Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

psychology - paper 1 > social influence > Flashcards

social influence Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
AP® Psychology flashcards Psychology 101 flashcards GRE® Psychology 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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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’
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

evaluation for SPE

A
  • control
  • real-life app
  • realism
  • 1/3
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

what are the situational variables which can affect obedience as investigated by milgram (1963)?

A
  • situational variables
  • proximity
  • location
  • uniform
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

name the strengths and weaknesses of migrams research into situarional variables

A

LIMITATIONS
- mandel
- demand characteristics
STRENGTHS
- bickman
- miranda et al

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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%
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
41
Q

name evaluation for LOC

A

STRENGTHS:
- holland
LIMITATIONS
- rotter
- twenge

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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

psychology - paper 1 (5 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions