Social Infleunce

Question 1

What is social psychology

Answer 1

Looks at relationship between people and how people affect each others behaviour

Question 2

Conformity

Answer 2

Form of social influence where person changes behaviour and attitudes so they are in line with majority. May occur due to pressure

Question 3

What is compliance

Answer 3

When individuals adjust behaviours, attitudes and beliefs they show in public. No change to private behaviour, attitudes and beliefs and conformity only happens when public group is present. It’s therefore superficial and temporary

Question 4

What is internalisation

Answer 4

When individuals adjust behaviours, attitudes and beliefs they show in public and change to private behaviour, attitudes and beliefs. They examine their own behaviour and decide what to do based on what others say. It’s therefore deeper than compliance and ‘more permanent’

Question 5

What is identification

Answer 5

When individual accepts social influence behaviour as they want to be associated with role models or a social group. They adopt the groups behaviours etc as they will feel more connected to the group

Question 6

What are Deutsch and Gerard’s theory for why people conform

Answer 6

They believe In:

1. Normative social influence
2. Informational social influence

Question 7

What is normative social influence

Answer 7

When people have fundamental need for social approval and acceptance. Therefore avoiding behaviour that causes others to reject/ridicule us.

Can lead to copying behaviour of others in order to ‘fit in’. Studies show that people like those who are similar to them and so conformity is effective strategy to ensure fitting in.

N.S.I is likely to lead to compliance, where people will agree publically with the group but privately they don’t change their personal opinions.

Question 8

Informational social influence

Answer 8

Fundamental need to be right and to have accurate perceptions of reality. Individuals may make objective tests against reality but if not possible, they rely on the opinions of others to check if they are correct and then use this as evidence about reality.

I.S.I is more likely to happen if the situation is ambiguous (the correct answer is not clear) or when others are experts. This can lead to internalisation, where people publically AND privately change their opinions.

Question 9

Positive evaluation of Normative and informational social influence (3)

Answer 9

1. Asch (1951) asked participants which of 3 ‘test lines’ was same as ‘standard line’. Participants were with confederates who purposely gave wrong answer. In 33% of trials participants conformed and gave wrong answer, where as chances of making genuine mistakes was about 1%. Thus confirming they conformed due to normative social influence. Questioned after, participants said they knew right answer but were worried about ridicule if they answered dif
2. Jennes (1932) asked people to estimate number of beans in a jar. They were to make individual estimates first, then the same as a group. Found task carried out as a group, participants reported answered were roughly the same (even when previously reporting dif estimates individually). Likely example of informational social influence as participants were uncertain about number of beans so could have been genuinely influenced by groups
3. Sherif (1935) used auto-kinetic effect to investigate conformity. A small spot of light is projected on a screen in dark room, and will appear to move, even tho it’s still. Discovered that participants people tested individually had very varied estimates of how far light had moved. Then placed in groups of 3. Sheriff manipulated the groups, with 2 people have similar estimates but 1 have very different ones. Each individual had to state aloud their estimates; as more trials went on the groups estimates converged into much more similar ones. Thus, the person with very varied view had conformed due to informational social influence .

Question 10

Negative evaluation of Normative and informational social influence

Answer 10

1. McLeod (2007) Suggested that there’s a third explanation for conformity. This is know as ingrational conformity. Similar to normative social influence, but differs as the group influences doesn’t enter when making decision to conform. Instead it’s motivated by need t impress and gain favour and status, rather than being rejected.
2. Dispositional factors ( eg personality traits) may also impact someone conforming. People with internal locus of control less likely to conform than those with external locus of control. And Normative/informational social influence cannot explain this.

Question 11

Variables that affect conformity - group size (Asch study)

Answer 11

Asch (1956) when doing his study, altered group size. Groups with:

• 1 confederate = conformity rates of 3%
• 2 confederates = conformity rates 13%
• 3 confederates = conformity rates 32%

Therefore suggest its hard to rise when three or more ppl influence you

Question 12

Variables that affect conformity - task difficulty (Asch study)

Answer 12

Asch (1956) adjusted task size by changing lengths of lines to similar ones. Under the circumstances, conformity levels rose, maybe due to informational social influence - may be as we look to others for confirmation

More difficulty of task = higher informational social influence and thus conformity

Question 13

Variables that affect conformity - unanimity (Asch study)

Answer 13

When everyone had agreed (unanimity), then conformity had increased. But, but when only one person in group didn’t agree, and thus no unanimity, then conformity dropped.

Asch (1956) found even with one confederate who went against majority, conformity rates went down from 33% to 5%.

Question 14

Negative evaluation of Asch (1951, 1956) (5)

Answer 14

1. Asch (1951, 1956) studies may not have temporal validity. Study was done 80 years ago, and possible people were more conformist than they are now. Post-war attitudes that we should work together and consent rather than dissent may affected the results
2. Task given to participants, on matching line lengths, is artificial and not likely to happen irl. Conformity happens in a social context, usually with friends and not strangers. Thus, study lacks mundane realism and ecological validity.
3. Study is gender biased and sample was only male, thus doesn’t represent female behaviours. Culturally biased due to only Being on white American males, but study has been replicated with different samples and cultures, and was proved reliable
4. Use of volunteer sample, thus their behaviour may not be representative of wider population so cannot be generalised and doesn’t have population validity.
5. Several ethical issues with the study as well:
   - deception (believed they were taking part in test of perception),
   - lacking informed consent (participants didn’t agree to be in study on conformity)
   - psychological harm (they were put in embarrassing/stressful situations)
   But it was necessary to deceive them to prevent demand characteristics which would invalidate the study.

Question 15

What are social roles

Answer 15

Behaviours that are expected of an individual who occupies a social position or status. People can conform to these rules

Question 16

Negative evaluation of Zimbardo (1973) (5)

Answer 16

1. Highly unethical study as prisoners were subjected to high amounts of psychological harm. 5 prisoners were released early due to extreme reactions, like rage and acute anxiety. But, Zimbardo didn’t except guards to act this way
2. Zimbardo himself took role of prisoner warden, thus becoming v involved with study and lost his objectivity. He was told by colleagues to end the experiment due to prisoner stress, and thus validity of findings can be questioned.
3. Sample was unrepresentative as all were white (one exception), young, middle-class and male students from Stanford uni. Thus they cannot be generalised to women or other cultures
4. Guards may have behaved this way due to demand characteristics; some participants reported after that they thought experiment wanted them to behave aggressively, and thus why they did it. Thus the study isn’t valid.
5. Some of the guards didn’t conform to role given of them, and were reluctant to be involved in prisoner cruelty where as others were more abusive. Seems to suggest individual differences are important in extent to which ppl will conform to social roles

Question 17

What is obedience

Answer 17

Behaving as instructed by authority figure

Question 18

Positive evaluation of Milgram (1963)

Answer 18

1. Despite ethical issues, many psychologists feel after conducting ‘cost-benefit analysis’ (where harm of study is weighed vs how much its done against valuable knowledge it provided), showed it was worthwhile. We know most people may do the same, leading to more taking more responsibility and not blindly following orders. Participants didn’t suffer true long-term emotional disturbances and most (84%) said were happy to have taken part.

Question 19

Negative evaluation of Milgram (1963) (4)

Answer 19

1. Participants were deceived about true nature of experiment, as they were told it was about memory and not obedience - thus they wouldn’t have informed consent. Also led to believe electric shocks were real and Mr Wallace had a weak heart. But, the deception was necessary to avoid demand characteristics and hence increases validity
2. During experiment, they became very distressed and may have even thought they had killed Mr Wallace, so weren’t protected from psychological harm. But, Milgram didn’t expect participants to obey this, so the psychological harm wasn’t anticipated
3. Many asked to leave but were told they were not allowed, therefore violating right to withdraw.
4. Sample is unrepresentative as everyone was white American males, thus we cannot generalise to women to dif cultures (gender and cultural bias). But study has since been replicated with women and obedience rates are not to dissimilar

Question 20

Situational variables affecting obedience:

Answer 20

1. Proximity - in proximity variation both teacher and learner in same room. Obedience fell to 40% as teacher could feel Mr Wallaces anguish directly
2. Location - in the alternative setting variation the experiment was carried out in rundown office by experimenter in casual clothes. All others were at Yale uni. Obedience rates of 48% Participants reported Yale uni setting gave them more confidence of integrity of experimenter. Lower status of rundown office changed perception of legitimacy of authority. Higher authority in Yale led to higher obedience rates
3. Uniform - have powerful impact on obedience as they’re visible symbol of authority. Bickman (1974) asked confederates to order passer-by to pick up some litter/move away from bus stop. Dressed as guards, milkman or smart clothing, 90% obeyed, where as only 50% obeyed when a civilian.

Question 21

Situational explanation for obedience - Agentic state

Answer 21

Milgram (1974) argued people obey horrific orders not due to their own personalities, but because of the situation they are in (this is why it is a situational explanation).

Suggested that people following orders go from an autonomous state into an agentic state. This is called the agentic shift. Once in an agentic state people ‘unthinkingly’ carry out orders and perceive themselves as merely instrument of authority figure.

They believe that the authority figure is responsible for their actions (diffusion of responsibility) and so do not follow their own conscience or feel guilt for their actions.

Question 22

Why may someone be in the agentic state

Answer 22

1. As in people’s experience those in authority are trustworthy, orders seem reasonable at first before becoming more aggressive (gradual commitment), and people are psychologically protected from the consequences of their actions (buffers).
2. To maintain positive self-image. It does not matter what negative behaviour portrayed, because they aren’t responsible for their actions

Question 23

Positive evaluation of agentic state (1)

Answer 23

1. Those in Milgram’s experiment were less likely to shock Mr. Wallace when in the same room as him and could see the consequences of their actions (i.e. there were no buffers). Supports the idea of an agentic state. Being in close proximity to Mr. Wallace and seeing him in pain would have prevented some participants from going into an agentic state.

Question 24

Negative evaluation of agentic state

Answer 24

1. Without buffers, people shouldn’t go into agentic state and obey order to harm someone. Mandel (1998) reporte case of Major Wilhelm Trapp. In 1942, village of Jozefow, Major Trapp was given orders to take Jewish people to the edge of the village and have them shot. Although the members of his battalion were given the chance to say no, only few did, and massacre went ahead. This occurred despite the victims being in close proximity to the soldiers.
2. Doesn’t explain other research findings like ppl not obeying authority figure in Milagros study

Question 25

Situational explanation of obedience - Legitimate authority

Answer 25

Another situational explanation of obedience; claims we recognise own and others position in social hierarchy and will obey those higher - they have legitimate authority.

Legit authority is increased by symbols of authority (uniform etc).

It’s dependant on setting, order, system and location (eg. Prison) especially if commands are harmful or destructive

Question 26

Positive evaluation of legitimate authority

Answer 26

1. Hofling (1966) found nurses would obey dangerous command from doctor in hospital location. Nurses received a phone call from an unknown doctor (really an actor) called Dr. Smith. He asked her to administer 20 milligrams of a drug called Astroten to a patient. Broke hospital rules as it was twice the maximum dose (as indicated on the bottle), the instructions were given over the phone, the doctor was unknown, and the medicine was not on the stock list. 95% of nurses carried out these instructions, despite the potential danger, because doctors have legitimate authority.
2. Bickman (1974) asked confederates to order passersby to pick some litter off the street or move away from a bus stop. The confederates were dressed as either a guard, milkman or just in smart clothes. 90% of people obeyed the guard but only 50% obeyed civilian. Thus, a guard uniform is more likely to be perceived as a legitimate authority figure.

Question 27

Negative evaluation of legitimate authority

Answer 27

1. Legitimate authority doesn’t explain why some people can resist the order of authority figures. 35% of people in Milgram’s (1963) study refused to obey the experimenter, even though he had legitimate authority in that situation

Question 28

What are dispositional explanations of obedience

Answer 28

They claim individual personality characteristics determine behaviour, and not situational influences in the environment

Question 29

What is an authoritarian personality and their traits

Answer 29

More likely to obey authority figures and have series of traits that make them more obedient:

• servile towards higher status people
• hostile towards lower status
• conformist and conventional
• preoccupied with power

Question 30

Why did Adorno (1950) think people develop authoritarian personalities.

Answer 30

Due to having received strict/rigid parenting, usually involving physical punishment. Creates feelings of hostility which are displaced onto those weaker and cannot fight back, thus they feel safe.

But they can’t take anger out on parents as they fear them, so they repress anger and act submissive towards them.

Question 31

Positive evaluation of authoritarian personality (2)

Answer 31

1. Miller (1975) found people scoring high in ‘F scale’ were more likely yo obey order when holding onto electrical wiring while working on arithmetic problem, compared to thus low on ‘F scale’.
2. Altemeyer (1981) ordered participants to give themselves increasing levels of electric shocks when making mistake on learning task. High correlation between those willing to shock and high scores on ‘F scale’.

Question 32

Negative evaluation of authoritarian personality (3)

Answer 32

1. Situational variables may be more important than dispositioanl ones. Milgram (1974) conducted variations of original experiment with vastly differing results. Obedience was 100% when Mr Wallace made no noises/screams but was 0% when there were two authority figures who disagreed (one wanted to continue, one didn’t)
2. Dispositional explanations can’t explain obedience in entire societies, as authoritarian personalities are uncommon. Far fewer than 65% of ppl have such personality, so cannot be only explanation of levels of obedience in Milgrams (1963) original study.
3. Middendorp and Meleon (1990) found less educated people more likely to have authoritarian personality. Thus, its possible that Authoritarian personality doesn’t cause obedience, but lack of education causes it and obedience.

Question 33

What can have strong influences over people’s behaviour

Answer 33

Pressures to conform/obey can exert strong influences over people’s behaviours. In Milgram’s (1963) study, 65% of people obeyed and Asch (1951) found 75% of people confirmed at leats once

Question 34

Social support theory

Answer 34

It’s a situational explanation of resistance to social influence. Argues when 1 person refuses to conform, makes it more likely that others will also follow suit and resist social influence.

Less likely to conform due to having an ally who resists this influence - by them resisting it breaks unanimity.

Question 35

Positive evaluation of social support theory

Answer 35

1. Milgram (1974) asked participants to deliver electric shocks to a confederate, Mr W, when he got a question wrong. Shocks weren’t real, but made to believe so, and 65% shocked him up to the max 450 volts. But, when there was another confederate who acted as a disobedient role model, only 10% delivered the 450 volts shock.
2. Asch (1951) asked participants to say which of 3 ‘test lines’ was the same as ‘standard line’. People were in group with confederates who deliberately gave same wrong answer, even when correct one was obvious. In 33% of trials, people confirmed and gave the wrong answer. But, conformity dropped to 5% when one confederate acted as an ally and gave the right answer.

Question 36

Negative evaluation of social support theory

Answer 36

1. But, in both Milgram’s and Asch’s original experiments, some were able to resist social influence even with no social support. Thus, meaning social support isn’t complete explanation of resistance to social influence, and others factors like personality traits can also influence people to refuse to conform.

Question 37

What is a locus of control

Answer 37

Extent to which we beleive we control our own behaviour.

Question 38

What do ppl with internal and external locus of control beleive

Answer 38

Internal - what happens is due to their own excisions and thus they can alter what happens to them. Eg. Blame inadequate revision for bad test

External - beleive strongly what happens is out of their control. Think things happen due to chance and we have no ability to alter it. Eg blame luck for bad test

Question 39

Are people with internal locus of control more/less likely to conform, and why

Answer 39

Less likely to conform because:
1. More likely to be leaders, not followers
2. Less concerned with approval
3. Self-confident
4. Beleive they control circumstances

Question 40

Evaluation of locus of control (2+ 1-)

Answer 40

1. Oliner (1988) interviewed 400 Germans who sheltered Jewish people during the Nazi period. These people had internal locus of control allowing them to disobey Nazis.
2. Milgram (1974) ask people to deliver electric shots to Confederate, Mr. Wallace, when he got a question wrong. Shocks weren’t real but participants thought they were and 65% of people obeyed and shocked him up until 450 Volts. He gave participants a questionnaire to measure their locus of control and found 35% who disobeyed with form more likely to have an internal of control.
3. William and Warchal (1981) found conformers well less assertive than non-conformers but the two groups didn’t score different differently on a test to determine Locus of control. Suggests assertiveness is more important than locus of control in determining if we conform/obey.

Question 41

What is minority influence?

Answer 41

When small groups or individuals change the way the majority believes in

Question 42

What did Moscovici (1985) minority influence leads to

Answer 42

• leads to conversion - individuals change private beliefs due to minority influence

Question 43

What three factors and minority influence likely to occur?

Answer 43

Commitment - members of the minority demonstrate dedication to the belief, may make sacrifices or take risks showing that minority isn’t acting out of self interest

Consistency - occurs when minority repeat repeatedly gives a message overtime

Flexibility - minority that willing to listen to other people/compromise. Then majority will listen to minority point of view more seriously.

Question 44

What is the snowball effect?

Answer 44

Minority influence first has small effect but then spreads and then it converts people to hold the same opinion.

Eventually reached the tipping point where the minority becomes the majority.

Question 45

What is social crypto amnesia?

Answer 45

Minority influence might be unconscious. So the individual isn’t aware of where the new idea originated from. Known as social crypto amnesia.

Question 46

Evaluation of minority infleucne (

Answer 46

1. Moscovici (1969) told 172 they were taking part in colour perception task. Participants putting groups of six and showed slides with varying shades of blue. 26 confederate and had to state out the colour of each slide. In the consistent condition confederates set the slide was green in all slides. Inconsistent condition confederate said that 24/36 were green and the rest blue. Consistent condition - people sued by minority influence 8% of the time, but inconsistent people only went along with minority 1.25% of the time. Shows consistent minority is more effective than inconsistent.
2. Nemeth and Brilmayar (19870 studied flexilvit in jury situation. Control condition participants discussed how much compensation to award someone in ski lift accident. A confederate put forward an alternative point of view and refuse to change there position, had no effect on the other group members. But in the experimental condition where the confederate compromise and shifted towards the majority of the group were influenced. if the confederate shifted the negotiations(flexibility rather than lack of consistency)
3. Martin et al (2003) Gave participants a message supporting a viewpoint and measured their support. In one condition they heard a minority view agreeing with the message and another they had a majority view. They were finally exposed to a conflicting view and the attitude were measured again. Those exposed to minority you were less willing to change their opinion suggesting minority is more deeply processed and has more enduring effect.
4. The studies are gender biased. Moscovici only use women so we don’t know if male participants would respond to minority influence in the same way. Research suggest women are more likely to conform than men. Sample of studies are also culturally biased as they’re all from America. Finding these can be generalised to other population and we can’t conclude that people from other cultures would respond to minority influence in the same way.
5. Most studies into minority influence are based on labs and use artificial tasks which don’t reflect the struggle of real minorities. Raises the question of ecological validity because real life majorities have even more state and not just ppl, than minority groups.

Question 47

What is social change and when does it occur

Answer 47

Refers to change that occurs in society and not individual level.

Occurs when minority view challenges majority view and is eventually accepted

Question 48

Example of social change

Answer 48

• Women gain vote
• smoking ban in public places

Question 49

How do govt and dictatorships bring about social change, and what does this lead too

Answer 49

Govs:
Thru power and obedcicne.
Changes in law may make a behaviour a social norm which others then adopt

Dictatorship:
Also thru obedience. Leads to groups of ppl changing behaviour due to fear of punishment

Question 50

Zimbardo procedure and findings

Answer 50

Procedure - simulated prion created at standford uni. 24 emotionally and psychologically stable young men were recruited and randomly assigned to the role of prisoner or guard. The guards had complete control over the prisoners who were confined to their cells around the clock except for meals, toilet privileges, head counts and work. The guards were told to maintain order using any means necessary, except for physical violence.

Findings - second day prisoners tried rebelling. Guards sprayed them with CO2, took away beds, ringleaders in solitary confinement etc. guards became increasingly aggressive over next few days and prisoners became passive and depressed. Guards became so aggressive that study was ended after just 6 days (meant to last 2 weeks) due to psychological health concerns of prisoners.

Question 51

Milgram (1963) procedure and findings

Answer 51

Procedure - placed advert looking for male participants to be in study about effect of punishment on learning. 40 ppl went to Yale and met by Experimenter in lab coat who was a confederate. Introduced to Mr Wallace who had a pretend weak heart. Then naive participants were set up and was chosen as teacher. They were told they had to punish learner (aka mr w) if they made a mistake on a memory test by giving electric shock.

Switches for the shocks were labbled from 15 to 450 volts and final shocks were even marked with ‘XXX’ for severe danger. As shocks became more severe MR w demanded to be released, complained and finally went silent.
Experimenter urged them to continue and when reluctance was shown they used words like ‘please continue’ ‘ you have no choice..’

Findings: 100% went up 300 VOLTS (MR w had stopped answering) and 65% went to max 450 volts. Ppl felt Hugh levels of stress during the experiment and showed symptoms eg. Hysterical laughing.