Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

A LEVEL PSYCHOLOGY > Paper 1 Social influence > Flashcards

Paper 1 Social influence Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
AP® Psychology flashcards Psychology 101 flashcards GRE® Psychology flashcards
1
Q

What are the three types of conformity that researchers have identified?

A

Compliance
Internalisation
Identification

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

what are the types of social influence

A

normative
informational

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

conformity?

A

tendency to change our behaviour in response to majority pressure

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

compliance?

A

change in behaviour WITHOUT change in opinion

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

identification?

A

the want to identify with a particular group as we value the group. this leads to publicly changing our views/behaviour though we don’t agree in private

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

internalisation?

A

change in behaviour AND opinion as we adopt a particular group this is a PERMANENT change

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

shallowest form of conformity?

A

compliance

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

deepest form of conformity?

A

internalisation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Asch aims?

A

to measure the extent that people conformed to other’s opinions, especially if the others were indeed wrong

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Asch?

A

1951

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Asch baseline procedure?

A

who? 123 American males
what? 1 genuine P and the rest were confederates genuine P answered last/ 2nd last in group of 6-8
how? shown 3 comparision lines of different lengths and given 1 stimulus line to answer which one it correlates to
Ps would deliberately give the wrong answer.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Asch results?

A

75% conformed at least once
naive Ps conformed 36.8%

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Asch findings?

A

there are high levels of conformity when the situation is unambiguous

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Asch variations?

A

group size
unanimity
task difficulty

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Asch group size?

A

who? 1-15 confederates 2-16 groups
results? curvilinear relationship
3 Cs meant conformity rose to 31.8%
above this conformity rate leveled off
why? people are sensitive to other’s opinions

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Asch unanimity?

A

who? 1dissenting confederate which always disagreed with majority
results? conformity decreased on average to less than 25% IF majority was unanimous
why?
dissenter enabled naive participants to act more independently

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Asch task difficulty?

A

what? line judging task made harder as stimulus line + comparison lines are closer in length
results? conformity increased
why? due to the situation being more unambiguous, Ps look to others for guidance (ISI)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Limitations to Asch?

A

task was artificial so demand characteristics were at play meaning no generalisation
little application as androcentric so little knowledge on women and other cultures
ethical issues as no informed consent + deception

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Strength to Asch?

A

other evidence such as Lucas et al to support findings
2006, students conformed more when given harder math questions to wrong answers
ALTHOUGH conformity is more complex e.g. individual factors (confidence) interact with situational ones (task difficulty)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

normative social influence?

A

when we desire social approval so we agree with the opinion of the majority
feel uncomfortable

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

informational social influence?

A

we believe a particular opinion is right (due to desire to be right) so we agree with the majority
situation is ambiguous/ crisis

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Example of NSI?

A

Asch 1951

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Example of ISI?

A

Lucas et al 2006

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Counterpoint to ISI research support?

A

dissenter may reduce power of NSI OR ISI therefore they are hard to separate and operate together within real world

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

limitation to NSI?

A

Individual differences may led to more conformity in others such as those who are concerned about being liked by others.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Zimbardo?

A

1973

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Zimbardo Stanford prison experiment?

A

who? 21 American males (emotionally stable) randomly allocated the role of guard or prisoner
what? mock prison within basement of Stanford Uni
prisoners strip-searched + given NO./uniform (de-individuation)
could not leave but could have parole
guards given uniform, handcuffs and enforced rules
told to have complete power over over prisoners

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Zimbardo aims?

A

to measure the effect of social roles on conformity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Zimbardo results?

A

guards acted enthusiastically and harshly
prisoners rebelled in first 2 days so guards retaliated with fire extinguishers and harassed them ( headcounts at night)
study stopped at day 6/14 why? prisoners’ psychological and physical health was threatened by guards behaviour

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

Zimbardo findings?

A

social roles are powerful influences on behaviour
e.g. guards are brutal whilst prisoners are submissive

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

Strength to SPE?

A

Control over key variables as emotionally stable Ps were recruited and random allocation was used. so increase in internal validity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

Limitations to SPE?

A

lacked realism of a true prison as it was suggested they were play acting (reflected on stereotypes)
e.g. prisoners rioted as that’s what ‘real prisoners’ did
ALTHOUGH 90% of conversations were about prison life, increasing internal validity
sample was androcentric so no generalisation
investigator effects recordings show guards may have been pressured to behave in an extreme manner so decrease in internal validity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

obedience?

A

type of social influence which causes a person to act in response to authority

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

Milgram?

A

1963

35
Q

Milgram baseline procedure?

A

who? 40 American males
what? deception - study memory
2 confederates - ‘experimenter’ grey lab coat, ‘the learner’ Mr. Wallace,
genuine P - ‘the teacher’
T gave L increasingly severe shocks 15-450v each time T made a mistake
if T wished to stop E would give prods to continue

36
Q

Milgram results?

A

12.5% stopped at 300v
65% stopped at 450v
extreme tension
Ps debriefed & 84% were glad to participate (follow up questionnaire)

37
Q

Milgram findings?

A

we obey legitimate authority even if harm is present
some situational factors encourage obedience

38
Q

Strength to MS?

A

Successfully replicated by French documentary, 80% gave 460 volts to ‘unconscious man’

39
Q

limitations to MS?

A

Lacked internal validity as Orne & Holland suggested Ps knew the shocks were fake and instead acted due to demand characteristics
ALTHOUGH further research with females showed that it was genuine (Sheridan & king 1972)
ethical issues - protection from harm, right to withdraw, deception
low ecological validity as situation is unlikely to happen so no generalisation

40
Q

Milgram’s situational variables?
conformity levels?

A

proximity 40%
location 47.5%
uniform 20%
touch proximity
remote-instruction

41
Q

Milgram proximity?

A

What? T and L were in the same room
results? obedience dropped from 65% to 40%
why? decreased proximity allows ppl to psychologically distance themselves

42
Q

Milgram Location?

A

what? study was now conducted in run down building instead of prestigious yale Uni
results? obedience dropped to 47.5%
why? obedience was higher in the Uni because the authority was legitimate

43
Q

Milgram Uniform?

A

what? E called away by a phone call and role taken over by ordinary member of public in everyday clothes
results? obedience fell to 20%
why? uniform is a strong symbol of legitimate authority

44
Q

Strengths to MSV?

A

research support from Bickmen 1974 had confederates dress differently and issue demands to ppl on street, showed ppl more likely to obey security guard > jacket/tie
cross cultural replication on Dutch Ps 1986 displayed 90% obedience + decrease when proximity decreased

45
Q

limitations to MSV?

A

low internal validity ( orne and holland uniform variation) due to demand characteristics
dangers of situational perspective could undermine + simplify causes of the holocaust which offends survivors

46
Q

Agentic state?

A

‘agent’ acting on behalf of someone else
proposed for obedience to destructive authority
so they feel no personal responsibility

47
Q

autonomous state?

A

free/independent so act on your own principles and feel responsible for your actions

48
Q

agentic shift?

A

moving to agentic state
occurs when we perceive someone else as an authority figure (position in hierarchy)

49
Q

binding factors?

A

reduce ‘moral strain’ felt by agent
aspects of situation that minimise moral strain

50
Q

examples of binding factors?

A

shifting responsibility to victim
denying damage

51
Q

legitimacy of authority?

A

we obey ppl further up the social hierarchy
authorities have legitimacy through social agreement
legitimate powers can be used for destructive purposes (hitler)
control/some independence is handed over to those we trust within authority soi t can b exercised

52
Q

So what? Agentic state

A

strength - research support from Milgram as when Ps asked E who is responsible for L, L went through procedure quickly as E was responsible
limitation - agentic shift doesn’t explain research findings as 1977 most nurses disobeyed doctor’s order to give excessive drug

53
Q

So what? LOA

A

Strength - explains cultural differences e.g. 85% of German men obeyed in mantell study 971 compared to 16% of Australian women in 1974 showing different levels of legitimacy in authority
real world application through soldiers at my lai
limitation - can’t explain all (dis)obedience so suggests innate tendencies towards obedience may be more important

54
Q

the authoritarian personality?

A

how? originates in childhood with overly strict parenting (CONDITIONED LOVE). creates absolute loyalty and high criticism which creates resentment (rage, fear, inadequacy) which is displaced onto social inferiors (psychodynamic explanation)
what? high obedience (pathological), unquestioning and especially obedient/respectful to authority (submissive), contempt for inferiors

55
Q

Adorno et al?

A

1950

56
Q

Adorno et al baseline procedure?

A

who? 2000+ middle class white Americans
what? F-scale was used to measure potential fascism
how? f-scale had strongly agree (6) to strongly disagree (1)

57
Q

Adorno et al aims?

A

to measure unconscious attitudes towards ethic groups

58
Q

Adorno et al results?

A

authoritarians scored high on f-scale as mostly identified with ‘strong ppl’ and had contempt for the weak
also conscious of own status + respect for those higher

59
Q

Adorno et al findings?

A

authoritarians had cognitive style where there was fixed/distinctive stereotypes about other groups

60
Q

strength to AEA?

A

Evidence that authoritarians were obedient as 20 obedient Ps from Milgram scored high on F-scale
ALTHOUGH Milgram’s Ps were not punished at childhood

61
Q

limitation to AEA?

A

F-scale is politically biased as suggested its aims to measure extreme right ideology, so no explanation to left-wing authoritarianism
authoritarianism cannot be the explanation for a whole country’s behaviour as it is more likely Germens identified with the nazi state (social identity theory)
flawed evidence as those who tend to AGREE to statements score as an authoritarian so may not be valid

62
Q

explanations to resistance to social influence?

A

social support
locus of control

63
Q

social support?

A

resisting conformity due to the presence of a dissenting peer
this reduces pressure to conform

64
Q

examples of social support?

A

Asch research and variation of dissenter
shows majority are not unanimous
Milgram research and variation of disobedient peer
shows challenging of the legitimacy of authority figure

65
Q

external LOC?

A

place control outside themselves e.g. luck

66
Q

internal LOC?

A

place control within themselves e.g. hard work

67
Q

who has a greater resistance to social influence?

A

internal LOC

68
Q

strength to LOC

A

research support by Holland 1967 as she measured if Ps were in/externals in repeated Milgram’s study
higher levels of internals resisted 37% than externals 23%

69
Q

limitations to LOC

A

not all research supports LOC as twenge 2004 analysed American LOC data and found ppl have become more external though independent so may not be valid as internal LOC is linked to resistance
limited role of LOC as it only influences new situations, in familar situations previous responses outway so unpredictatable

70
Q

strengths to social support?

A

evidence in resisting conformity through programme with pregnant young girls given a buddy to resist pressure to smoke. when compared to control group the young girls with buddies were less likely to smoke at the end of the programme
evidence in dissenting peer
social support explanation

71
Q

minority influence?

A

individual/small group impact/influence behaviour/ideas/opinions of majority

72
Q

minority influence most likely leads to?

A

internalisation

73
Q

3 processes which are involved in minority influence are?

A

consistency
flexibility
committment

74
Q

consistency?

A

always doing the same thing
to gain interest

75
Q

types of consistency?

A

synchronic - all saying the same thing
dichronic - all saying the same thing for a long time

76
Q

committment?

A

showing deep involvement
through activities creating risk

77
Q

flexibility?

A

showing willingness to listen to others
adapt oint of view + accept reasonable counterpoints

78
Q

moscovici et al?

A

1969

79
Q

augmentation principle?

A

majority pay more attention

80
Q

snowball effect?

A

gradually majority convert / gather more snow so there is a switch from majority to minority
exponetial rate
social change eventually occurs

81
Q

strengths to MI?

A

Research supporting consistency, moscovici
research displays role of deeper processing as martin et al 2003 showed Ps were less willing to change opinion if listened to minority before majority (enduring effect)
ALTHOUGH recent studies shows minority is expresed in more ways than just number (power, status) so limited generalisation

82
Q

Moscovici procedure?

A

who? 172 female Ps groups of 6 with 2 confederates
what? told were within a colour perception task
show 36 slides (blue-green) and staed if they were B OR G
confederates consistently stated G on 2/3% trials
2nd group exposed to inconsistent minority
3rd group had no confederates

83
Q

Moscovici results?

A

1st group gave wrong answer 8.2%
2nd group 1.25%
3rd group 0.25%

84
Q

limitation to MI?

A

artificial tasks so lack external validity and re limited in real-world application

A LEVEL PSYCHOLOGY (13 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions