Paper 1- Topic 1 Social Influence

Question 1

Define conformity

Answer 1

a change in a person’s behaviour or opinions as a result of real or imagined pressure from a group or person

Question 2

Who studied conformity and how many took part in his study

Answer 2

Asch’s line study

123 American Males

Question 3

Explain the conformity experiment

Answer 3

One true P
Each saw one paper with three lines on and one with one line
One of the 3 lines was the same length as the singular line
Each P said which line they thought was the same
Confederates purposefully lie to try and make P conform

Question 4

Asch Results

Answer 4

P’s conformed on 36.8% of trials

25% never conformed

75% conformed at least once

Question 5

3 variables of Asch’s study

Answer 5

Group size
Unanimity
Task difficulty

Question 6

How did Asch’s variable of group size affect conformity

Answer 6

Group size-
varied number of confederates from 1-16
Found a curvilinear relationship
Conformity increased with group size up to 3 (32% conformity) then eventually decreased

Question 7

How did Asch’s variable of unanimity affect conformity

Answer 7

Introduced a dissenter
Allowed the participants to behave more freely and independently
Conformed much less- 1/4 of previous rates

Question 8

How did Asch’s variable of task difficulty affect conformity

Answer 8

Made task harder (lines more similar in length)

Conformity increased as more ambiguity so P’s looked to others for the answer (ISI)

Question 9

Limitations of Asch’s research

Answer 9

•Tasks and situation were artificial
- P’s knew they were in research situation in lab (responded to demand characteristics) and task was trivial so didn’t matter if they conformed.
Findings don’t generalise to real world situations

•All P’s were American males -(application can only be limited)

• general : women are researched (by Neto) to be more conformist
• general : America is an individualist culture so may conform less than people in collectivist cultures (China)

•also ethics as P’s were deceived into thinking the other confederates were genuine P’s too

Question 10

Strengths of Asch’s study

Answer 10

•Lucas et al (supporting evidence of task difficulty being a variable to conformity)
-used easy and hard math problems and P’s were given 3 other confederates wrong answers and conformed more when the task was harder

•study was done in a controlled lab set up (no extraneous variables, clear cause and effect) and so can easily be replicated (shows reliability)

Question 11

3 types of conformity

Answer 11

Compliance- publicly conformity to certain behaviour/views but privately maintain your own views (superficial change)

Identification- adopting behaviour/views of a group publicly and privately due to a will to be accepted by them (depends on presence of group)

Internalisation- true permanent conversion of private and public views to match those of the group (not dependent on presence of group)

Question 12

Reasons why people conform

Answer 12

•Normative social influence
-desire to be liked
Emotional process (how you feel)
adhere to norms so we think others will accept us and we gain social approval

•Informative social influence
- desire to be right
Cognitive process (how you think)
look to others who we believe has the answer in new or ambiguous situations
(Internalisation)

Question 13

Why people may not conform

Answer 13

• will to be independent and so unresponsive to group norms

- some people consistently and deliberately oppose norms to stand out

Question 14

Strengths of NSI and ISI

Answer 14

NSI- supported by Asch’s line study- some conformed because they were self conscious of giving wrong answer an afraid of being disapproved.
-when anonymity introduced conformity dropped as no group pressure (adding to validity of NIS)

ISI- supported by Lucas et al study- conformed more to wrong answer when the questions were difficult and unambiguous, desire to be right

Question 15

Weaknesses of NSI and ISI

Answer 15

• May be unclear if NSI or ISI is at work, as they work at the same time

• both explain why conformity reduced when a dissenter was introduced
• individually they may have limited usefulness and application

• NSI doesn’t predict conformity in all people

• some people are greatly concerned about being liked (nAffiliators)- more likely to conform
• shows that there are individual and personality differences in conformity

Question 16

What are the two explanations of behaviour

Answer 16

•Dispositional explanation
- people will act according to their individual personalities regardless of the situation

•Situational explanation
- people will act in a way that they think is required by their social roles, in different situations

Question 17

Explain the conformity social roles experiment

Answer 17

•Zimbardo Stamford Prison experiment

• 21 Male students volunteers were tested as emotionally stable
• randomly assigned to be a prisoner or a guard
• prisoners were unexpectedly arrested, put through booking procedure and given prison uniform- identified by number and had restricted rights
• guards were given uniform (with a club, shades and handcuffs)- were told they had complete power of prisoners

Question 18

Why were the uniforms given

Answer 18

• Help dictate the social roles
• Create loss of personal identity (de-individualisation) meaning they were more likely to conform to their perceived role

Question 19

What were the Findings of Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison experiment

Answer 19

• After couple of days the guards grew increasingly tyrannical and treated prisoners harshly- harassment, created rules, punished prisoners.
• 5 prisoners were released early due to extreme depression and anxiety
• Experiment was cut short from 2 weeks to 6 days

Question 20

Conclusions of Zimbardos SPE, related to social roles

Answer 20

Appear to have strong influence on behaviour.

Guards became brutal and prisoners submissive

Roles were easily conformed to

Question 21

Strengths of Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment

Answer 21

• Zimbardo had control over variables

• only selected psychologically stable P’s
• one way that personality differences were ruled out as an explanation of finding, because all of the P’s were similar in emotional stability
• only in their assigned roles by chance so their behaviour must be due to the role itself
• increased internal validity

•Study was able to create social roles typical of prison

• McDermott said 90% of prisoner talk was about prison life
• instead of having the right to withdraw they would ask for parole and assumed they would be released after their sentence was over
• improves validity

Question 22

Weaknesses of Zimbardo’s SPE

Answer 22

•lack of realism of a true prison

• mock prison in a university
• argues that P’s performed to their role rather than conformed
• One guards said he based his role of a film character (performed based on stereotypes of how guards and prisoners behave)
• can’t explain behaviour of real prisoners, lacks validity

•Zimbardo exaggerated the influence of social roles

• only one third of guards acted brutally, one third stuck to rules, one third tried to help prisoners
• 2/3 resisted the situational pressure to become brutal
• Zimbardo minimised the influence of dispositional factors (personality, genetics)

•ethically wrong

Question 23

Definition of obedience

Answer 23

directly following orders from a figure of authority, to avoid a consequence

Question 24

Explain the obedience experiment

Answer 24

•Milgram’s experiment 1963

• 40 American males age 20-50
• met a confederate and an experiment (wearing lab coat)
• drew lots to see who was teacher and learner (real P always teacher)
• has to administer an electric shock every time leaner for a question wrong (P was told it was a memory test linked to how pain increases it)
• if the P asked to stop, the experimenter gave prompts to continue
• experiment ended after 4 prompts or the max 450V was reached

Question 25

Findings of Milgram’s research

Answer 25

• All P’s delivered shocks up to 300V
• 65% delivered the maximum (deadly) 450V
• P’s also were observed to show signs of extreme tension: sweating, trembling, nail biting and 3 had seizures

Question 26

Strengths of Milgram’s research

Answer 26

•Findings replicated in French TV show ‘the game of death’

• P’s paid to give (fake) electric shocks to other P’s (actors) in front of audience
• 80% delivered max shock
• physical observation identical to that of the P’s in Milgram’s study: nail biting, nervous laughter
• shows reliability

•similar study was carried out by Sheridan and King by giving real shocks to puppies in vision of P (in order from experimenter)

• despite real distress of animal 100% of female and 54% of male P’s delivered supposedly the fatal shock
• increase validity as shows findings were accurate despite fake shocks

Question 27

Weaknesses of Milgram’s research

Answer 27

• low validity as 50% of people believed the shocks were real and of those 2/3 disobeyed
-suggests they responded to demand characteristics and did not express their real or natural behaviour

•ethical issues

• protection of P’s- under emotional duress. 3 had seizures
• deception- P’s didn’t know the learner was confederate and the shocks were fake
• right to withdraw- needed to ask more than 4 times to be able to leave

Question 28

What are situational variables

Answer 28

Features of the immediate physical and social environment which may influence a person’s behaviour

Question 29

What are dispositional variables

Answer 29

Individual characteristics and personality that influence behaviour

Question 30

Milgram’s 3 variations (situational variables)

Answer 30

•Proximity
- increased proximity from P to learner means they can’t psychologically distance themselves from their actions so obedience decreases (when in same room 65% obey to 40% )

•Location
-less prestigious environment gives study less legitimacy and authority- believe the experimenter shares the authority of the environment
(seedy office block 65% to 47.5%)

•Uniform
-recognised as authoritative so encourage obedience, without uniform seems less legitimate, authoritative and important
(experimenter in lab coat swapped with ordinary person in everyday clothes- 65% obey to 20%)

Question 31

Strengths of the influence of situational variables on obedience

Answer 31

•Support of uniform as a SV from Bickman’s research

• three confederates in uniform of a milkman, a security guard and a suit and tie
• asked GP to pick up litter- more likely to do it if wearing security guard uniform

•Milgram’s findings have been replicated in other cultures

• study (Meeus) on Dutch P’s who were ordered to say stressful things to desperate interviewees
• 90% obeyed shows reliability of Milgram’s findings -also replicated proximity and same findings (when experimenter not present obedience decreased dramatically)

Question 32

Weaknesses of Milgram’s situational variables

Answer 32

•Research from Smith and Bond found shows different cultures have different notions about role of authority

• western countries and non western countries don’t have same views
• findings don’t apply to all people so not generalisable

•some P’s may have known that the procedure was faked

• situations like replacing experimenter with member of public is so contrived that many P’s would have realised the truth
• unclear whether findings are genuinely due to obedience or demand characteristics

Question 33

• ….% of people went to 450V
• When venue was moved to seedy office block - ……%
• When teacher and learner in same room - ……%
• Experimenter in lab coat replaced by member of public in everyday clothes - …..%

Answer 33

• 65% of people went to 450V
• When venue was moved to seedy office block - 47.5%
• When teacher and learner in same room - 40%
• Experimenter in lab coat replaced by member of public in everyday clothes - 20%

Question 34

Define agentic state

include binding factors

Answer 34

mental state where we feel no personal responsibility for our behaviour but instead blame any negative consequence on the authority figure giving the order

• stay in this state due to binding factors (aspects that allow the person to minimise the damaging effect of thief behaviour)
  e. g. denial

Question 35

autonomous state

Answer 35

opposite of agentic state

feel a sense of responsibility for our actions

moving from autonomous to agency is agentic shift

Question 36

Define Legitimacy of authority

Answer 36

more likely to obey someone who we deem to have power over us

taught me to accept society’s hierarchy and the fact that some people have power over us as a result of their position in the hierarchy

Question 37

1 Strength 1 weakness of legitimacy of authority

Answer 37

STRENGTH
•explains cultural differences in obedience
-countries differ in obedience (some accept it more cuz of their society structure)
-German Milgram P’s obeyed 85%, Australian Milgram p’s obeyed 15%
- can see effect that society structure has on how obedient people are

WEAKNESS
•doesn’t explain all instances of disobedience
-Rank study where 16 of 18 nurses refused orders from an authoritative doctor to give an excessive dosage to patient
-nurses were disobedient even tho work in a strict social hierarchy

Question 38

Strength and weakness of agentic state

Answer 38

STRENGTH
•Milgram support
-most p’s questioned who was responsible when giving the shocks and the experimenter said that he was
-the P’s perceived they were no longer responsible and so proceeded with the shocks

WEAKNESS
•doesn’t explain other research
-Rank nurse study
-16/18 nurses didn’t give excessive drug to patent even tho the doctor ordering had authority
-nurses remained autonomous
-agentic shift only accounts for some situations of behaviour

Question 39

The 2 psychological explanations for obedience

Answer 39

Agentic state

Legitimacy of authority

Question 40

Difference between dispositional and situation explanations for conformity

Answer 40

dispositional- personality affects behaviour and obedience

situational-features of immediate environment that influence behaviour

Question 41

describe Adorno’s idea of the authoritarian personality

Answer 41

• show an extreme respect to authority
• believe in strong leaders to enforce traditional values into weak’ society
• contempt for socially inferior
• see everything as right or wrong

Question 42

Origins of the authoritarian personality

Answer 42

comes from childhood

• conditional love
• high standards
• strict discipline
• severe criticism of failure

children grow up to displace these emotions onto those socially inferior

Question 43

Describe Adorno’s research on dispositional explanations for obedience

Answer 43

-using the F scale, studied 200 middle class white American’s unconscious attitude to other racial groups

Found that people with high scores identified with ‘strong’ people, were contempt of ‘weak’, had high servility to authority, conscious of status
-they had perceptions of distinct stereotypes and categories of people

Question 44

Strengths of authoritarian personality

Answer 44

Milgram research support

• interviewed some who were in his original obedience study
• they completed F scale

-The 20 obedient P’s in the first Milgram experiment scored higher than the disobedient P’s

Question 45

Weakness of authoritarian personality

Answer 45

• counterpoint to Milgram’s research support
• the obedient P’s had unusual characterstics for an authoritarian
• they didn’t glorify their fathers or experience high levels of punishment as a child

•doesn’t explain obedience in pre war Germany were millions of people were anti-semetic

• these people can’t all have an authoritarian personality
• lower validity

Question 46

Social influence includes…

And is influenced by…

Answer 46

Obedience & Conformity

situational, psychological and dispositional factors

Question 47

Two reasons people resist pressures of social influence

Answer 47

Locus of control- internal and external

Social support- other people resisting influence makes it easier for others to aswell

Question 48

External locus of control

Answer 48

person who believes their behaviour is caused primarily by external circumstances (e.g fate, luck)

more likely to conform

Question 49

Internal locus of control

Answer 49

A person who believes their behaviour is caused primarily by their own decisions

less likely to conform and more likely to resist

Question 50

Define social support

Answer 50

idea that when other people resist social influence it makes it easier for an individual to do the same

more independent, free to choose

Question 51

Examples of how social support helps people resist

conformity

obedience

Answer 51

conformity decreases
When asch added a dissenter the pressure to conform dropped

obedience decreases
When Milgram added a disobedient confederate the P feels more free to act from his own conscience

Question 52

Strength of social support as causing social resistance

Answer 52

•research support

• Gamson told P’s to produce evidence as a group to help an oil company attempt to damage someone’s reputation through a smear campaign
• found higher levels of resistance (88%) than Milgram because they were in groups

•Allan et al

• did an Asch style task with a dissenter
• many more refused to conform with a dissenter involved

Question 53

Strength and weakness of locus of control as causing resistance to social influence

Answer 53

Strength
•Holland repeated Milgram’s study but measured whether these p’s were internal or external
-found that internals showed greater resistance to authority (increase validity)

WEAKNESS
•Twenge et al
-analysed data from LOC studies over 40 years
-Data showed that over time people more resistant to obedience but also more external
-challenges LOC which suggests that people would be less obedient and internals

Question 54

Define minority influence

Answer 54

a minority of people persuade others to adopt their beliefs or behaviours, leads to internalisation of their private and public attitudes
As more people convert the snowball effect occurs

Question 55

3 processes involved with minority influence

Answer 55

Consistency-stick with their argument
(synchronic- all people say same thing)
(diachronic- saying the same thing for a while now)

Flexibility- prepare to adapt POV
strike a balance between consistency and flexibility

Commitment- sometimes dangerous activities done to draw attention
-causes more attention to be payed to them (augmentation principle)

Question 56

Nemeth study

Answer 56

• created a mock jury and one confederate who were deciding on a compensation amount for a skier
• confederate started very low
• when he refused to change MI was very low
• when he compromised towards the majority they were more likely to compromise too

Question 57

Moscivi study

Answer 57

• Split P’s into two groups of 6 (2 confederates 4 P’s) and told them to identify the colour (blue) of different slides on a board
• one group had consistent confederates (always say green)
• one group had inconsistent confederates (sometimes said blue)
• They had to identify the colour of the blue slide

Question 58

Findings of moscivi study

Answer 58

• When green was said every time the MI was 8%

- When blue was said 1/3 of time and green 2/3 the MI was 1%

Question 59

Strengths of minority influence

Answer 59

•Moscivi Research
-supports consistency as a factor increasing minority influence

•Nemeth Research
-supports the fact that flexibility has a positive impact on minority influence

Question 60

Weaknesses of minority influence

Answer 60

•Artificial tasks used
(Moscivi’s and Asch’s)
-no real life impact and so doesn’t reflect real world tasks (poor external validity)

•low power of mintority influence
Moscivi’s figure for agreement with consistent majority was only 8%
-MI is rare and not a useful concept

Question 61

Stages of how minority influence creates social change

with example

Answer 61

1. Drawing attention
   -social proof shown of a problem through drawing attention
   ++e.g. civil rights marches
2. Consistency
   -maintain views over time
   ++e.g. millions of people marching for the same message
3. Deeper processing
   - activism leads to people thinking more deeply about the view
   e. g. people realised the discrimination
4. Augmentation principle
   - extreme actions with personal risk reinforces the message
   - e.g. freedom riders being beaten
5. Snowball effect
   - as more people backed the minority, it cussed even more people to start backing it
   - e.g. MLK got the attention of government and lots of people started backing it
6. Social cryptomnesia
   - people have a memory of change but not how it came about

Question 62

Strengths of social change

Answer 62

Strengths

• nolan research support
• found that when he hung messages on houses that other people were saving energy, energy usage decreased more than when it just said “save energy”
• shows that conformity can lead to social change
• nemeth explains minority arguments as causing deeper processing
• actively search for information to weigh up the idea
• leads to better decisions regarding social issues

Question 63

Weaknesses of social change

Answer 63

Criticism of methodology of research into social change

• moscivi use artificial tasks
• don’t reflect real world scenarios for social change (social change is much larger scale)
• reduce external validity

• doesn’t always lead to social change

• study done where the social norm created was to reduce alcohol use of students but it didn’t have an effect
• doesn’t always produce long term change

Question 64

How conformity creates social change

2 points

Answer 64

•Asch used a dissenter in one of his variations to break the power of the majority
- this encouraged others to do the same, this has the potential to lead to social change

•Normative social influence is used by environmentalist and health campaigns. They provide info about what others have done (e.g. slogan of “bin your litter, others do”
-leads to people wanting to be accepted by majority and can lead to social change

Question 65

How obedience can cause social change

2 points

Answer 65

•Milgram showed importance of a role model for disobedience

• when confederate teacher said she didn’t go through with shocks, obedience plummeted
• shows social change can occur through positive role models

•Zimbardo suggested gradual commitment can create social change

• once a small instruction is obeyed a larger one is harder to disobey
• people drift into new behaviours and social change can occur