Psychology - Paper 1 Social Influence Flashcards
What is conformity?
Type of social influence in which an individual changes their behaviour/beliefs in response to real or imagined social pressure.
Compliance
Individual agrees in public but disagrees in private - temporary change in behaviour/belief
Internalisation
Individual changes behaviour publically and privately - permanant change in behaviour/beliefs
Identification
Individual changes behaviour to fit the role given, publically changes behaviour but internally no change has occurred
Normative social influence
Individual conforms to behaviour/beliefs to fit in to not been seen as foolish or left out - avoid social rejection
Informative social influence
individual conforms to behaviour/beliefs as they have the desire to be right and look to others that appear to have more information - avoid social rejection
Asch line study (AO1) - Procedure
5-7 participants in each group
Each presented with a standard line and three comparison lines
P’s had to say aloud which line matched the standard line
1 real p other 6 confederates
Confederates told to answer incorrectly 12 out of 18 trials
Asch line study (AO1) - Results
Real p’s conformed on 32% of the critical trials when confederates gave the wrong answer.
75% of the sample conformed to the majority on at least one trial.
Asch line study (AO3) - Evaluation
Lacks ecological validity - comparing lines does not reflect complex real life conformity
Gender bias - only on men - lacks population validity
Asch line study (AO3) - Ethical issues
Deception - told it was the perception of lines
P’s did not give informed consent
P’s may have been embarrassed after true nature of study revealed - psychological harm
Asch line study - Group size
the larger the majority group the more people conformed until a certain point.
1 confederate - 3% conformity
2 confederates - 13% conformity
3 or more confederates - 32% conformity
conformity did not increase over a group of 4/5
Asch line study - Group unanimity
An individual is more likely to conform when all members agree and give the same answer.
1 person disagreed - conformity dropped
found that just 1 confederate going against majority choice can reduce conformity by 80%
Asch line study - Difficulty of task
When the comparison lines where more similar in length, harder to judge correct answer conformity increased.
Asch line study - Answer in private
When p’s allowed to answer privately conformity decreased, less group pressure and normative influence was not as powerful.
Stanford prison experiment (AO1) - Procedure
Converted the basement of the Stanford University psychology building into a mock prison
Advertisement - news paper
P’s randomly allocated a role - prisoner or guard
Prisoners issued uniforms and referred as their number only
Guards given uniform, handcuffs.whistles, and dark glasses making eye contact impossible
Guards worked in 8 hour shifts
Stanford prison experiment (AO1) - Findings
Guards harassed prisoners and behaved in a sadistic and brutal manner and were enjoying it
Prisoners adopted the rules and took the rules seriously and if another prison broke them they would tell the guards
Over time prisoners became more submissive the guards acted more aggressively and assertive and wanted a greater level of obedience from prisoners
Stanford prison experiment (AO3) - Evaluation
Demand characteristics - p’s stated they were simply acting their role
Lack population validity - used american male students, gender bias
American uni students - looked at individualistic culture but not collectivists
Stanford prison experiment (AO3) - Ethical issues
Protection from harm - one p’s had to be taken out after 36 hours due to constant screaming, crying and anger study on lasted 6 days.
Lack of fully informed consent - p’s did not know they were going to be arrested at home, Zimbardo did not know what was going to happen in the study.
Harmful treatment of p’s - meant ethical guidelines were put in place in prisons.
Obedience
An individual follows an order from another person who is usually an authority figure.
Milgram’s Shock Study (AO1) - Procedure
Lab experiment
2 p’s role of teacher- always real p and role of learner- confederate
Teacher and learner put in to separate rooms
Teacher asked by experimenter (wore a lab coat) to shock the learner if they answered wrong - 15-450 volts
Experimenter told prompt to the Teacher if they did not administer the shock-
please continue
the experiment requires you to continue etc
Milgram’s Shock Study (AO1) - Results
All p’s went to 300 volts
65% of participants were willing to go to 450 volts
Milgram’s Shock Study (AO3) - Evaluation
Lacks ecological validity - done in an artificial environment - lab experiment
Gender bias - only males were used
Standardised procedure - increases reliability as experiment can be repeated
Milgram’s Shock Study (AO3) - Ethical issues
Protection from harm - p’s exposed to extremely stressful situations, many were visibly distressed.
Deception - p’s believed they were shocking a real person.
Debrief - all p’s debriefed at the end of experimenting their stress levels decreased when they saw the learner was okay.
The Agentic State
An individual will obey an authority when they believe that the authority will take responsibility for the consequences of their actions.
Obedience levels dropped when reminded they are responsible for their own actions none of p’s wanted to participate.
The Agentic State - Limitations
May be better explained as plain cruelty- Zimbardos study people changed their behaviour to be more submissive or aggressive - obedience may be caused by certain aspects of human behaviour.
Legitimacy of Authority Figure
Individuals tend to obey others if they recognise their authority as morally right and / or legally based. This response to legitimate authority is learned in a variety of situations, for example in the family, school and workplace.
With regard to Milgram” study the experimenter is seen as having legitimate authority as he has scientific status.
Situational factors - Authority Figure Wearing a Uniform
Expert wearing a lab coat, scientific status - obedience increased
Expert wearing every day clothes - obedience decreased
Situational factors - Status of Location
Original study conducted at Yale uni, a more prestigious place - higher obedience levels
Another study conducted in a run down offices - obedience dropped by 47.5%
Situational factors - Proximity of Authority Figure
Individual more likely to obey authority figure if they are in close proximity
When p’s instructed to shock the learner through the telephone obedience levels dropped by 20.8%
Dispositional Explanation: Authoritarian Personality - (AO1)
Adorno felt that personality factors rather than situational factors could explain obedience. He proposed that there was such a thing as an authoritarian personality.
Authoritarian personality is that the individual is hostile to those who are of inferior status, but obedient of people with high status.
Investigated 2000 middle class, white Americans and their attitudes towards other racial groups
Used F-scale to measure authoritarian personality
Dispositional Explanation: Authoritarian Personality - (AO3)
Adorno found many significant correlations but we cannot say that one variable causes another.
Millions of individuals in Germany displayed obedient behaviour but didn’t have the same personality, it is unlikely that the majority of Germany’s population possessed an authoritarian personality.
May be better explanations – Prejudice and submissiveness could just as easily be caused by a poor standard of education as a child.
Lacks internal validity as it assumes obedience is caused by dispositional explanations when it may be situational variables.
Biased sample - only used white middle class Americans, more than likely to have AP due to the demographic at the time - lacks population validity and historical validity
Resistance To Social Influence - Social support
Social support decreases conformity and obedience levels as they are more confident to give their own decision
Resistance To Social Influence - Locus of control
High internal locus of control - great deal of personal control over their behaviour and are therefore more likely to take responsibility for the way they behave.
High external locus of control - their behaviours as being a result of external influences or luck.
Research - people with high internal locus of control are less obedient and conforming may be due to them taking responsibility for their actions.
Minority Influence - Consistency (AO1) - Procedure
Movinsci used female participants
Shown 36 blue slides of different intensity and asked to report the colours.
Two confederates (the minority) and four participants (the majority).
The first part of the experiment the two confederates answered green for each of the 36 slides - consistent responses.
The second part of the experiment they answered green 24 times and blue 12 times - inconsistent answers.
Control group used - p’s only
Minority Influence - Consistency (AO1) - Results
When confederates were consistent with responses - 8% participants stated that slides were green.
When confederates were inconsistent with responses - 1% participants stated that slides were green.
Minority Influence - Two types of consistency
Diachronic Consistency – i.e. consistency over time – the majority sticks to its guns, doesn’t modify its views.
Synchronic Consistency – i.e. consistency between its members – all members agree and back each other up.
Minority Influence - Consistency importance (AO1)
Confronted with a consistent opposition, members of the majority will sit up, take notice, and rethink their position.
A consistent minority disrupts established norms and creates uncertainty, doubt and conflict. This can lead to the majority taking the minority view seriously. The majority will therefore be more likely to question their own views.
Minority Influence - Commitment
When the majority is confronted with someone with self-confidence and dedication to take a popular stand and refuses to back own, they may assume that he or she has a point.
Minority Influence - Flexibility
If the consistent minority are seen as inflexible, rigid, uncompromising and dogmatic, they will be unlikely to change the views of the majority. If they appear flexible and compromising, they are likely to be seen as less extreme, as more moderate, cooperative and reasonable. As a result, they will have a better chance of changing majority views.
Minority Influence - Flexibility study
Based on a mock jury
Groups of three participants and one confederate had to decide on the amount of compensation to be given to the victim of a ski-lift accident.
When confederate argued a low amount no effect was found on the majority.
When confederate compromised and moved towards the majority compromised and changed their view.
