from over a 40-year period and found that over this period, people had become more resistant to obedience but also showed a more external locus of control.

if resistance was linked to an internal locus of control (more independent, confident, responsible) then the higher figures of resistance to social influence should have also shown higher internal LOC’s. this challenges the link, especially with obedience.

Question 92

minority influence

Answer 92

a type of social influence that motivates individuals to reject established majority group norms.

moscovici (1985) considered minority influence to lead to conversion, where majorities become gradually won over to a minority viewpoint.

this the new belief/behaviour being accepted both publicly and privately and can be seen as a type of ‘internalisation’ because it leads to disagreeing with the majority.

Question 93

behavioural characteristics of minority influence

Answer 93

minority groups are most likely to be convincing when they are committed, consistent and flexible.

Question 94

commitment

Answer 94

commitment is shown when members of the minority demonstrate their dedication to their belief. because joining the minority has a greater cost, the degree of commitment is also often higher to be taken seriously.

1. by making sacrifices (augmentation principle)
2. by taking risks
3. by being inconvenienced in some way.

this shows that the minority is not acting out of self-interest

Question 95

consistency

Answer 95

occurs when a minority repeatedly gives the same message over time. this makes a majority reassess their belief and consider the issue more carefully. eg. moscovicis study (1985)

Question 96

flexibility

Answer 96

being non-dogmatic is when a minority shows they are willing to listen to other viewpoints, negotiate, and compromise. the majority will then listen to the minority’s point of view/take their argument more seriously. however one should strike a balance between flexibility and consistency.

Question 97

snowball effect

Answer 97

minority influence initially has a small effect but then spreads as more and more people consider the issue being raised and are converted to the minority viewpoint.

eventually it reaches a tipping point, where the minority becomes the majority. this is known as the snowball effect.

Question 98

social crypto-amnesia

Answer 98

minority influence is a slow process and may even be unconscious.

sometimes the individual is not even aware of where the new idea originated from, which is called social crypto-amnesia.

Question 99

strength of minority social influence: moscovici (1969)

Answer 99

+ moscovici (1969) told 172 female participants that they were taking part in a colour perception task. all pps were shown 36 slides of colours, all varying shades of blue, and were asked to state the colour out loud.

the naive participants were placed in two groups of six, with two confederates in each group. one group was the ‘consistent’ group and one group was the ‘inconsistent’ group.

in the consistent condition, the confederates stated that the colour was green in all 36 trials - pps were swayed by the minority 8.2% of the time.

in the inconsistent condition, confederates said that 24/36 slides were green and the rest were blue. the participants were only influenced by the minority 1.25% of the time here.

this shows that consistent minority influence is more effective than inconsistent.

Question 100

weaknesses of minority influence: moscovici (1969)

Answer 100

• gender and culturally biased, moscovici only used american women. we cannot conclude that male/other cultured participants would respond to minority influence in the same way. research often suggests that women are more likely to conform than men, therefore further research is needed to determine the effect of minority influence on male participants.
• lab experiments, lack ecological validity. pps are a collection of students who do not know each other, and will probably never meet again.
• ethical issues. deception of pps, moscovici’s ‘colour perception test’. no informed consent. however, it required deception in order to achieve valid results. if pps were aware of the true aim of the experiment, they might have displayed demand characteristics and acted differently.

Question 101

social change

Answer 101

social change is when a whole society adopts a new behaviour/set of beliefs, which then becomes the norm. examples of this are equal rights for homosexual couples, recycling rates increasing and women being able to vote. this is often a result of minority influence (the individual/small group impacting the majority). social change occurs when the minority view challenges the majority view and is eventually accepted by the majority

Question 102

stages of minority influence creating social change

Answer 102

1. drawing the majority’s attention to an issue
2. expressing arguments consistently over time
3. other people outside the minority question the majority
4. augmentation principle - if the minority are willing to suffer for their views, they are seen as more committed and taken seriously
5. snowball effect - minority influence initially has a small effect but then spreads. as more people consider the issue being raised, they are converted to the minority viewpoint and the minority becomes the majority. widescale change occurs (eg. laws)
6. social crypto-amnesia - social change is so commonly implemented that some may not even recognise when the change was the minority eg. women’s right to vote

Question 103

minority influence processes

Question 104

obedience processes

Answer 104

governments/lawmakers can bring about social change through power and the process of obedience. eg. changing the law to allow gay marriage could mean that people may be more accepting of homosexual rights because changes in the law make a behaviour a social norm that others then adopt.

dictators can also bring about social change through obedience. this leads to groups of people changing their behaviour because of the fear of punishment/consequences of not obeying.