social influence Flashcards
1
Q
what did zimbardo et al (1973) do?
A
- set up a mock prison in basement of psych dep at stanford
- selected 21 student male student volunteers
- randomly assigned to play role of guard/prisoner
- both encouraged to conform to social roles both through uniforms + instructions about behaviour
2
Q
what was zimbardo’s aim?
A
wanted to know why prison guards behave so brutally - whether because they have sadistic personalities or it was their social role that created such behaviour
3
Q
how were uniforms and instructions about behaviour used in the SPE?
A
- the uniforms created de-individuation meaning they would be more likely to conform to the perceived social role
- prisoners = loose smock to wear + cap to cover hair + identified with number (names never used)
- guards = own uniform reflecting status of role + wooden club, handcuffs + mirror shades
- further encouraged to identify with role with several procedures
ex: - rather than leaving study early prisoners could ‘apply for parole’
- guards encouraged by being reminded had complete power over prisoners
4
Q
what were the findings of the SPE related to social roles for guards?
A
- guards took roles with enthusiasm + treating prisoners harshly - within two days prisoners rebelled - ripped unforms - shouting + guards retaliated with fire extinguishers
- harassed prisoners constantly reminding them powerless - ex conducted freq headcounts when prisoners stand in line + call out numbers
- highlighted diffs in SRs by creating opps to enforce rules + admin punishments
- guards identified more + more closely with their role - behaviour became increasingly brutal + aggressive - some appearing to enjoy power
- when one prisoner went hunger-strike- force feed + punish by putting him in tiny dark closet
5
Q
what were the findings of the SPE related to social roles for prisoners?
A
- after rebellion put down prisoners became subdued, depressed + anxious
- one released - symptoms of psychological disturbance - two more released on fourth day
- zimbardo ended study after 6 days instead of intended 14
6
Q
what are the conclusions of the SPE related to social roles?
A
- social roles appear to have strong influence on individuals behaviour - guards became brutal + prisoners submissive
- such roles easily taken on by all ptps - even volunteers who came to perform specific functions found themselves behaving as if were in a prison rather than psych study
7
Q
how did the uniforms create deindividuation?
A
- prisoners dehumanised by wearing loose fitting smock, nylon stocking cap + referred to by number not name
- guards - wearing uniform, reflective sunglasses + bring referred to only as ‘mr. correctional officer’
8
Q
evaluation for SPE
A
- control
- real-life app
- realism
- 1/3
9
Q
what are strengths of the SPE?
A
- control - zim + colleagues had control over key variables - selection of ptps - emotionally-stable individuals chosen + randomly assigned to roles guard/prisoner - can rule out individual personality diffs as exp of findings - if guards + prisoners behaved diff + in those roles by chance - beh due to role - internal validity = high - supp roles in conf
- real-life application
10
Q
what are limitations of the SPE?
A
- lacks realism - one guard claimed based his role on brutal character from a film - shows performances were artificial
- findings of SPE tell us little about conformity to social roles in actual prisons
- exaggeration of power of social roles - only 1/3 behaved in brutal manner - most guards able to resist situational pressures to conform - zim minimised influence of dispositional factors
- ethical issues - ptps subdued, depressed + anxious + one left after 2 days - zim did not halt - failed in duty to protect their welfare
11
Q
what was Milgram (1963) aim?
A
- wanted to assess obedience levels
- see whether people would obey figure of authority when told to harm another person
12
Q
what was Milgram’s (1963) procedure?
A
- 40 male volunteers - paid $4.50
- each ptp introduced to conf upon arrival - drew lots on who would be ‘teacher’ (T) and ‘learner’ (L - called mr wallace) - lot fixed so ptp always teacher
- an ‘experimenter’ also involved who was a conf
- learner - strapped to chair + wired up with electrodes - had to remember pair of words each time made error ptp had to give electric shock via switches on ‘shock machine’
- from slight to intense to danger-severe - when teacher 300 volts L pounded on wall + no response to next q
- 315 again pounded but silent rest procedure
- when ptp refused to administer shock - experimenter gave series of prods
13
Q
what were the four standard ‘prods’ the experimenter used to get the teacher to continue?
A
prod 1 - ‘pls continue’/’please go on’
prod 2 - ‘the exp requires that you will continue’
prod 3 - ‘it is absolutely essential that you continue’
prod 4 - ‘you have no other choice, you must go on’
14
Q
what were the baseline findings of Milgram (1963)? what was the qualitative data?
A
- all ptps went up to 300v
- 65% went up to 450v - fully obedient
- 12.5% stopped at 300v
- he collected qdata including observations: ptps showed signs of extreme tension - sweating, stuttering , biting lips + three had seizures
15
Q
what did milgram do after the study?
A
all ptps in baselin - debriefed + assured beh = normal + sent follow-up questionnaire - 84% glad to have ptp
16
Q
what does germany have to do with Milgram (1963)?
A
- he wanted to know why such high prop of germany obeyed hitler’s inhumane requests
- thought possible explanation - germans diff from people from other countries - perhaps more obedient
- to determine this needed a procedure to assess how obedient people are
17
Q
what were the conclusions of Milgram (1963)?
A
- concluded german people are not ‘different’ - american ptps willing to obey even when might harm another
- suspected certain factors in situation - encouraged obedience - conducted further studies to investigate
18
Q
what is obedience?
A
form of SI where individual follows a direct order - person issuing usually figure of authority who has power to punish
19
Q
what are strengths of Milgram’s study?
A
- due to the controlled laboratory nature of exp - every ptp completed exact same procedure - can be replicated - The Game of Death-documentary - ptp believed they were contestants in a pilot episode for new game show - paid to give electric shocks to other ptps (actors) - 80% of the participants
delivered the max shock 460v to an apparently unconscious man - beh almost identical - anxiety signs - reliable - not just due to special circumstances - ptp cared for after - carried out role as a psych - same mental state - after the exp stopped- either when the experimenter used all verbal prods/max voltage reached- all ptps thoroughly de-briefed + de-hoaxed - 84% reported that they felt glad to have participated
- Milgram also kept in touch years after - make sure study left no lasting mental or physical damage
20
Q
what are weaknesses of milgram?
A
- low internal validity - ptps behaved the way they did because guessed the shocks were not real - so milgram didnt test what he intended to - Perry listened to tapes of ptps + reported many expressed doubts about shocks
- Androcentric study-data cannot be generalised to females - sample included all men
- ethics - some ptps shaking, laughing hysterically; nervously giggling, sweating heavily + one participant had a seizure
21
Q
what are the situational variables which can affect obedience as investigated by milgram (1963)?
A
- situational variables
- proximity
- location
- uniform
22
Q
what was Milgrams proximity variation like? what were the findings? explanation?
A
- teacher could hear learner but not see him in baseline
- in proximity variation - teacher + learner in same room - obedience rate dropped to 40%
- in touch proximity - dropped 30%
- remote instruction - reduced 20.5%
- decreased proximity allows people to psychologically distance themselves from consequences of actions - in baseline when seperated ptp less aware of harm so more obedient
23
Q
what was Milgrams location variation like? what were the findings? explanation?
A
- conducted in run-down office block - obedience fell to 47.5%
- prestigious uni environment gave study legitimacy + authority - ptps more obedient in location bc perceived experimenter shared this legitimacy + obedience expected
24
Q
what was Milgrams uniform variation like? what were the findings? explanation?
A
- in baseline experimenter wore grey lab coat as symbol of his authority
- in one variation experi called away at start + replaced by ordinary civilian (conf) in everyday clothes
- obedience dropped to 20%
- uniforms encourage obedience bc widely recognised as symbols of authority
- accept someone in a uniform entitled to expect obedience bc authority legitimate
- someone without - less right to expect obedience
25
Q
name the strengths and weaknesses of migrams research into situarional variables
A
LIMITATIONS
- mandel
- demand characteristics
STRENGTHS
- bickman
- miranda et al
26
Q
what is one limitation of milgram’s research into situational variables when it comes to offering ‘excuses’? ev
A
- there is discomfort surrounding his finding’s supporting a situational explanation of obedience
- perspective criticised by Mandel (1998) - argues offers excuse/alibi for evil behaviour - offensive to survivors of holocaust to suggest nazis simply obeying orders
- milgram’s explanation also ignores role of dispositional factors - implying nazis victims of situational factors beyond their control
27
Q
how is support of the power of uniforms a strength of milgram’s research into situational variables? ev
A
- bickman (1974)
- tested ecological validity of Milgram’s work by conducting in more realistic setting - 3 researchers gave direct requests to random pedestrians
- in milkman uniform, guard uniform or suit+tie
- found ptps most likely to obey researcher dressed as guard 80% than milkman or civilian 40%
- supports milgram’s findings for uniforms - obedience influenced by amount of authority person perceived to have
28
Q
how is cross-cultural replication a strength of milgram’s research into situational variables?
A
- replicated in other cultures. The findings of cross-cultural research have been generally supportive of Milgram
- Miranda et al - obedience rate 90%+ amongst Spanish students -suggests
that Milgram’s concs about obedience not limited to American males - valid across cultures + apply to females too
29
Q
how is DC a limitation to milgram’s research into situational variables?
A
- ptps may have been aware procedure faked
- Orne and Holland - criticised milgram og study + point out even more likely in variations bc of extra manipulation
- ex, when experi replaced by a ‘member of public’ - even milgram himself said situation so contrived ptps may well have worked out truth
- therefore in all studies unclear whether findings due to obedience or ptps saw through deception + responded to demand characteristics
30
Q
what is social support?
A
- One way people can resist pressure to conform/obey is if have ally - someone supporting their pov
- having an ally can build confidence + allow individuals to remain independent
- These people act as models to show others that resistance to social influence is possible
- individuals who have support for their pov no longer fear being ridiculed - allowing them to avoid nsi
- more likely to disobey orders and NOT conform
31
Q
why are we more likely to resist if there is social support?
A
dissenting ally raises possibility other - equally legitimate ways of thinking/responding - assessment of reality which makes more confident in decision
32
Q
how does albrecht et al’s (2006) research support social support? Evpos
A
- shows positive effects of SS
- evaluated an eight-week programme to help pregnant adolescents aged 14-19 resist peer pressure to smoke - social support provided by a ‘buddy’
- pregnant teens less likely to not smoke if had mentor who encouraged them to resist peer pressure
- those who did not have buddy - more likely to smoke
33
Q
how does gameson et al’s (1982) research support the link between social support + resistance to obedience?
A
- support role of dissenting peers in resisting obedience
- ptp’s told to produce evidence that would be used to help oil company run smear campaign
- higher rates of resistance compared to milgram
- argued high rates because they were in groups so could discuss
- 88% rebelled
- shows peer support linked to greater resistance
34
Q
how does allen + levine’s (1971) NOT support link between social support + resistance to conformity?
A
- showed social support does not always help in helping individuals resist the influence of a group
- asch type task carried out - in one instance when dissenter had obviously poor eyesight (thick glasses) resistance only 36%
35
Q
what is locus of control? who was it proposed by?
A
- rotter (1966)
- how much a person believes that they have control over their own behaviour
36
Q
what are the two types of LOC? what is the LOC continuum?
A
- some people have internal LOC - believe things that happen largely controlled by themselves
- some people have external LOC - believe things that happen outside of their control
- measured along a scale - people not just internal or external - LOC is a scale - individuals can vary position on it - high internal on one end and high ex on other
- low internal + external lie in-between
37
Q
how does high internal LOC allow for resistance to social influence?
A
- people who have an internal LOC are more likely to be able to resist pressures to obey + conform as take personal responsibility for their actions
- another explanation is people with high internal LOC tend to be more self-confident, more achievement orientated + highly intelligent + have less need for social approval
- these personality traits lead to greater resistance to social influence
38
Q
how does holland’s (1967) research support the link between LOC + resistance to obedience? Evpos
A
- repeated milgram’s baseline study into obedience + measured LOC in ptps
- 37% of internals resisted in comparison to 23% of externals
- increases validity of LOC explanation for resistance as those with internal LOC showed greater resistance
39
Q
how does twenge et al’s (2004) research contradict link between LOC + resistance? Evneg
A
- analysed data from american LOC studies conducted over a 40 year period
- data showed over time span - people became more resistant to obedience but also more external
- if resistance linked to internal would expect people to become more internal
- suggests LOC not valid explanation of how people resist social influence
40
Q
how rotter himself (1982) critiques the links between LOC and resistance?
A
- points out LOC not necessarily most important factor in determining whether someone resists social influence - LOC depends on situation
- LOC only useful for novel situations when we are in familiar situations previous experiences overpower this - if you have conformed/obeyed in specific situation in past - chances are you will do so again in situation regardless of LOC
- therefore relationship can be seen as exaggerated
41
Q
name evaluation for LOC
A
STRENGTHS:
- holland
LIMITATIONS
- rotter
- twenge
42
Q
what is agentic state?
A
- mental state where we feel no personal responsibility for our behaviour - believe to be acting for an authority figure - as their agent
- allows to be freed from conscience + allows to obey even a destructive authority figure
43
Q
what is the autonomous state?
A
- opposite of agentic state
- are free to behave according to own principles + feel sense of responsibility for own actions
44
Q
what is the agentic shift?
A
- shift from autonomy to agency
- milgram suggested this occurs when a person perceives someone else as an authority figure
- authority figure greater power because have higher position in social hierarchy
- in most groups - when one person in charge others defer to legitimate authority of this person - agentic shift
45
Q
how did ptps in milgram’s study show agentic state?
A
- milgram observed many ptps said they wanted to stop but seemed powerless to
- remained in agentic state due to bindings factors - aspects of situation allow to minimise/ignore damaging effect of behaviour + reduce moral strain
- milgram proposed strategies - shifting responsibility to victim ‘foolish to volunteer’
- deny damage doing to the victims
46
Q
what is moral strain?
A
- milgram found that when we go against our morals - experience moral strain
- ptps said they felt - upset, stressed, nervous
47
Q
what is legitimacy of authority?
A
- explanation for obedience - suggests more likely to obey people who perceive to have more authority over us
- authority justified by individual’s power within a society
48
Q
what is destructive authority?
A
- sometimes LA can be destructive - using legitimate powers for destructive purposes ordering to behave in cruel + dangerous ways
- DA obvious in milgram’s study when experimenter used prods to order ptps to behave against conscience
49
Q
what was the my lai massacre? (agentic state)
A
- milgrams findings have been used to explain it
- war crime at my lai during viet war
- 504 unarmed civilians killed by american soldiers - women gang-raped + people shot down as emerged from homes in surrender
- blew up buildings, burned village to ground and killed all animals
- only calley faced charges + found guilty - insisted taking orders from superiors + bore no direct responsibility - soldiers in turn said merely taking orders from calley
50
Q
name the evaluation for agentic state
A
STRENGTHS
- milgram
LIMITATIONS
- limited exp
51
Q
how is milgram’s study a strength of agentic state? evpos
A
- supports the role of agentic state in obedience
- most ptp’s resisted giving shocks at some point - often asked experimenter questions
- one was who is responsible if learner is harmed - when experimenter said it was them ptp often went through w procedure quickly no further objections
- shows once ptps perceived no longer responsible for behavior - acted more easily as ex’s agent
52
Q
how is limited explanation for studies a weakness for agentic shift? evneg
A
- agentic shift does not explain many findings about obedience
- does not explain findings of rank + jacobson
- 16/18 nurses disobeyed orders from doctor to administer excessive drug dose to patient
- despite doctor authority figure - almost all nurses remained autonomous
- suggests obedience can only account to some situations of obedience
53
Q
name the evaluation for legitimacy of authority
A
STRENGTHS
- real-world crimes
- bickman
54
Q
how are real-world crimes of obedience a strength of legitimacy of authority? evpos
A
- rank + jacobson found nurses prepared to disobey legitimate authority
- kelman + hamilton argue a real-world crime of obedience ex. My Lai - can be understood in terms of power hierarchy of US army
- COs operate within clearer hierarchy than hospital doctors + have greater power to punish
55
Q
how is bickman a strength of legitimacy of authority? evpos
A
- research shows authority perceived to have has impact on obedience
- 3 researchers gave direct requests to random pedestrians
- in milkman uniform, guard uniform or suit+tie
- found ptps most likely to obey researcher dressed as guard 80% than milkman or civilian 40%
56
Q
what is authoritarian personality?
A
- dispositional explanation for obedience
- adorno - shows extreme respect for authority
- view society weaker than it once was - believe need strong + powerful leaders to enforce trad values
- more likely to obey from source of authority
- show contempt for those inferior status
- everything either right/wrong - uncomfortable with uncertainty
- ‘other people’ (ex.ethnic group) responsible for ills of society
57
Q
what are the origins of authoritarian personality?
A
- adorno et al - forms in childhood - result of harsh parenting
- typically features - strict discipline, absolute loyalty - high standards + severe criticism of failings
- fears displaced onto others perceived weaker- explains hatred to inferior - central feature to obedience to higher authority
58
Q
what was adorno et al’s procedure into authoritarian personality?
A
- studied more than 2000 middle-class, white americans + unconscious attitudes towards other ethnic groups
- developed several measurement scales, including F-scale (potential for fascism scale) used to measure AP
59
Q
what were adorno et al’s findings into authoritarian personality?
A
- people who scored high on f-scale + other measures (authoritarian leaning) - identified with ‘strong people’ + generally contemptous of the ‘weak’
- conscious of status, showed extreme respect, deference + servility to those higher status (these traits basis of obedience)
60
Q
what else did adorno et al find about those with authoritarian personality?
A
- had a certain cognitive style (way of perceiving others) - ‘black and white’ thinking between categories of people
- had fixed + distinctive stereotypes of other groups
- found strong positive correlation between authoritarianism + prejudice
61
Q
name the evaluation for authoritarian personality
A
STRENGTHS
- milgram + elms
LIMITATIONS
- lack of internal validity
- F-scale
62
Q
how are milgram and elms strength of authoritarian personality? what is a counterpoint to this?
A
- interviewed ptps who took part in first 4 milgram studies showed those that shocked to full 450v scored higher on F scale than those who refused
- supports adorno et al’s view obedient people may well show similar characteristics to people who have an authoritarian personality
- when individuals subscales analysed - number of characteristics did not share with authoritarians (did not glorify fathers, punishment in childhood etc) - meaning link between AP + obedience complex - ptps so unlike authoritarians - that authoritarianism unlikely to be useful predictor of obedience
63
Q
how is a lack of internal validity a limitation of adorno et al’s research into authoritarian personality?
A
- original F scale questionnaire lacked internal validity - all questions written in one direction - meaning agreeing to all questions label someone as authoritarian - could be ptps with this response bias
64
Q
what is a limitation of the F-scale political wise?
A
- only measures tendency towards an extreme form of right-wing ideology
- christie + jahoda argued F-scale politically-biased interpretation of authoritarian personality
- point out reality of left-wing authoritarianism
- ex both emphasise importance of complete obedience to political authority
- not comprehensive dispositional explanation that accounts for obedience to authority across whole political spectrum
65
Q
what is social change?
A
- change that happens in a society and not an individual level
- minorities can change the positions of members of the majority via consistency, flexibility + commitment
66
Q
what is the snowball effect?
A
- when members of majority slowly convert to minority
- but as minority grows attracts new members faster - until grows so large now the majority
67
Q
what is social cryptomnesia?
A
- happens after societal change
- individuals who previously held old view refuse to admit they held the now unpopular view/resisted the new view
- do not give credit to minorities who changed society
68
Q
what is minority influence?
A
- refers to situations where one person/small group influences beliefs/behaviour of other people
- distinct from conformity (majority doing influencing)
- most likely to lead to internalisation
69
Q
what are the three main processes in minority influence?
A
- consistency
- commitment
- flexibility
70
Q
what is commitment?
A
- minority must demonstrate commitment to their views/cause
- sometimes minorities engage in quite extreme activities to draw attention to their views
- important these extreme activities present some risk to minority - shows greater commitment
- majority group members pay even more attention - augmentation principle
71
Q
what is consistency?
A
- minority must be consistent in their view - vertime increases amount of interest from other people
- can take form of agreement between people in minority group (synchronic - all saying same thing) and/or diachronic consistency - been saying same thing for some time now
- consistent minority makes other people start to rethink own views
72
Q
what is flexibility?
A
- nemeth argued onsistency not only important factor in minority influence - can be off-putting
- if seen as dogmatic + rigid - minorities may not be persuasive
- members of minority need to be prepared to adapt their pov + accept reasonable + valid counterarguments
- they key is to strike a balance between consistency + flexibility
73
Q
how does the process of change happen as done by the three processes of minority influence?
A
- if you hear something new - think more deeply about it - especially is source of this view consistent, committed + flexible
- this deeper processing - important in process of conversion to different minority view
- increasing numbers of people switch from majority position to minority position - become ‘converted’ - called ‘snowball effect’ - minority view has become majority + change has occurred
74
Q
name the evaluation for social change
A
STRENGTHS
- moscovici
- martin et al
LIMITATIONS
- real-world application
- artificial
75
Q
what is research evidence supporting consistency?
A
- moscovici et al’s blue/green slide study
- ptp’s shown 36 slides clearly different shades of blue + asked to state each slide out loud
- found in consistent majority had bigger effect on majority compared to inconsistent
- wood et al - meta-analysis - 100 similar studies found minorities consistent most influential
76
Q
what is research to support deeper processing?
A
- martin et al - presented message supporting particular viewpoint + measured ptp’s agreement
- one group heard majority agree, other heard minority group agre
- ptp’s finally exposed to conflicting view + attitudes measured again
- people less willing to change if listened to minority - suggests minority message more deeply processed + more enduring effect - supporting central argument of minority influence
77
Q
what is a counterpoint to martin et al’s research into deeper processing?
A
- real-world social influence situations much more complicated
- majorities much more power + status - minorities very committed to causes - have to be because face very hostile opposition
- features usually absent from minority influence research - minority simply smallest in group
- limited in what tell us about real-life
78
Q
what is a limitation of minority influence research? fake
A
- artificial
- ex moscovici - identifying colour of slide - research far removed from how minorities attempt to change behaviour of majorities in real life
- findings lack external validity - limiting what they tell us about minority influence in real life situations
79
Q
what are the steps in how minority social influence creates social change?
A
- drawing attention
- consistency
- deeper processing
- augmentation principle
- snowball effect
- social cryptomnesia
80
Q
how did asch show conformity to lead to social change? how is NSI used to lead to this?
A
- highlighted importance of dissent in unanimity variation when one conf gave correct answer throughout
- broke power of majority - encouraging others
- such dissent potential to lead to social change
- environmental + health campaigns exploit conformity processes by appealing to NSI - do this by providing info about what others are doing
- social change encouraged by drawing attention to what majority are doing
81
Q
how do milgram and zimbardo show how obedience (or lack of) can lead to social change?
A
- milgram - demonstrates importance of disobedient role models
- in variation where conf teacher refuses to give shocks to learner - rate of obedience in genuine ptps plummeted
- zimbardo - suggested obedience can lead to social change through process of gradual commitment - once small instruction obeyed - becomes much more difficult to resist bigger one - people essentially ‘drift’ into a new kind of behaviour
82
Q
what is research support for normative influences impact on social change?
A
- research has shown social influence processes based on psychological research do work
- nolan et al aimed to see if they could change people’s energy-use habits
- hung messages on front doors of houses every week for a month message was most residents trying to reduce their energy uses
- as control some residents had different message that just asked them to save energy - no reference to others
- significant decreases in energy usage in first group compared to second
- shows conformity can lead to social change through NSI - valid explanation
83
Q
what is a counterpoint to nolan’s et al research on NSI being a valid influence on social change?
A
- some studies show people’s behaviour not always changed through exposing them to social norms
- foxcroft et al reviewed social norms interventions - included 70 studies where social norms approach used to reduce student alcohol use
- researchers only found small reduction in drinking quantity + no effect on frequency - seems NSI does not always produce long-term social change
84
Q
how is the ability to explain a strength of minority influences’ affect on social change?
A
- psychologists can explain how minority influence brings about social change
- nemeth claims social change due to type of thinking minorities inspire - when people consider minority arguments - engage in divergent thinking - type of thinking broad rather than narrow (thinker searches for info + weighs opts)
- nemeth argues leads to better decisions + more creative solutions to social issues
- shows why dissenting minorities valuable - stimulate new ideas + open minds in a way majorities cannot
85
Q
what is a limitation of deeper processing when it comes to social change?
A
- may not play a role in how minorities bring about social change
- mackie disagrees + presents evidence that it is majority influence that may create deeper processing if you do not share their views
- when you find out a majority believes something different - forced to think long and hard about their arguments + reasoning
- means central element of minority influence challenged - casting doubt on its validity as an explanation of social change
86
Q
what was Asch’s basline study + findings?
A
- 123 american men tested - each one in a group with other apparent ptps
- line judgement task - each trial ptps had to say (out loud) which of comp lines same length as standard line X
- test conformity in an unambiguous situation
- tested in groups 6 - 8 - one one ptp genuine
- on av - genuine ptp’s agreed with confs incorrect answers 1/3 of time
- but 25% never conformed
87
Q
what were the 3 variables tested by asch?
A
- group size
- unanimity
- task difficulty
88
Q
how did asch test group size? what were the findings?
A
- wanted to know whether size of the group more important than agreement of group
- varied number of confederates from one-15
- found curvlinear relationship between group szie + conformity rate
- 3 confs - conformity rose to 31.8% - most people very sensitive to view of others - just few confs enough to sway opinion
89
Q
how did asch test unanimity? what were the findings?
A
- wondered if presence of non-conforming person would affect naive ptp’s conformity
- introduced a dissenter - one variation gave correct + other gave incorrect
- genuine ptp’s conformed less often in presence of dissenter
- presence of dissenter appeared to free the naive ptp to behave more independently
- true even when disagreed with gen ptp
- non-conformity likely when cracks in unanimity seen
90
Q
how did asch test task difficulty? what were the findings?
A
- wanted to know whether making task more difficult would affect degree of conformity
- increased difficulty by making stimulus line + comparison lines more similar in length - making it harder for ptp’s to see difference
- found conformity increased - situation more ambiguous when task becomes harder - natural to look for others for guidance (ISI)
91
Q
how is articificial situation a limitation of asch’s study?
A
- task + situation artificial
- ptp’s knew in a research study + may simply have gone along with what was expected (DC)
- task of identifying lines relatively trivial - no reason not to conform
- fiske argued they do not resemble groups in real-life
- do not generalise real-life situations - esp those where consequences of conformity may be important
92
Q
how is limited application a limitation of asch’s study into conformity?
A
- ptps were american men
- other research sugests women may be more conformist
- also US individualist culture (concerned more about themselves) - similar conformity studies conducted in collectivist cultures (china) have found conf rates higher
- findings tell us little about conformity rin women + people from some cultures
93
Q
how is there research support from other studies for the task difficulty variation?
A
- lucas et al asked ptps to solve ‘easy’ and ‘hard’ maths problems
- ptp’s given answers from three other students (not actually real) - ptp’s conform more often when problems harder
- supports asch claim that task difficulty one variable that affects conformity
94
Q
what are the ethical issues of asch’s experiment?
A
- deception
- although debriefed at the end
- negative psychological effect of humiliation
-benefits of Asch’s research outweigh the ethical costs because the potential practical benefits are great and the stress caused to participants was minimal
95
Q
what is internalisation?
A
- occurs when a person genuinely accepts groups norms - deepest level of conformity
- changes their public + private beliefs
- beliefs of the group become part of the individual’s own belief system
- change in opinions/behaviours persists even in absence of other group members
- likely to be linked to NSI
96
Q
what is compliance?
A
- publicly changing behaviour whilst maintaining a different private view
- going along with group - even if do not really agree with what they are doing
- do it to fit in
- not permanent - lasts only as long as group present
- likely to be linked to NSI
97
Q
what is identification?
A
- looks to the group for guidance
- conform to opinions/behaviour of group because something about it valued
- publicly chane opinions/behaviour by group even if do not privately agree
98
Q
what is NSI?
A
- group pressure leading to a desire to fit in with the group
- all about ‘norms’ typical behaviour for social group
- for social approval
-emotional rather than cognitive process - may be more pronounced in stressful situations where greater need for social support
99
Q
what is ISI?
A
- when a person lacks knowledge of how to behave + looks to the group for guidance
- cognitive process - to do with what you think
- leads to permanent change in opinion/behavior (internalisation)
-likely to happen in new situations/ where there is some ambiguity - also in crisis situations where decisions have to be made quickly
100
Q
what is research to support NSI?
A
- asch
- interviewed ptp’s - some said conformed because felt self-conscious giving correct answer - afraid of disapproval
- when wrote answers down - conformity fell to 12.5% - because privately no normative group pressure
- supports NSI - avoid rejection
101
Q
what is research to support ISI?
A
- lucas
102
Q
how is individual differences a limitation of NSI?
A
- does not predict conformity in every case
- some people greatly concerned with others liking them - nAffiliators
- mcghee + teevan found students who were nAffiliators were more likely to conform
- shows NSI underlies conformity for some people more than others - individual differences which cant be explained by just NSI
103
Q
how is hard to distinguish a limitation for NSI + ISI
A
- unclear whether NSI/ISI are at work in research studies
- ex asch found conformity reduced when there is one other dissenting ptp - may reduce power of NSI (because provide social support) / may reduce power of ISI (provide alternate source of info) - both possible
- hard to seperate them + probably operate together in real-life situations
104
Q
how did perrin and spencer show the limited validity of asch’s experiment?
A
- did a replication of Asch’s original study with British engineering students and found over 396 trials that only one student conformed
- means that Asch’s study may suffer from lack temporal validity and have limited population validity
105
Q
how does jenness support ISI?
A
- Jenness used an ambiguous situation that involved a glass bottle filled with 811 white beans
- sample consisted of 101 psych students - individually estimated how many beans in glass bottle
- ptp then divide into groups of three and asked to provide group estimate through discussion - ptp provided with another opportunity individually estimate the number of beans to see if they changed their original answer
- found that nearly all participants changed their original answer
- an ambiguous situation and are likely to be the result of informational social influence
106
Q
how are reichler and haslam a limitation to zimbardo’s experiment?
A
- tried to recreate the Stanford Prison study in a programme for the BBC
- in this simulation prisoners became dominant over the guards and became disobedient to the guards who were unable to control their behaviour
- suggests that the results of Zimbardo’s study may be down to individual differences
- reason guards such control - may have more dominant personalities + prisoners more submissive
107
Q
how does schlutz et al support NSI?
A
- found able to change behavior of hotel guests by using printed messages encouraging to save energy
- messages suggested other guests using fewer bath towels most successful
108
Q
did sherif show ISI or NSI?
A
ISI
109
Q
name the strengths and weaknesses of migrams research into situarional variables
A
LIMITATIONS
- mandel
- demand characteristics
STRENGTHS
- bickman
- miranda et al
