Paper 1: Social Influence

Question 1

What is internalisation?

Answer 1

internalisation - changes public and private views/behaviour to match the group. Longest lasting type of conformity, will continue outside of group setting

Question 2

What is identification?

Answer 2

Identification - changes public views bc they identify with the group and want to be part of it. The change will last for as long as they are in the group.

Question 3

What is compliance?

Answer 3

Compliance - public behaviour changed, but privately views stay the same. Will last only as long as the individual is in that setting

Question 4

What is informational social influence?

Answer 4

Informational social influence (ISI) - the individual is looking for info, they are looking for info on how to behave. Normally leads to internalisation

Question 5

What is normative social influence?

Answer 5

Normative social influence (NSI) - individual is trying to fit in with social norms. Leads to compliance

Question 6

Aims of Asch’s study?

Answer 6

Aim: to see if people will conform to a majority, even with an obvious answer.

Question 7

Procedure of Asch’s study?

Answer 7

Procedure: 123 American males took part. They were in groups of 6-8, but only one of them was a true participant- the rest were confederates (told how to act by the researcher). They had to answer out loud which line, from a choice of three, matched a ‘control’ line. The answer was obvious. The confederates all gave the same wrong answer. The real participant gave their answer last or last-but-one.

Question 8

Findings of Asch’s study?

Answer 8

Findings: 36.8% of the answers given by the participants were conforming answers. 75% of participants conformed at least once.

Question 9

Conclusions of Asch’s study?

Answer 9

Conclusions: People will conform to a majority, even if that majority is wrong. Afterwards, participants said they conformed in order to fit in.

Question 10

Negative evaluation for Asch’s study?

Answer 10

Cons: -lacks mundane realism. People unlikely to measure line lengths in everyday situation. The lack of mundane realism. Therefore unrealistic representation of conformity.

Question 11

Aims of Zimbardo’s study?

Answer 11

Aim: To investigate if behaviour in prisons is due to the roles people play, and whether people will conform to a social role

Question 12

Procedure of Zimbardo’s study?

Answer 12

Procedure: the study was basement of the Psych department of Stanford University. Participants were randomly assigned to role of prisoner or prison guard. When the prisoners were arrested, they were taken to a local police station, before being transported to the prison. They had to wear ‘uniform’ and given numbers to replace names. Guards given their own uniform, including sunglasses that meant their eyes couldn’t be seen. The guards were told that they could do whatever was necessary to keep order in the prison (not physical assault).

Question 13

Findings of Zimbardo’s study?

Answer 13

Findings: The prisoners were rebellious at first, not taking the situation seriously. After this, the guards acted increasingly brutally, so much so that the study had to be stopped after 5 days (instead of the planned 14). The guards used tactics to control the prisoners, for example waking them in the night to perform head counts and making them perform degrading tasks. Prisoners fell into their roles and became subdued and depressed. One went on hunger strike and was confined to the ‘hole’. Prisoners showed signs of psychological disturbance, and some had to be released early. By the end, the guards and prisoners were fully immersed in their roles.

Question 14

Conclusions of Zimbardo’s study?

Answer 14

The behaviour of the participants can be explained by conformity to social roles. All were psychologically healthy, but the guards acted in extreme ways, perhaps due to the lack of constraints on their behaviour. This shows the power of the situation in shaping peoples’ behaviour.

Question 15

negative evaluation for zimbardo?

Answer 15

ethical issues. Zimbardo himself played a role in the study as the superintended. May have damaged the right to withdraw - ethical issue

Prisoners did hunger strike - no protection from harm built into the study

Argued ppts acted in stereotypical way - 1 ppt said that they were basing their behaviour on a character they had seen in a film. may have measured conformity to a stereotype rather than a role

Question 16

positive evaluation for zimbardo?

Answer 16

guards and prisoners randomly assigned to their roles - internal validity

Question 17

Aims of Milgram’s study?

Answer 17

to see if people will obey orders, even those requiring them to harm others.

Question 18

Procedure of Milgram’s study?

Answer 18

40 American males recruited via newspaper. They were told that the study was about how punishment affects learning. The experimenter who was a confederate assigned the ppt to the role of teacher through a rigged draw and another confederate was given the role of learner. The teacher and learner were in separate rooms, so could hear but not see each other. The teacher was told to shock the learner when they answered incorrectly and the shocks increased in intensity. At 300V the learner began banging on the wall and protesting and after 350V there was no further response. Finally, 4 prompts were used, eg “it is imperative that you continue” “please keep going” - if the ppt continued to protest they could withdraw.

Question 19

Findings of Milgram’s study?

Answer 19

65% of ppts went to the max 450V shock. NONE stopped before 300V. Many ppts showed signs of anxiety and tension; sweating, shaking etc.

Question 20

Conclusions of Milgram’s study?

Answer 20

people will obey orders, even if they could fatally harm a stranger in doing so.

Question 21

negative evaluation for Milgram?

Answer 21

Ethical - no protection from harm. Ppts were sweating, shaking etc

Questionable right to withdraw with ppt having to say they wanted to stop multiple times before they were allowed to.

Lack of informed consent - deception about what the study was really about.

Question 22

Positive evaluation for Milgram?

Answer 22

study was repeated testing situational variables, eg location, proximity and uniform. Gave us knowledge on the situational variables that affect obedience.

Question 23

What was the effect of the 3 situational variables for Milgram?

Answer 23

Condition 1: location: study was conducted in run down office rather than Yale uni - obedience dropped.

Condition 2: proximity: when teacher and learner were in the same room, obedience dropped.

Condition 3: uniform: when instructed by a person wearing ordinary clothes rather than lab coat, obedience dropped.

Question 24

What are the factors that affect obedience?

Answer 24

Social psychological factors: agentic/autonomous state. Agentic state - a condition in which a person does not feel in control of their actions, rather they in under the control of someone else.

Autonomous state - when people do feel responsible for their own actions.

legitimacy of authority - people will obey someone who they feel to be above them in the social hierarchy.

Question 25

What is the dispositional explanation for obedience?

Answer 25

Authoritarian personality - traditional values, negative to people who they see as beneath them, obedient to people they see as above them. Caused by a strict upbringing. You can test the authoritarian personality with the F-scale, developed by Adorno.

Question 26

Evaluate the authoritarian personality?

Answer 26

Other explanations for obedience may be more/less reliable

Question 27

what is locus of control?

Answer 27

Internal locus of control - more likely to resist social influence bc they believe they are responsible for their own actions

External locus of control - more likely to be socially influenced bc they believe they are not responsible for the consequences of their actions, eg they believe in fate and luck.

Question 28

How can a minority change the views of a majority?

Answer 28

3 methods:

Committed

Consistent

Flexible

This leads to the “snowball effect” - POV grows exponentially

Social cryptomnesia - minority influence after time will cause social cryptomnesia, where the public cannot remember how or why the change has happened, because the new POV has been accepted as the norm. Eg women’s rights - women in the workplace/voting is the norm.