Chapter 1 - Social Influence Flashcards
Define conformity
Change in behaviour or opinions as a result of real or imagined pressure from a group or person
Define internalisation
Taking on the majority view and accepting it as correct. Permanent even when the group is absent.
Identification
Moderate conformity, we act in the same way but don’t necessarily agree with them
Compliance
Temporary superficial conformity where we go along with the majority but privately disagree
Informational social influence
Taking on the majority view because we believe it is correct and accepting it because we want to be correct aswell
Normative social influence
Agreeing with the majority because we want to be accepted and liked, can lead to compliance
Give an example of internalisation
Becoming veggie because your friends are
Give and example of identification
Listening to the same music even if you don’t like it
Example of compliance
Peer pressure
Example of ISI
Agreeing in class with someone else’s answer
Example of NSI
Being Tory
What is the two process theory?
Suggest two main reasons people conform;
ISI
NSI
Who developed the two process theory of conformity?
Deutsch and Gerard (1955)
Research support for ISI
Lucas et al (2006), asked students to give answers to maths questions of various difficulty. Greater conformity on harder questions
What are nAffiliators?
People who have a greater need for affiliation - greater conformity
Research support for individual differences?
McGhee and Teevan (1967) found that students with higher need for affiliation were more likely to conform
Why is it not always possible for the two processes to be distinguished?
Outside labs they can act together and one is simply more dominant - the approach is not either or
Individual differences in ISI research support?
Perrin and Spencer (1980) conducted conformity study w science and engineering students and found very low conformity rates -they are confident in their intelligence
How does Asch’s variations support NSI
Asked p’s to write down answers and conformity dropped to 12.5%
How many participants were in Asch’s original study?
123 male American undergraduates
Asch’s original task?
Assess line length
Asch’s original procedure
Each naive participant tested with 6-8 confederates
All confederates instructed to give same wrong answers after first few trials
18 trails total w 12 answered incorrectly by confederates
Asch’s findings
75% confirmed at least once
P have wrong answer 37% of the time
Name Asch’s variations
Group size
Unanimity
Task difficulty
Findings for Asch’s group size variation?
3 confederates conformity rose to 31.8% but didn’t increase much further with addition of more confederates
Findings of Asch’s unanimity variation?
Conformity level with one dissenting confederate reduced by a quarter
Findings of Asch’s task difficulty variation?
Conformity increased as task got harder, mainly due to ISI
How does Perrin and Spencer’s research into conformity suggest Asch’s study was a child of its time?
Repeated the experiment in the U.K. And only one student conformed in 396 trials. America at the time was a conformist culture.
Findings for Asch’s group size variation?
3 confederates conformity rose to 31.8% but didn’t increase much further with addition of more confederates
Findings of Asch’s unanimity variation?
Conformity level with one dissenting confederate reduced by a quarter
Findings of Asch’s task difficulty variation?
Conformity increased as task got harder, mainly due to ISI
How does Perrin and Spencer’s research into conformity suggest Asch’s study was a child of its time?
Repeated the experiment in the U.K. And only one student conformed in 396 trials. America at the time was a conformist culture.
in which of Asch’s variations did conformity go down?
unanimity
outline Zimbardos SPE
set up a mock prison with students randomly allocated to prisoner or guard.
what were Zimbardo’s findings/conclusions?
- guards behaved with brutality and prisoners tried to defy but became more psychologically disturbed
- found that people conformed to social roles
evaluate SPE
- good control, random allocation
- lack of realism, play acting to stereotypes
- dispositional influence, only 1/3 of guards were brutal so conclusions of brutality are exaggerated
- ethical issues
outline Milgram’s original study into obedience
p’s gave fake electric shocks to ‘learner’ as directed by the ‘experimentor’
what were the findings of Milgrams original study
100% gave shocks to 300v
65% gave shocks to full at 450v
p’s showed extreme anxiety
what were the findings of Milgrams variations?
proximity - 40% where teacher could hear learner, 30% in touch proximity
location - 47.5% in run-down office
uniform - 20% when experimenter was ‘member of the public’
evaluate Milgrams obedience research
- low internal validity, p’s realised shocks were fake
- good external validity e.g. Hoflings nurses
- supporting replication (game of death)
- ethics, deception
what is the authoritarian personality?
type of personality where people are especially susceptible to obeying those in authority
what did Adorno’s F-scale measure
unconscious attitudes to other racial groups
what did Adorno et al find?
- identify with the strong and extreme respect for authority
what is authoritarian personality thought to be caused by?
extremely harsh parenting, children unable to express fears to parents so the feelings are displaced onto others who are percieved as weaker
evaluate Adorno’s F-scale
- Elm’s found that some of Milgrams p’s had authoritarian personality
- can’t explain increase in obedience across a whole culture
- equates with right wing, political bias
- correlation not causation
what is the agentic state?
acting as an agent of another and therefore not feeling responsible for consequences
what is the autonomous state?
where a person is free to act according to their own conscience
what are binding factors?
aspects of a situation which allow a person to limit the moral strain on themselves when they cannot quit
what is legitimacy of authority?
created by the heirachical nature of the society in which we live
what is destructive authority?
when problems arise due to the authority e.g. Hitler
evaluate the agentic state
- Blass and Schmidt found that people do blame legitimate authority for persons behaviour
- cannot explain why some of Milgrams p’s didn’t obey
- cannto explain the lack of moral strain on the nurses
evaluate legitimacy of authority
- explains social/cultural differences due to different social heirachies
- real-life application e.g. nazis
what is the process of minority influence gaining over majority
- majority think more deeply about the issue and question the actions of the majority
- snowball effect
the 3 principles for gaining influence as a minority
consistency
commitment
flexibility
evaluate minority influence
- research support, Moscovici’s blue-green study
- however Martin et al showed majority have greater effect since they lead to greater depth of thought
- artificial tasks tell us little about real social change
- limited real world application
importance of social influence in social change?
- NSI can lead to social change by drawing attention to the wrongs of the majority
- gradual commitment can lead to change
- disobedient role-models
evaluate social influence and social change
- NSI valid explanation off change, Nolan et al
- indirectly effective and limited
- majority views processed more deeply which contradicts process
- methodological issues
what is LOC
Rotter’s continuum of how much control people belive they have over events in their lives
evaluate LOC
- research support, internals less likely to fully obey (Holland, Milgram-style experiment)
- contradictory evidence, Twenge et al showed that people have become more external and more disobedient
- limited role of LOC
