SOCIAL INFLUENCE 1.0

Question 1

When does social influence occur

Answer 1

When indiv thoughts feelings or actions affected by other ppl
Soc infl can take many forms
Conformity, obedience, minority influence

Question 2

Define confirmity

Answer 2

Conformity is tendency to change what we do (beh) or think and say (attitude) in response to the infleunce of others or social pressure. This can be real or imagined
Crutchfield 1955
“Yielding to grp pressures”

Question 3

What is another name for conformity

Answer 3

Majority influence

Question 4

What are the 3 types of conformity

Answer 4

Proposed by kelman 1958
Complience. - most temporary and shallow
Identification
Internalization - permanent and deep

Question 5

Complience

Answer 5

The most superficial type of conformity
Public beh changes
Private thoughts do not
.. continues to privately disagree w view of grp

Question 6

Identification

Answer 6

Public beh changes
Private thoughts also change but changes back to og when leave grp
Deeper than conformity
Person identifies w grp + feels sense of grp membership
But temporary

Question 7

Internalisation

Answer 7

Deepest lvl conformity 
Pub beh changes
Priv thoughts change forever
… views taken on a deeper + perm lvl
-> become part of the persons own way of viewing world

Question 8

Another name for internalization

Answer 8

Conversion

This is true conformity

Question 9

what are 2 expl for conformity?

Answer 9

we confrom bc of …
Normative social infl (NSI)
infofrmational social infl (ISI)

Question 10

WHAT IS NSI

Answer 10

reffers to desire to be liekd
.. conform bc think others will accept and approve us
->humans feel need to fit in + fear rejection
-> this type of infl more liekly to lead to temporary change in attitudes or beh
-> NSI more liekly to lead to complience

Question 11

where is NSI more liekly to happen?(3)

Answer 11

in situations w strangers -> fear rejection
in situtaitons with friends -> concerned aout social approval
in stressful situations -> we have greater need to haev soc support from others

Question 12

waht is ISI

Answer 12

refers to desire to be right
.. look at others whom we believe are correct
-> giving us info about how to behave
-> we believe others are more expert
-> ISI more liekly to lead to permanent change in beh/attiutudes
bc believe we r doing right thing
-> leads to internalization

Question 13

wehn is ISI more liekly to happen?

Answer 13

in novel or ambiguous situations -> unsure what is the right way to behave as no right or wrong answer
-> if there is an expert -> believe they are right

Question 14

waht does novel situation mean?

Answer 14

new situation

Question 15

waht are nsi and isi?

Answer 15

both cognitive processses

Question 16

waht most liekly leads to identification?

Answer 16

nsi

bc u want to be liekd by grp u are w at that moment

Question 17

pos for explanation of conformity (2)

Answer 17

there is r support for both expl from Asch
-> found 37% ppl who conformed to an obv incorrect answer using an unambiguous task
-> during debrief after exp -> p claimed they couldnt bear to be in minority grp
-> shows nsi -> fear of being rej
other p said conformed bc thought perception of lines must be innacuratre .. yielded to maj
-> shows ISI. this provides support for both expl
NSI also been succ to encourage resp attitudes towards envi.
real life applications
-> Schultz et al 2008 found when hotel guests exposed to normative messgae that 75% of guests reused their towels each day , it reduced their own usage of new towels by 25%
.. these stuides show NSI can be used to change how ppl beh

Question 18

neg for expl of conformity (3)

Answer 18

however r shows NSI does not affect everyones beh the same way
-> p who less concerned with being liekd conform less … less affected by NSI
mcGhee adn teevan 1967 found students high in need of affiliation more liekly to conform .. expl not valid for eveyrones beh
similarly ISI DESONT AFFECT EVERYONEIN SAME WAY
ASCH 1955 - 28% students were less conformist than other participants (37%). Perrin adn spencer 1980 conducted study inv wscience and engineering students and found very little conformity

IT is likely both proccesses work together
.. beh caused by both NSI and ISI
-> conformity is reduced when all answers are not unanimous in Asch exp… may reduce power of NSI bc dissenter may provide social support
or may reduce power of ISI the maj has bc there is an alternate source of info
… shows its not alwas poss to be sure if isi or nsi is at work

Question 19

affiliator def

Answer 19

ppl who care more about being liked

Question 20

what was asch aim 1951

Answer 20

1951
ionv what would happen to conformity if p were exposed to situation where there could be no doubt as to the correct answer
asch tested for nsi adn isi

Question 21

what was the procedure

Answer 21

asch used lab exp
misinformed p as to the tru aim of study
-> said p taking part in study on perception of line legnth
- sample was 5o american male college students
a male sat around a table with 6 otherswho were confederates
- the naive p always sat in second to last pos
each p asked to judge lenght of line by saying which out of the 3 comparison lines it was same as
on critical trials (there were 12 out of 18) the confeds had been told ti give the same wrong answers

Question 22

how many times did the confeds give the right asnwer?

Answer 22

6 times

-> make naive participant belong to grp

Question 23

what were the findigns

Answer 23

the overall conformity rate was 37%
-> the no of trials naive p gave the same wrong answer as confeds on critical trial
very high as it was not an ambiguous question
25% remained completely independant.. gave correct answer all 12 times despitie strong grp pressure
5% o p conformed on every critical trial (most conformist)
during psot exp in debrief some p claimed they conformed bc of nsi .. couldnt risk being in minority grp
most conforming p was bc of isi - thougth perception of line must be inaccurate

Question 24

how many liens were there in total?

Answer 24

4

Question 25

what was the conclusion

Answer 25

even when asnwer was obvious there is strong grp pressure to conform
esp if group was unanimous majority

Question 26

pos of asch research? (3)

Answer 26

used lab exp
.. high lvl of control over extr variables
-> task, grp size, room
.. allows cuase and effect to be establoshd more easily
-> we can be confident when drawing conflusions w findings
.. incr internal validity of findings

-> hgih lvl of control over variables meant could be replicated any times
-> using standardised procedures and instr
.. meant replicated in other countries
-> all similar concl

->better bc there is a right answer unlike Jeness’ jelly bean study

Question 27

weakness of asch research? (4)

Answer 27

artificial setting .. low ecological validity
-> p were amongst strangers whereas in real life conformity usually takes palce w ppl who are in grps e.g friends
.. difficult to generalise findings onto real life situations where we conform

ethical problems with research
false aim (deception) +P may have felt embarrased and stupid that they went along with others
.. cuasing psycholgical harm .. should give debrief
but damage caused overweighs info learnt
-> as damage wasnt long term

culutral bias -> 50 american male college students
-> all american. Smith and bond meta analysis of asch research
-> found conformity rate highest in collectivist cultures fiji 58%, lowest in individualistic cultures belgium12%
.. limits generalisabiltiy of findings as results can only be applied to indivualistic culture western eg UK and US

gender biased -> all males
other r show females may be more conformist
-> more concerned about social relationships than men are Neto 1995
Asch r may .. be androcentric .. only applicable to men

Question 28

waht are 3situational factors that affect confromtiy? (3)

Answer 28

asch carried out no of variations of study to find out which variables affected lvls of conformity most
grp size
unanimity (all in agreement)
difficulty of task

Question 29

how does grp size affect confromtiy rate?

Answer 29

very little conformity when just 1 or 2 confeds
when 3 confeds the confromtiy rate incr to 30%
fruther incr to grp size did not change conf rate signif
.. sugg grp size may affect conf rate but only up to a certain point

Question 30

waht did campbell and fairey 1989 usggest

Answer 30

campbell and fairey 1989 suggested when grp size effects lvls conf diff depending on motive of indiv

• > e.g when no objective right answer just want t fit in
• > larger grp size more liekly conofmr
• > when what to be right only need 1 or 2 ppl to sway them

Question 31

how des unanimity affect confromity rate?

Answer 31

in aschs og study confoeds unanimously haev the saem wrong answer
when the real p was given support of eitheranother real p or a confed who gaev right answer, the conformity lvls dropped sig to 5.5%
-> if confed gaev both an answer that was diff from the maj and diff from true answer the rates dropped to 9%
-> asch concluded that if unanimity broken it reduced the conformity rate significanty

Question 32

how does diofficukty of task affect cinformity rate?

Answer 32

asch variation he made differences between line lengths much smaller .. correct answer less obvious
-> uder theses circum conformity lvls increased
-> lucas et al 2006 inv this rel much firhter
-> found that situational differences (task diff) and indiv differens (self-efficacy) to be improtant.
when exposed to maths problems in an asch type task
those with high self efficacy remai nde more independatn than those with low self efficacy
even when task diff was hard.
shows both factors are importantr at determining beh

Question 33

waht is self efficacy?

Answer 33

somones confidence in their own abilities

Question 34

who inv conformtiy to social roles?

Answer 34

zimbardo 1973

Question 35

waht was zimabrdos aim?

Answer 35

standford prison exp was to observe the interaction between the 2grps in the absence of an obv authority figure

Question 36

what was teh procdure?

Answer 36

a mock prison set up in basement of psychology department at stanford uni in california usa
male students volunteers were psycholgoically and physcially screened
-> 24 most stable of these were randomly assigned to either play role of prisoner or guard
-> they were paid 15 dolars day for 2 week study
prisoners were unexp arrested at home and on entry to the prison rhey were put thru a delousing proc
-> given a prisoner unfirom and assigned and ID no.
-> guards referred to the prisoners only by their id no. thru out study + p only allowed certain rights incl 3 supervised toielt trips a day
2 visits per week
participants who were guards given uniforms, clubs and whistles adn wore reflective sunglasses
-> zimabrdo himself was the prison superintendant

Question 37

findings?

Answer 37

first few days of study-> guards grew increasingly tyranical
and abusive towards prisoner
they wokr prisoners in night and forced them to clean toilets with bare hadns + made them carry out other degradinig activities
some g so enthusiastic ht they volunteered to do extra hours without being paid
the participants appeared at time to forget that this was only a psycholgoical study + merely acting
even when unaware they were being watchd they still ocnformed to their roles of either prisoner or guard
wehn one prisoner had had enough, they asked for parole (to be released from prison) rather than to withdraw from study
5 prisoners had to be released early bc of extreme reactions eg crying rage adn acute anx- symp appeared after just 2 days
-> study terminated after 6 days

Question 38

conclusion?

Answer 38

both gaurds and prisoners confromed to their social roles + taken on very quickly
guards became incr sadistic and p became incre passive and accepting of their plight
-> this stimulation revealed power of situation to influence ppls beh

Question 39

pos of zimbardos study (1)

Answer 39

high lvl of control over extr variables
-> such as only emotionally stable p selected
-> random allocation to role of p or g
.. reduces p variables eg indiv diff which may have caused guards to behave very differnetly to prisoners
high lvls of control incr internal validity of study .. can be sure of power of social roles in influences ppls beh

Question 40

neg zimbardos study

Answer 40

zimbardo was superintendant
->part of study .. researcher bias
-> could have drew conclusions which he believed was right .. conlc may be invalid
critics argue did not show conformity to scoial rolesisntead it was more of acting + based on stereotypes of how g + p beh
one of the guards admitted he based his role on Cool Hand Luke.. reducing internal validity of findings sugg not related to conformtiy

Ethical issues -> had to be ended early after just 6 days
-> supposed to be 2 weeks
5 prisoners released early -> symptoms of acute anx, rage + crying psycholgical harm + physcial harm
had to wake up in middle of night to do tasks
lack of fully infromed consent -> hadncuffed and arrested

zimabrdos work was exaggeratig power of situation + minimising the role or personality factors (dispositional influences)
only a third of guards behaved ina brutal manner, another third were keen on applying rules fairly
the rest treid to support the prisoners, sympathising with them … siggests z conc that p were conforming to soc roles may be overstated as he has not accounted for dispositional infl

Question 41

define obedience

Answer 41

a from of socinfl in which an indiv follows a direct order
usually form of an authority fig
who may hae power to ounish

Question 42

diffreence betwwen obedience and conformity

Answer 42

obed- inv a hierarchy, pressure to chnage is explicit
emphasis to power
conformity - inv ppl of equal status, beh is similar to source. emphasis is acceptance. pressure to chage is implicit

Question 43

waht were the aimsm of stanley milgrams exp? (2)

Answer 43

find out wether ord americans would obey a unjjst order froma p in authority in inflicit pain on another p
-> inv what factors led ppl to obey

Question 44

what was proc milgram

Answer 44

40 volunteers self selected sampe
paid 4.50 each all thought they were giving electric shocks to another person -> were told studys aim was to inv role of punishment on learning
each geniuine p had teachers role and confed played mr wallce the learner
if p or teacher hesiitated they were enouraged to continue
-> exp continued when teacher refused to continue ir when 45oV reached
given a debrief + met Mr wallace

Question 45

what was learners task

Answer 45

memorise pairs of words and when tested
indiciate his choice using system of lights
-> learner answered correctly then began to amek msitakes

Question 46

waht was teachers role

Answer 46

administed a shcosk every time learner made a mistake
with every mistake of learner, it incr by 15V increments up to 450V
-> no shocks were actually given

Question 47

waht were the fidnings of milgram

Answer 47

all 100% p went to atleast 300V
65% WENT TO 450V
most p found proc stressful + wanted to stop
some p had extreme anx

Question 48

waht made the p continue

Answer 48

researchers kept telling p that they would take resp if mr wallace hurt

Question 49

concl of milgram?

Answer 49

under certain circumstnces most ppl will obye orders that go against their consience
when ppl occupy a subordinate pos in a dominance hierarchy
they become liable to lose feelings of empathy, compassion adn morality .. inclined towards blind obedience
-> does not take an evil p to commit an evil act

Question 50

pos of milgrams study

Answer 50

hoflings 1966 field exp.. high ecological val
with real life situation
showed high obedience lvls. 21/22 p nurses almost obeyed a confed playing doctor unknown to give 2x the dosage of a drug to a patient.
-> supports the ecological v of milgrams study
+ supports the fact that authority fig in real world are not different in his study

• > lacks exp v counter -> M disputed these claims cited evidence that why did some p hesitate to continue, or show stress, anx if they were jsut going along
• > supports findings valid bc p were obeying exp and not just going along w act

Question 51

neg of milgrams study

Answer 51

orne and holland -> m lacks ecological validity
-> situation in his exp had little resemblance to a real life situation where obedicen is req.. in real life situation obedience lvls would not be so high (65%)
.. argue cannot be generalsied to real world
Baumrind believes m did not take adequate measures to protect p from stress and psycholgoical harm
-> signs of extr anx HOWEVER 84% said they did not regret taking part in it, and in sample of 40 p a psychiatrist interviewd they all had no psycholgical damage 1 yr later
.. worth it as no longterm harm done -> learnt alot
Orne and Holland -> exp lacked internal validity
-> the p were jsut going along with the act when shocking the learner
-> did so to please experimenter

Question 52

what is an expl for obedice?

Answer 52

situational variables

• > proximity
• > location
• > uniform

Question 53

how does proximity affect obedicne lvls?

Answer 53

in proximity study both teacher + learner were in same room
-> obed lvls fell to40%
in another more extr variation where t was req to force learners hadn onto shock plate obed fell further to 30%
-> when orders given over phone obed fell to 20.5% continuing to max 450V
-> some even said they were following proc but actually giving weakest volts

Question 54

location?

Answer 54

OG study in yale uni -> a prestigious place where several p remarked that location gave them confidence in the integrity of ppl involved.
-. some p said if place changed they wouldnt have shocjed learner
variation-> run down office block in Connecticut with no affiliation to Yale
-> obed lvls dropped sloghly to 47.5%
who devliering full 450V

Question 55

uniform?

Answer 55

in og expermineter wore lab coat as symbol of authority
-> in one variation the exp wore everyday clothes ( a member of the oublic but still a confed)
the obed rate dropped to 20%
lowest of all variations
-> shows how uniform gives legitimacy

Question 56

pos of situational variables of affecting obed lvls3

Answer 56

-> Bickman 1974shows unifrom defo effects obed lvls
field exp
3 male exp ->1 wore jacket and tie (civilian)
milkman
guard unifrm (looked like police)
-> gave orders to 153 random pedestrians
obed lvlshighest in guard unifrm 89%
loewst in civilian 33%
->shows uniform affectys obed lvls -> unifrm conveys authority + legitimacy
M used standardised proc + instr each time
.-> eg same gender, same location
… easy to repl
Miranda 1981 replicated exp in spanish students sim obed lvls
-> sugg sit variables as an expldoes not only apply to american males
-> appleis to other cutures and females too
M alterned only 1 variable at a time in his variations
.. could be confident when establishing cause and effect
-> r.g only changed proximity and saw what it had on lvl of obed

Question 57

neg situational variables 1

Answer 57

altho m findings have been replicated in other cultures
-> mosty in western developed socities spain or australia
-> not cuturally different to usa
… cannot conlc that m findings about proximity location and unfirom apply to ppl eveyrwhere