psychology - social influence Flashcards
what are the 3 types of conformity ?
internalisation
identification
compliance
What are the 2 explanations for conformity
informational social influence
Normative social influence
types and explantions of conformity evaluation.
- McGhee and Teevan - NSI doesnt affect everyone in the same way as student with affiliation (need for a relationship) will conform more
- lucas et al proof of ISI, they asked students the answer to easy and hard maths problems, conformity increased when the question was difficult, we look to other people for help.
- after asch asked people why they conformed, they said they were afraid of disapproval and felt self conscious. writing down , conformity dropped to 12.5%
asch’s line study method and results
he showed 2 cards: 1 with a standard line and the other with 3 comparison lines and has to match them. the 123 american undergrad students, each group had one ptp and 6-8 confederates that had to give the wrong answer.
75% conformed atleast once
ptps gave the wrong answer 36.8 % of the time.
asch’s variations and results
task difficulty - he found conformity increased when the standard line and comparison lines more similar
unanimity - the presence of a dissenter reduced conformity as the group wasnt unanimous
group size - he varied confederates 1-15. with 3 confederate conformity increase to 31.8% but adding more made little diference.
zimbardos study conformity procedure and results
mock prison in the basement of stanford university. 24 white american males tested to be emotionally stable volunteers were assigned guard or prisoner 12 each. The guards had 2 rules : no one in the whole for more than an hour and no hitting. prisoners were arrested from home in a police car, strip searched and made to wear a smock. Guards had mirrored shades,keys and a wooden club
within 2 days there was a rebellion. the study that was meant to be 14 days was cut short at 6 days as prisoner 816 had a breakdown.
hunger strike so guards took away beds.
zimbardos study evaluations 3
- control over variables : mental health test and randomly assigned roles rules out personality - high internal validity
- demand characteristic - banuazizi and monavedi says ptps were just play acting based on sterotypes instead of genuinely conforming as they figured out the aim
- ethical issues with zimbardos dual roles as the researcher and superintendant. when someone wanted to leave zimbardo responded as the researcher and denied him the right to withdraw
obedience milgram study and results
40 american males volunteered from a newspaper ad at yale university paid $4.50
teacher (ptp) learner (confederate) experimenter in a lab coat. teacher gave learner increasingly severe electric shocks whenever they made a mistake to the question ranging from 15v to 450v.
they gave 4 verbal prods to encourage teachers to continue
12.5% stopped at 300v
65% continued to 450v
people were sweating, trembling. biting their lip and 3 even had full blown seizures
evaluations of milgrams study
real life application into why the germans obeyed hitler and killed 11 mil (he an authority figure) it explains destructive obedience and can help prevent this.
cross culture replication, miranda et al found 90% obedience. applies across cultures and genders. however, still takes place in individualistic western culture and may be different in collectivistic.
lacks ecological validity as the artificial task doesnt replicate real life obedience, this doesnt recognise real life authority.
*
What were milgrams 3 situational variables
location - drop to 47.5%
uniform - drop to 20-%
proximity drop to 40% on the same room then 30% when they put the learners hand on ths shock plate
milgrams variations evaluation
- high internal validity, systematically changed one variable at a time and replicated with over 1000 ptps however artificial obedience examples
- cant be used to explain real life holocaust as the mass killing took place in close proximity but the soldiers didnt experience moral strain.
- research for situational variables. Bickman had 3 conferates ask people to pick up litter in the street. the gaurd was obeyed more than the milkman and pedestrian as he had a formal uniform so more legitimacy of authority
explain the agentic state
agentic state is when people believe that they are acting on behalf of the authority figure so they dont experience moral strain or take responsibility
autonomous state: people behave according to their own principles
binding factors keep us in the agentic state and reduce our moral strain
agentic state evaluation
- supported by milgrams study. 65% gave the electric shock as they believed the experimenter would take responsibility however 35% didnt so why?
- can be used to explain the holocaust as they were in the agentic state and thought hitler would take responsibility for them.
3.agentic shift doesnt explain research. Rank and jacobson found that nurses would refuse to administer excess drugs to a patient even if the authority (doctor) ordered it.
explain legitimacy of authority as an explanation for social obedience
in our heirarchical society we are obedient to those above us who have legitimate authority which is agreed upon by society. The authority they weild is legitimate as its granted by the whole of society. we accept the contol AF have over us because its needed for society to function smoothly
legitimacy is increased by visible symbols of authority e.g uniform.
evaluations of legitimacy of authority
its a useful account of cultural differences in obedience
hilham and mans replications :
in australia 16% went to 450v
in germany 85% went to 450v
authority is more accepted in some cultures
it has real life application explaining the mai lai massacre. the soldiers obeyed the leuitenants orders to kill families as they percieved calley of being a higher status. we can use this knowledge to prevent this from happening again.
explain the dispositional factor affecting obedience (AO1)
authoritarian personality is a dispositional factor in obedience develops during childhood from harsh parenting e.g strict parenting, with impossibly high standards
this builds up resentment and hostility in a child who displaces this anger onto others who they percieve as weaker and hate socially inferior people
they held fixed sterotypes about people, they identified with strong people and disliked people who they saw as weak
Evaluation of dispotional ap
- no direction of cause and effect. Adorno simply found correlation between obedience and authoritarian personality.
- explanation is limited and suggests AP =high obedience
pre war germany was racist and obedient but they couldnt all have ap they had different personalities - flawed methodology of f scale. worded in same direction so they couldve ticked the same box over and over. this measures tendency to agree not personality.
what are the 2 reasons for resitance to social influence
social support
locus of control
evaluate social support for resitance to social influence
albrecht et al 8 week programme to help pregnant teens resist peer pressure to smoke. those who were provided with a slightly older mentor (social support)were more likely to quit smoking than the control group
in allen and levines asch type task task when the dissenter was someone with good eyesight 64% of ptps refused to conform. which shows conformity is dependent on who the dissenter is
evaluate locus of control as a explanation of resistance to social influence
contradictory evidence. twenge et al found in their study over 30 years that people have become more resistance to social influence but also more external…
research to support holland repeated milgrams study
37% of internals didnt continue to the highest shock whereas 23% of externals didnt continue to the highest shock. the internals show greater resistance.
what 3 qualities are needed for minority influence to work
consistency
committment
flexibility
describe moscovici’s research
2 confederates with 4 genuine participants (all female)were given eye tests to make sure they werent colour blind
they were given 36 slides which were clearly different shades of blue and told to name the colour
condition 1:confedereates were consistent and said green for all slides
condition 2:confederates said green 24 times an blue 12 times - inconsistent
results: in C1- 8.42% said green in C2- 1.25% said green a third said green atleast once
Minority influence 3 evaluations (research)
- research to support uses artificial tasks. colour of a slide is different from Irl minority influence that incluedes changing your core beliefs at a deeper processing level. no power difference in a lab, no external validity
- moscovici uses female ptps only cant be generalised to everyone. Neto argued females are more conformist than males so there may be a gender difference in reactions. this is beta bias we dont know how males will respond.
3.research to support minority influence msocovici found 8.42% conformity when consistent and 1.25% conformity when not. this proves consistency improves minority influence
how can a minority change the norms of a majority on a societal level?
- drawing attention - through providing proof of the issue/problem
2.deeper processing - individuals who previously accepted the status quo are now questioning their own beliefs
3.consistency - stating the same message within the group for a long time
- the augmentation principle - showing committment to the cause often at great risk
5- snowball effect - gradual social change moving the minority to the majority view
6- social cryptomnesia - people are aware that change has occured but cant remember how it happned
