social infleunce A03 Flashcards
explanations of conformity A03
(AO1 on NSI)
strength - research support by Asch
-
E- confederate majority unanimously gave incorrect answers to Q’s.
pps publicly spoke, then privately wrote down their answers.
correct answers = obvious
when in presence of majority 75% knowingly answered incorrectly (conformed) -
Ev - supports idea that a majority creates a pressure causing minority to conform.
Results confirm that NSI causes compliance since most pps only changed their public views. -
L - results cannot be applied to today’s America, or cross-culturally.
study conducted in anti-communist period. propaganda caused mass fear of communists and people feared being labelled as one. This made Americas culture more collectivist, meaning the communities perception is more important. Due to cultural change, cant be applied to America today, or do individualist cultures.
Is ISI a better explanation? - doesn’t rely on group pressure, so applicable cross-culturally
(ISI AO1)
strength- variation of asch found to support ISI
-E - highly ambiguous maths problems.
conformed highly in public and private answers. if NSI only explanation, no private conformity.
highly standardised, high control
high ambiguity in presence of maj = min internalising maj views.
proves ISI as sep
criticism - neither ISI or NSI explain all pp beh in their supporting studies
conformity never reached 100% (25% didn’t conform)
both only consider situational variables.
variation of Asch - pps w expertise far less likely to conform.
The dispositional factor of self-efficacy reduced effect of group pressure on expert.
so an explanation considering dispositional and situational factors holistically =better exp for conformity.
variables affecting conformity A03
(Asch)
_ Highly scientific lab experiment_
- E - same number of confederates, same lines, always penultimate (standardised procedure that can be easily replicated to ensure the same results).
-Ex- Good control as only the confederates giving the wrong answer changed.
Hence it has be to whether the confederates said the wrong answer that made them conform. Good causation.
however, low EV
-E - strange room, and the lines had no real consequences to getting them wrong.
-Ex- This is not comparable to explain behaviour with consequences such as Nazi Germany and gassing Jews. If real consequence, then no conformity.
Criticism – Asch assumed all
conform due to situation, e.g. group. However, not everyone did
-E - 25% never conformed
-Ex - Dispositional, e.g., personality (internal LOC) take responsibility, less likely to follow the group.
Expertise (if people had known of lines, e.g., engineering students) less likely to conform as confidence in ability to recognise lines.
-L - Conformity both situational and Dispositional
conforming to social roles: zimbardo A03
Criticism: methodological issues
-E- Lack of EV
Wooden, fake cells in basement of uni, unrealistic chain round one ankle, guard sunglasses.
-E -Unlike a real prison, wood cells not metal, chains not used. Prisoners even commented at beginning on how fake it looked. More demand characteristics not
conformity to social roles – e.g.,
exaggerated acting
-L but, Prisoners did not know they were being arrested by real police at their home. Felt embarrassed as in front of neighbours. Hence, like real life setting.
Also, they were depressed and
anxious, not likely demand
characteristics. The fact one tried to withdraw by asking for ‘parole’. shows how immersed they were. Hence not low EV.
but ethical issues raised as a result of Zimbardo’s research
-E - Prison stimulus took away RTW, Lack of informed consent (arrested at home), Little protection from harm + some deception (arrested at own home)
-Ex - Zimbardo’s research should never have been conducted - he did not know the outcome or affects on pp’s. Prison simulation
took away people’s rights to withdraw.
Zimbardo should have made efforts to ensure people wanted to continue, particularly when showing signs of distress.
He was also over involved in his own research, e.g., superintendent of the prison. It needed PhD student to recognise the concerns for pp’s welfare for him to abandoned his experiment.
-L- but did acquire approval from the Office for Naval Research.
did a very thorough debrief of all pp’s. Therefore, the ethical issues are outweighed by the benefits to society.
Strength: Real life beneficial applications
-E - Real life prison changes, e.g., prisoners called by name not no. Prison officers not allowed to cover eyes.
-Ex - reduces likelihood of deindividuation and stops prison officers dehumanising prisoners. has improved treatment of prisoners + reduced riots.
-L - but Doesn’t consider dispositional factors. Individual differences affected extent to which pp conformed. Beh of guards varied dramatically - sadistic beh, to helping prisoners (empathy, support).
suggests situational factors aren’t only cause of conformity and Zimbardo’s conclusion of situational variables being largely responsible = overstated.
Further more, only males used so shows a beta bias as his research may have ignored or minimised the differences between women and men conforming to social roles. so unable to conclude if females conform in similar way.
Milgram A03
strength - high control and causation
-E - standardised prompts given from experimenter (“you must continue”), responses from leaner tape recorded, objective measure of obedience using voltage.
-
Ex - so can be certain it’s the presence of an authority figure that’s causing high level of obedience, as all pps in same situation,
So situation=main contributing factor. -
L - exp where women and men shocked puppies to 450v. 100% women shocked to max (even when puppies showing major signs of distress), only 54% men.
so, also dispositional factors (gender bias)
Milgram ignored this (beta bias)
Also could be demand characteristics - some may have not believe shocks real, but could still doubt it so still RL beh.
criticism - ethical issues
-E - Harm to pps (seizures + distress - sweating, trembling)
Lack of RTW (coercion through experimenter prompts - “you must continue”)
Deception (learner and fake shocks + rigging of allocation roles)
Debrief issues (pps all initially debriefed and told their reactions were normal but not all pps fully debriefed - some left thinking actually shocked)
-Ex - These breaches could serve to damage the reputation of psychology and jeopardise future research (ppl stop trusting the profession and no longer take part in exp)
Milgram should have made sure pps entered and left in same state, and fully debriefed.
-L - but without his research we wouldn’t be able to appreciate the importance of the situation we’re put in and helped to explain Nazi Germany and how genocide of Jews could occur.
situational variables affecting obedience A03
uniform
- Ev- Bickman - confederates asked public to pick up litter dressed as either a guard (82%), a milkman (64%), casual - no uniform (36%)
- Ex - uniform increased obedience. Guard uniform perceived as more legitimate in park setting - creates an agentic shift quicker in due to that perceived legitimacy - making it easier for them to obey.
- L - but lack of mundane realism. Milkman not usually in parks giving instructions on litter, hence realise fake field exp. demand characteristics, not uniform creating obedience.
location
Ev- Milgram Yale (65%) Vs rundown office (47.5%)
- Ex - more prestigious - more obedience. More perceived legitimacy at Yale, more likely to genetically shift due to higher status of Yale Vs rundown office, so more legitimacy to authority of that location.
-
L- due to higher reputation of Yale, pps more likely to think shocks fake. Rundown office, more likely to think real, so less likely to obey.
not really measuring obedience, but demand characteristics.
proximity
-E- Touch proximity - (teacher hold learners’ hand to shock pad): 30%
Proximity Experimenter present (Milgram) = 65% v Experimenter Absent: 21%
-Ex- obedience increases when in close proximity to authority figure as it’s easier to genetically shift responsibility onto experimenter.
Obedience increases when less proximity to learner and pp don’t have to see harm done - if do, harder to stay in a genetic state - so pps disobey more as more autonomous, taking personal responsibility for harm caused.
-L- RLA - Milgram’s research - how Nazis could gas jews (not in close proximity to them, but in close proximity to superior officers giving the orders- so agentically shift responsibility to them)
-L - Socially sensitive of how research is used in real life. Is this research helpful in reducing maltreatment of others or is it used to increase wartime obedience within the army of any country
agentic state and legitimacy of authority A03
Research support Milgram’s claims on agentic state
-E - A film of Milgram’s study shown to students. They blamed the
‘experimenter’ due to legitimate and
expert authority.
-Ex - People recognise, others obey legitimate authority and shift the responsibility onto them for the orders given (agentic shift), lessening the moral responsibility that they hold for theirs or other actions.
-L - Problem = people report who they think is responsible, not what they think internally. Other cultures may not hold the authority figure responsible and may be an effect of America culture.
Milgram’s assumption on agentic state is too rigid
-E- Studied German doctors at Auschwitz. They gradually shifted from ordinary medical professionals
concerned about the welfare of their patients, into doctors that carried out inhumane experiments on helpless prisoners.
-Ex- Shows agentic shift is gradual, people are not either in an agentic or autonomous state. In fact, it may be nothing to do with the ‘agent’ or authority but more to do with becoming complicit in an ‘evil’ act and justifying the internal reasons.
-L- Hence this calls into Q whether obedience is purely situational as Milgram supposed, but is more about the internal disposition of someone, which makes it easier for them to obey
than others, e.g., authoritarian
personality.
However, legitimacy of authority
does explain cultural differences in
obedience
-E - For example, when Milgram’s study was replicated in Australia, only 16% went to 450 volts. Whereas in Germany 85% of participants did.
-Ex- shows not all cultures see
authority as equally legitimate. In fact, Australia is far less concerned about hierarchy of authority than Germany, which explains why there as less obedience to someone in a ‘grey lab coat’.
-L - so, there are env
factors e.g., attitudes to authority that affect whether someone obeys, not just the situational factors around them at the time. However, this ignores that fact that even in Germany 15% of people disobeyed. This indicates that there is a dispositional factor as to why some
people disobey more than others.
dispositional explanations for obedience AO3
Research to support individual
disposition affects obedience
-E- Adorno, F-scale – 2000 white M/C Americans in the army. Found strong positive correlation, higher the score on F-scale = more
authoritarian -> grown up with strict
parents.
-Ex- Proves that disposition increases obedience and not the situation.
Milgram only had 65% go to 450V,
not 100% due to not having
authoritarian personality, all pp’s
had same env + prompts.
-L- However, 100% did go to 300V. If purely situational it would be 100%, therefore 35% is the pp’s disposition.
One criticism is that there are
methodological problems with the F- scale measure of AP
-E- Self-report &all F-scale items same direction.
-Ev- Adorno may just be measuring acquiescence rather than AP, as can get high score just ticking down all one side of the Likert scale.
-L- but, may be overestimating the part personality plays in obedience as 65% in Milgram’s study obeyed (unlikely all had an AP. Furthermore, research where students watched a film of Milgram, blamed the experimenter for the pp’s actions. Therefore, it was the situation not the pp’s disposition that caused obedience.
Dispositional theory not accurate on the cause of AP
-E- Research found pp’s who
scored high on F-scale had a good
relationship with parents.
-Ex- So, harsh, strict parenting
is incorrect. Also, based on correlational data, so no cause &
effect. Reason for assumption on
harsh parenting is based on US army, taught to obey and more likely to come from strict backgrounds.
-L- but, AP has positive
implications for personal
accountability; e.g., Nuremberg
trials can prosecute each person that took part, otherwise if
situational then no-one is at fault for
atrocities like genocide.
Explanations of resistance to social influence: Social Support A03
One strength is research support for social support
- Ev - In Asch variation, psychologists found when an ally (confederate) gave the right answer first, before others, the real pp was more likely to resist conformity (5% conformity)
-Ex - So, the presence of just 1 ally is enough to break conformity and stop NSI. The reason is it breaks group pressure to comply due to
lack of unanimity. The pp’s have confidence to resist conformity
-L - But, this does not work if the ally is just before the pp when answering. This is because a ‘group
norm’ has already been created, so the ally has less effect in reducing group pressure to resist conformity.
However, the research lacks EV & mundane realism
-Ev -This is measuring line length. There are no consequences to a wrong answer.
-Ex - Too simplistic – Real life situations have serious consequences. People may resist conformity in serious situations, e.g., whether or not to kill, without an ally. IRL, i.e., of war. May be more the person’s personality that creates
resistance than social support (internal LOC).
-L - But, RL evidence – individuals resisted conform to binge drinking if 1-2 friends also
resisted. Therefore, social support does increase resistance in the real world. Even true when serious
consequences: Gestapo threatened to open fire on women protesting; dissenting peers gave them courage to continue & 2000 Jewish were set free.
Explanations of resistance to social
influence: Locus of Control A03
One strength is there is a strong
positive correlation between LOC
and resistance to social influence
-E-A meta-analysis of studies used Rotter’s LOC Internal-External (I-E) scale. The meta- analysis found a positive correlation, the higher the score (more internal LOC) the
more resistant to social influence.
-Ex-More likely to resist = believe they have control, independent, don’t rely on the opinions of others; whereas external more likely to agentically shift, place responsibility onto the agent or take on opinions of the
group (conformity).
-L-However, its correlational (no cause & effect). Could be other extraneous variables, e.g., upbringing and self-esteem that could contribute to high ILOC. Furthermore, the results are all based on self-report = social desirability.
On the other hand, there is research support with high ecological validity
-E- Compared 406 non-Jewish people who protected and saved the Jews to 126 people who did not. People who help protect Jews had an internal LOC.
-Ev- Resistance (LOC) to social influence in RL setting. The ppl who help protect the Jews from Nazi’s had high ILOC, believed they were
responsible for saving Jews. Whereas ELOC did not help as they felt what happened to the Jews was
not as a result of them helping or not, but external reasons e.g., Nazi’s, therefore more likely to resist
obedience.
-L-However, other variables for resistance, e.g., social support, (there were allies that also resisted,
making them more likely to resist social influence.
Furthermore, not everyone resists social influence. This may be because they have an AP. Therefore,
LOC is not the sole answer
Minority influence: Moscovici A03
Support that consistency is important for Minority Influence
- Ev - 3 groups: No pressure to conform, Inconsistent 24/36 slides “green”, Consistent 36/36 “green”
Results:
Control: 0.25% answered green, Inconsistent: 1.25% conformed,
Consistent: 8.42% conformed
-
Ex - Showed consistency of minority message has greater impact on others than an inconsistent minority. The more
consistent the message the higher the conformity to the minority. -
L - But, study is gynocentric-only studied women and generalised to all genders. The findings from those women
mean that 68% still conformed to the majority. Hence not influenced by the consistency of the minority message and the study lacks EV (based on blue/green slides. Not an
important message with consequences/semantics)
Maybe there would be higher or lower minority conformity if the message was important to the group.
Criticism: Moscovici did not consider the difference between in & out-groups
- Ev - 68 14yr old UK students gave attitudes for ‘loan for pupils’ before & after reading some text supporting a minority view.
Said to be:
view from own school (ingroup) v school they did not like (outgroup). Responses were either: public or private.
Results: public = minority ingroup influence greater than outgroup. In private, outgroup matched ingroup minority conformity.
-
Ex - Suggests that whether you identify with the group (ingroup) or don’t (outgroups) affects the influence that a minority has.
This was not considered by Moscovici. He assumed that consistency of message was the most important factor and ignore the role of identification with
minority group. -
L - But, this has a culture bias (UK only) & sample biased (only 1 school), and only generalisable to 14yr old students.
They may be more influenced by
minorities than adults and less affected by ingroup/outgroups (through identification).
Criticism of Moscovici, not only
consistency but flexibility in minority
influence
- Ev - Mock jury – 3 pps and 1 confederate.
Decide amount of compensation for ski jet accident. When confederate did not change compensation to low amount, neither did the majority, when confederate changed compensation slightly (flexible) so did the majority.
-
Ex - when minority not flexible and did not compromise, majority did not change views, when minority did adapt their view,
majority willing to change view, supports the idea that flexibility is important for minority influence. -
L - But, same lack of EV as all studies mentioned. All studies
measure immediate minority influence (e.g., 8.42% could be higher if over a longer time period). E.g., suffragettes (happened over years rather than minutes) = snowball effect
Minority Influence: Social Change A03
Criticism: Social change is
gradual
- Ev - Suffragette movement took 7yrs to change women’s rights to vote. Took another 10 years to remove age restriction to vote at 30yrs old (putting men and women on equal footing).
-
Ex - Therefore, minority influence and social change is harder to create permanence than
assumed. There is resistance from
the majority, easier to go with
‘status quo’ than change. - L - However, supports snowball effect being gradual thus creating social-cryptoamnesia. Therefore, not criticism of theory, but support of importance of diachronic consistency.
Criticism: Social Change is less
likely if the minority group is
considered ‘deviant’
- Ev - E.g., terrorists (ISIS), trying to create state change in Syria e.g., through augmentation effect such as suicide bombing.
-
Ex - Because this is a deviant group creating harm to others and
themselves to create social change.
Minority influence is slower and drives social change underground. For instance, people unlikely to admit they agree with a murdering terrorist organisation. - L - However, these situations are extreme and highly anti- social/societal. In fact, there are many occasions in real life when positive social change has occurred.
Support: Social norm interventions have had positive results in creating social change
- Ev - Montana (USA) – drink driving. After correcting misconceptions about the no of
people that drink drive, drink-driving reduced by 14%. It has also worked with teenage pregnancy and smoking.
- Ex - This shows that drawing attention and creating cognitive dissonance in the general public, e.g., drink driving is not the ‘social norm’ people in Montana assumed - creates a way for social change. The fact the campaign worked proves importance of cognitive dissonance.
- L -However, social norms intervention can have a ‘boomerang’ effect. People who already have desirable behaviour can be negatively influenced (as may perceive behaviour as the ‘norm’. E.g., heavy drinkers drink less (as 14% lower than expected), but light drinkers drink more (as 14% is higher than expected).
Therefore, campaign on social change need to be careful to get a balance between challenging and creating norms, to not normalise a negative behaviour.
