Paper 1 Social influence Flashcards
What are the three types of conformity that researchers have identified?
Compliance
Internalisation
Identification
what are the types of social influence
normative
informational
conformity?
tendency to change our behaviour in response to majority pressure
compliance?
change in behaviour WITHOUT change in opinion
identification?
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
internalisation?
change in behaviour AND opinion as we adopt a particular group this is a PERMANENT change
shallowest form of conformity?
compliance
deepest form of conformity?
internalisation
Asch aims?
to measure the extent that people conformed to other’s opinions, especially if the others were indeed wrong
Asch?
1951
Asch baseline procedure?
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.
Asch results?
75% conformed at least once
naive Ps conformed 36.8%
Asch findings?
there are high levels of conformity when the situation is unambiguous
Asch variations?
group size
unanimity
task difficulty
Asch group size?
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
Asch unanimity?
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
Asch task difficulty?
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)
Limitations to Asch?
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
Strength to Asch?
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)
normative social influence?
when we desire social approval so we agree with the opinion of the majority
feel uncomfortable
informational social influence?
we believe a particular opinion is right (due to desire to be right) so we agree with the majority
situation is ambiguous/ crisis
Example of NSI?
Asch 1951
Example of ISI?
Lucas et al 2006
Counterpoint to ISI research support?
dissenter may reduce power of NSI OR ISI therefore they are hard to separate and operate together within real world
limitation to NSI?
Individual differences may led to more conformity in others such as those who are concerned about being liked by others.
Zimbardo?
1973
Zimbardo Stanford prison experiment?
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
Zimbardo aims?
to measure the effect of social roles on conformity
Zimbardo results?
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
Zimbardo findings?
social roles are powerful influences on behaviour
e.g. guards are brutal whilst prisoners are submissive
Strength to SPE?
Control over key variables as emotionally stable Ps were recruited and random allocation was used. so increase in internal validity
Limitations to SPE?
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
obedience?
type of social influence which causes a person to act in response to authority
Milgram?
1963
Milgram baseline procedure?
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
Milgram results?
12.5% stopped at 300v
65% stopped at 450v
extreme tension
Ps debriefed & 84% were glad to participate (follow up questionnaire)
Milgram findings?
we obey legitimate authority even if harm is present
some situational factors encourage obedience
Strength to MS?
Successfully replicated by French documentary, 80% gave 460 volts to ‘unconscious man’
limitations to MS?
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
Milgram’s situational variables?
conformity levels?
proximity 40%
location 47.5%
uniform 20%
touch proximity
remote-instruction
Milgram proximity?
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
Milgram Location?
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
Milgram Uniform?
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
Strengths to MSV?
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
limitations to MSV?
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
Agentic state?
‘agent’ acting on behalf of someone else
proposed for obedience to destructive authority
so they feel no personal responsibility
autonomous state?
free/independent so act on your own principles and feel responsible for your actions
agentic shift?
moving to agentic state
occurs when we perceive someone else as an authority figure (position in hierarchy)
binding factors?
reduce ‘moral strain’ felt by agent
aspects of situation that minimise moral strain
examples of binding factors?
shifting responsibility to victim
denying damage
legitimacy of authority?
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
So what? Agentic state
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
So what? LOA
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
the authoritarian personality?
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
Adorno et al?
1950
Adorno et al baseline procedure?
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)
Adorno et al aims?
to measure unconscious attitudes towards ethic groups
Adorno et al results?
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
Adorno et al findings?
authoritarians had cognitive style where there was fixed/distinctive stereotypes about other groups
strength to AEA?
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
limitation to AEA?
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
explanations to resistance to social influence?
social support
locus of control
social support?
resisting conformity due to the presence of a dissenting peer
this reduces pressure to conform
examples of social support?
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
external LOC?
place control outside themselves e.g. luck
internal LOC?
place control within themselves e.g. hard work
who has a greater resistance to social influence?
internal LOC
strength to LOC
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%
limitations to LOC
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
strengths to social support?
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
minority influence?
individual/small group impact/influence behaviour/ideas/opinions of majority
minority influence most likely leads to?
internalisation
3 processes which are involved in minority influence are?
consistency
flexibility
committment
consistency?
always doing the same thing
to gain interest
types of consistency?
synchronic - all saying the same thing
dichronic - all saying the same thing for a long time
committment?
showing deep involvement
through activities creating risk
flexibility?
showing willingness to listen to others
adapt oint of view + accept reasonable counterpoints
moscovici et al?
1969
augmentation principle?
majority pay more attention
snowball effect?
gradually majority convert / gather more snow so there is a switch from majority to minority
exponetial rate
social change eventually occurs
strengths to MI?
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
Moscovici procedure?
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
Moscovici results?
1st group gave wrong answer 8.2%
2nd group 1.25%
3rd group 0.25%
limitation to MI?
artificial tasks so lack external validity and re limited in real-world application
